Spintested: 09/17/12

Does President Obama Want to Cut Social Security by 3 Percent?

Monday, September 17, 2012

To Obama's 'most ardent fans':

We've been doing it your way, putting the lesser of two eviIs into office, for more than 20 years now, and the government and the DemocraticParty keeps moving farther to the right. That's because your way is to lie to the American people and put Republicans-in-Democrats'-clothing into office. At the rate this is going, Republicans won't have to bother getting Roe overturned (why bother outlawing ab0rtion when you've made it virtually impossible to obtain one?). Regulating banks and Wall Street won't be necessary because the top 1 percent will have ALL of the money. The disabled and elderly will be dead, so privatizing Social Security won't be much of an issue. Schools will be all privatized under Democrats and only those employed and making a great salary will be able to send their children to good charter schools. PBS has had its funding slashed under Democrats so children will have no commercial-free children's programming and will be rank-and-file corporate slaves. And the wars, expanded under Obama and Democrats (beyond what BushCheney did) will still be going on when your children have children.

If you are a liberal, if you and I are on the same side and want real Democratic policies, and going about getting them your way (protecting Obama, reelecting DLC Democrats) is getting Republican policies, NOT Democratic policies, when do you realize that maybe you don't know what you're talking about?

When do you realize that you've become that classic definition for 'insan!ty' ("Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results")?

Do you ever realize it?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Does President Obama Want to Cut Social Security by 3 Percent?

Obama, himself, doesn't believe that and supports voting for third parties over Democrats, even when Democratic turnout is at stake. Some, but not all, examples of Obama supporting third party or Republican candidates over Democrats:

Arlen Specter over progressive Democrat Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania.

Republican-turned-Independent Lincoln Chaffee over Democrat Frank Caprio (which, in turn, was an effective endorsement of the Republican John Loughlin over Democrat David Cicilline for the congressional seat Democrat Patrick Kennedy retired from, and all of the other seats up for grab in Rhode Island).

Republican-turned-Independent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek in Florida.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Does President Obama Want to Cut Social Security by 3 Percent?

Why aren't Obama, Reid, Pelosi and Democrats talking about the Progressive Caucus's budget and plan to balance the budget (reduces the deficit by $5.1 trillion)? It beats Obama's, Reid's and Republicans' plans, yet Obama's calling for "austerity" and the Simpson-Bowles plan that cuts Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits.

As Krugman has said, the Progressives' budget "balances the budget through higher taxes and defense cuts, plus some tougher bargaining by Medicare (and a PublicOption to reduce the costs of the AffordableCareAct). The proposed tax hikes would fall on higher incomes, raising the cap on payroll taxes (takes care of SocialSecurity's solvency forever)... and unlike the Ryan plan, it actually makes sense."

But Obama takes solutions that work for the People, the vast majority of Americans, off the table. Obama kneecaps and handicaps the voters who put him and Democrats into power.

That's Obama's style, taking solutions that work for the People off the table and out of consideration when we're discussing how we want to proceed. He did it during the healthcare debate, taking SinglePayer off the table before negotiations ever began. Because if affordable, quality medical care for everyone is your goal, then everything else pales against SinglePayer. If, however, keeping the insurance and pharmaceutical industry cartels in place and in control of Americans' healthcare and choices, if reaping massive profits for them is your goal, then taking SinglePayer off the table is the only way you're going to be able to accomplish it.

If Republicans are going to turn down anything Obama and Democrats put forth, why then aren't Obama and Democrats fighting for the best plan out there? Because they are hoping that voters are more frightened of Romney and Republicans. If I'm going to get screwed no matter who I vote for, I'm going down fighting.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

Hehe. If I wanted to fool the public to believe OBL was killed I would have done it four weeks from today.

=========================

I wouldn't, but t don't even go there ('there' being trying to second guess them, wonder what's really going on, wonder what I would do if I were them, etc).

And that's the point I'm trying to make: In this democratic republic based on the rule of law, we throw open our government to the sunlight and examine evidence to get to the truth. What we're seeing from Obama and Democrats aren't the actions of Constitutional scholars or honest public servants. We're a nation being controlled by criminals, both sides of the aisle.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

Gore picked the wrong man (WarrenChristopher) to face off with JimBaker in the post-election Florida fight. While Gore, Christopher and Democrats were playing baseball, Bush, Baker and Republicans were playing football. How did Gore not see that?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

I don't know why anybody thinks that Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq. If he was willing to do it in 1991, over Saddam's invasion of Kuwaite after Kuwaite had been slant-drilling Iraq's oil and after GeorgeHWBush's ambassador to Iraq told Saddam that we'd have no problem if he invaded Kuwaite, you don't believe Gore would've done it in 2003 over WMD? And after 9/11? Even BillClinton was on board for it, and Clinton knew the truth, what BS it was.

Most people who say that about Gore believe him to be of noble character. He's a politician, not unlike the rest of them. Worse yet, he's a legacy, a second generation, who grew up in that culture. He was chosen to run with Clinton not to balance the ticket from the left, but from the right. The choices he made throughout his life and career show the same sense of entitlement that most Washington insiders display. And how he's chosen to respond (not at all) to the charges about his own entitlement and hypocrisy (Occidental, carbon shares, his lavish 10,000-square-foot that uses more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, the 6,500 square foot villa in Montecito, California with 6 fireplaces, etc.).

There's more, but specifically that knowing what Gore would or wouldn't have done isn't knowable. Gore was a hawk on Iraq in 1991, one of only 10 Democrats to vote in favor of the GulfWar. He complained bitterly that GeorgeHWBush didn't march into Baghdad and Gore supported legislation aimed at rooting out SaddamHussein.

What we do know is that his instincts and efforts on how to go up against the powers-that-be were either for show or lame and inept. And his efforts continue to be (CurrentTV). The same powers-that-be that got us into that war also took his lawfully elected presidency from him. And after running one of the worst, tone-deaf campaigns in modern history. The outcome of that election is the only thing keeping Gore's campaign from being placed in the 'Ridicule'-file with Dukakis's (dressing him up as a soldier and putting him in the tank, his answer to the 'rape-of -his-wife'-question in the debate, etc.) and Romney's.

See here, here and here. And here - WTF was Gore thinking?

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

That line from Sleepless in Seattle comes to mind: "That's your problem. You don't want to be in love. You want to be in love in a movie."

All that a real relationship with your government entails in a democratic republic is work - Holding elected officials to account, enforcing the rule of law, abiding by the Constitution, etc. It requires questioning them, doing some homework, training your ears to detect spin, etc.

Doing what a conscientious citizen must do would probably destroy cherished illusions you're clinging to, e.g., OBL sleeping with the fishes. You believe Obama killed OBL and I say, "How do you know?"

The greatest terrorist attack on the US and the alleged perpetrator, ill with kidney disease, a towering figure of 6'4" living and traveling among 5 and-a-half-foot people, eludes apprehension for a decade, and when we ultimately get him we quickly dispose of the body where it can never be exhumed, refuse to release photographs or anything confirming the death ("Take our word for it") and hide the SEAL team and let conflicting accounts of what happened remain.

It's as likely to be true as the official account of 9/11, where the US sent all of the steel from the WTC to China, untested, to be recycled.

We don't do that. We salvage downed air planes from the bottom of the ocean and reconstruct them in hangars to find out what happened. It's why we are a nation run by rule of law and not rule of man. Where we examine evidence in courtrooms to get to the truth.

But all that is over.

The situation might have been remedied had Democrats and Obama come into office investigating and prosecuting the Bush administertion, Wall Street, defense contractors, and restoring the 'rule of law'. BushCheney exploited the inherent weaknesses in the Constitution: A precarious balance of power between the three branches of government. But Obama refused, and has continued the BushCheney disregard of the Constitution, even going beyond BushCheney abuses.

Do you know that the Pentagon has no photos of the dead OBL, and no DNA analysis was done on OBL. Nor does any video exist of the raid, either at the scene, at the Pentagon, in the WH Situation Room.

If you want to talk about OBL, then let's throw the windows open and get a real investigation. Starting with what actually happened on 9/11 (the 911 Commission was a cruel joke), the policies that led to 9/11, our response to it, the post-9/11 policies which have us in a perpetual state of war with Americans being no safer.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

You said that already, and I'm asking, "HOW?"

Be specific.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Thank You, Paul Ryan

It wasn't a secret. Republicans announced it during the 2008 campaign, that if Obama (or any Democrat won), they wouldn't work with him. I don't know anyone who was surprised - Republicans haven't worked with Democrats for years. Where were you when Republicans were locking Democrats out of committee meetings during the Bush-Cheney years? Or when Gingrich shut down the government before that? Or Whitewater, or Vince Foster, or Travel-gate, or Gary Condit and Chandra Levy? Or when Republicans staged impeachment proceedings to tie Democrats' hands for 2 years?

Why would anyone believe that Republicans would work with Obama? What does "work with him" actually mean anyway? Cave? Agree to Democratic policies and legislation? Republicans don't do that. Nobody does that - You are put into power by a majority of the vote, to achieve what the voters put you into power to get for them. Only Democratic voters are told to expect to have to compromise and be disappointed. Republican voters have been making steady progress for decades, in spite of the fact that most Americans, most VOTERS, agree with Democratic Party promises.

It's a touching tableau that's been painted by Democratic spinmeisters about Obama, a "nice guy, naive guy, thwarted by evil-doing Republicans", but it says more about the people who believe it, that they are naive and politically virginal, than it does about Obama. Obama has always been a conservative who speaks rhetoric of the left. But it's even worse than that, worse than his being conservative: Obama's corrupt and as criminal as Bush and Cheney.

What makes him even worse than Bush and Cheney is that he's banking on Democratic voters' naiveté, while he crosses Rubicons that no real Democrat would cross.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

Do you understand that there are alternatives to voting for Democrats and Republicans?

Not voting for Obama doesn't mean voting for Romney. Or not voting at all.

The lock that the two parties have on certain kinds of voters' minds is impressive, and it's what makes the saying "you get the government you deserve" true.

Wake The Heck Up!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

Both Obama and Romney are corporate tools, but the bigger truth is that Obama's nothing but a politician at a time when we need real leadership. And I mean 'politician' in the worst sense of the word. In the 'used car salesman' sense. It turns out that doing what's right for transnational corporations is what Obama is about, and trying to sell it as good for Americans is what he does afterwards. He's the epitome of the 1950s Republican, "What's good for GM is good for America," just like Romney. He did a snow job on everybody.

There are certain Rubicon lines that Obama has crossed. Massive overreaches and radical changes to the Constitution that started under Bush have been expanded under Obama. And all political questions are not equal no matter how much you pivot.

The question for people to struggle with is how we ever hope to regain our moral standing and our high ground unless citizens are prepared to say, "Enough." And this is really the election where that might actually carry some weight — if people said, "Enough. We're not going to blindly support the president and be played anymore according to this blue state/red state paradigm. We're going to reconstruct instead of replicate. It might not even be a reinvented Democratic Party in the end that is a viable option. Civil libertarians are going to stand apart so that people like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama and others know that there are certain Rubicon issues that you cannot cross, and one of them happens to be civil liberty.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

The only difference is in their rhetoric. Both men say one thing when they're running for office and then do something entirely different once they're in the job. So the talk of Romney pandering to the rightwing now really means nothing. Romney wasn't the Tea Party's pick. He's the Republican establishment's pick.

If you're voting for Obama out of fear over what Romney would do if elected, Romney's record as governor isn't all that dissimilar from Obama's in the White House. There were even moments of liberalism to Romney's record (gun control, state co-pays for abortion, etc.) - Certainly more progressive than Obama. Even the Boston Globe admitted Romney's judicial picks "have generally not been is overtly partisan".

The Boston Globe on Romney’s judicial appointments:

Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters (75%) of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents – including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights.

Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show. In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters, and 14 registered Democrats.

On the other hand, Obama's appointments are really nothing to defend. Both Sotomayor and Kagan are to the right of the justices that they replaced (Souter and Stevens). [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior: There is nothing that Republicans have done, from Reagan-Bush to Bush-Cheney, that wasn't done with Democrats coming on board. Whether it's been tax cuts for the rich or wars or conservative Supreme Court justices (Scalia and Thomas made it through a Democratically-controlled Judiciary Committee and Senate, and Democrats voted to confirm Alito - 58-42 and Roberts - 78-22), Democrats were right there with Republicans.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

During the Bush years, Democrats said if people wanted change, they had to put Democrats in the majority in Congress. So in 2006, we did. Democrats took control of the House and gained 6 seats in the Senate.

Nothing changed.

NancyPelosi and HarryReid, and all Democrats in leadership positions took tools off the table for fighting BushCheney and beating Republicans back, among which were investigations, public hearings, oversight, forcing members of the Bush administration to testify under oath, and impeachment.

They said, "You have to give us more Democrats -- 60 in the Senate".

In 2008, we did. We gave them 60 for the DemocraticCaucus. And we gave them the WhiteHouse.

Obama came into office with the wind at his back. More people voted for him, a black man in good old raclst America than ever voted for any other presidential candidate in the history of the US. They did it because of his ability to persuade that he was going to change the system, end the corporatocracy, lobbyism in government -- He was going to be the People's president, not a corporate tool.

And no sooner did Obama get elected than he slammed the brakes on the momentum of his election, Obama did a 180-degree turn on his promises and slowed everything down. To "work in a bipartisan manner with Republicans" (Republicans had already announced they were going to block everything Democrats wanted to do, vote no on everything, in lockstep). BlueDogs joined Republicans, except when it was something that Obama really wanted, then Obama bought them off ($100 million to MaryLandrieu, extras for BenNelson, etc.).

Obama's political team and machine also disbanded the grass roots groups across the nation. This was a dead giveaway that the last thing these politicians want is an active populist movement. Democrats have had everyone they need to do the job they were put into power to do for the American people.

Obama's 'most ardent supporters' need to get better informed; cultivating some real Democratic convictions wouldn't hurt either. Because whether it's taking SinglePayerUniversalHealthcare, a PublicOption, investigations and prosecutions of BushCheney, etc., off the table, putting SocialSecurity and Medicare on the table, or continuing the BushCheney policies (and going BushCheney one better by asserting that presidents can k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and 'preventive detention', the right to imprison anyone indefinitely because he thinks they might commit a crime), using JoeLieberman to hide behind and duck out on his campaign pledge of transparency and gut the FOIA, no real Democrat could continue to support any Democratic politician doing this.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

Do you think that if Republicans take control of Congress next year that the Democratic minority, with greater numbers than the Republican minority has now, will be as effective at thwarting the Republicans as the Republicans have been in thwarting Democrats?

If you say yes, I say, "Where were they during the 8 years of BushCheney?"

Eight years when Democrats did nothing to prevent Republicans' 'expansionism', and a *SHOCK and AWE* assault on ordinary Americans.

Eight years, when BarbaraBoxer, chairwoman of the SenateEnvironment & PublicWorksCommittee, wrote two murder mysteries, because "It was always something I wanted to do if I had the time." Eight years when PatLeahy expanded his GratefulDead collection and got to act in his favorite comic book hero movie, Batman. PatLeahy shepherded Roberts' and Alito's names out of the SenateJudiciaryCommittee and to the floor for confirmation, saying, "A president's entitled to an up or down vote on his nominations".

For several decades, Republicans have advanced their agenda and when Democrats get into power, instead of reversing Republican gains, instead of advancing the 99%'s interests, Democrats consolidate Republicans' gains.

I can give you examples on just about all Democrats in Congress and their acquiescence to Republican policies.

Where is Democrats' 'fire-in-the-belly' for ordinary Americans? Why is it that the best they can offer is, "We're not as bad as those guys"?

Democratic politicians have been saying the same thing for 30 years, but they still vote for privatization, refusing to oversee and regulate.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

If you go back and watch CandidateObama's speeches, interviews and debates in 2008, and listen with what should be now 'experienced ears' (experienced in lawyer-speak, aka Bush-speak, although Bush needed a team of speechwriters to do what Obama's able to do on his own, i.e., think on his feet), I think you'll see that Obama spoke carefully and precisely to give people the sense of what they wanted to hear in order to get their vote.

One of my favorite examples of this was Obama saying in 2008, ""Part of the job of the next American president is making Americans believe that our government is working for them, because right now they don't feel like it's working for them. They feel like it's working for special interests and it's working for corporations"

Not making the government actually work for Americans, but making Americans believe that it is. That's some artful shuck and jive.

Obama's nothing but a politician, and I mean that in the worst sense of the word. In the 'used car salesman' sense. It turns out that doing what's right for transnational corporations is what Obama is about, and trying to sell it as good for Americans is what he does afterwards. He's the epitome of the 1950s Republican, "What's good for GM is good for America." He did a snow job on everybody.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

I think you're right.

Obama got into office by misleading Democratic voters. He ran to the left of Hillary Clinton. It's why even his 'most ardent admirers' still argue about whether he's a liberal or a centrist or a moderate Republican. He convinced centrists that he was a centrist. He convinced liberals he was a liberal posing as a centrist. About his own political appeal, Obama has said, “I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

Those who believed Obama was a liberal were given much help by Obama and the media (as recently as last month, I heard him referred to as "liberal" and "progressive" by anchors on MSNBC and CNN).

Back in early 2008, when Candidate Obama talked about admiring Reagan and what he wanted to emulate about him, "I think RonaldReagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, RichardNixon did not and in a way that BillClinton did not", does anyone seriously believe that he was saying that he wanted to go even farther right of the BushCheney administration he was coming in after?

The shorthanding we do with these labels doesn't help. We hear he's "a moderate", which means different things to different people, depending on where they're standing themselves. "Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat." Do you consider Blue Dogs to be moderates? I don't.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

the move to privatize schools is primarily Republican.

============================

What does that mean? "Primarily". You're either for public schools or you're not. There's no "primarily" about it. And Obama supports privatizing schools, just as he supports privatizing and deregulating what Republicans want privatized and deregulated. Obama and Democrats are just more covert in how they're going about getting it done for their corporate benefactors.

“Failing Schools” Narrative a Tactic to Privatize Public Education and Destroy Unions
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

One of Obama's main goals upon assuming office was to try and end the rabid partisanship

===================================

How did you imagine that that would work? By caving to Republicans? By giving them what they didn't win in the 2008 election?

Truly that is NOT how politics works in America.

Obama was given a filibuster-proof Senate, not just once but twice (Arlen Specter's party switch) since he got into the White House. Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress took tools off the table for fighting Republicans.

Until sycophants understand that this blind support for Democrats is actually working against your best interests (if you're one of the 99%), we are all doomed.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

I am a lifelong Democrat who is devoted to making what progress is possible.

===================================

Passing Republican legislation isn't "progress".

If Obama wins reelection and "protects" Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid by cutting benefits (that's what Simpson-Bowles does, and it's what the Democrats are lining up to do), will that be "progress" to you?

And this "radical" labeling is as off topic and my calling you a mor0n. I am a mainstream Democrat. I am one of the base, the 70% of the Democratic Party. I am far from "radical". "Radical" doesn't exist within the Democratic Party. "Radicals" left long ago, and can be found bombing animal testing labs and burning down suburban subdivision sites being built on land where ancient forests have been clear cut. If they vote at all anymore, it's as Independents and rarely for Democrats.

Obama's not mainstream; "Privately, Obama describes himself as a BlueDogDemocrat."

BlueDogDemocrat = Might as well re-register as a Republican
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

We've been doing it your way, putting the lesser of two eviIs into office, for 20 years now, and the government and the DemocraticParty keeps moving farther to the right. That's because your way is to lie to the American people and put Republicans-in-Democrats'-clothing into office. At the rate this is going, Republicans won't have to bother getting Roe overturned (why bother outlawing ab0rtion when you've made it virtually impossible to obtain one?). Regulating banks and Wall Street won't be necessary because the top 1 percent will have ALL of the money. The disabled and elderly will be dead, so privatizing Social Security won't be much of an issue. Schools will be all privatized under Democrats and only those employed and making a great salary will be able to send their children to good charter schools. PBS has had its funding slashed under Democrats so children will have no commercial-free children's programming and will be rank-and-file corporate slaves. And the wars, expanded under Obama and Democrats (beyond what BushCheney did) will still be going on when your children have children.

If you're a liberal, if you and I are on the same side and want real Democratic policies, and going about getting them your way (protecting Obama, reelecting DLC Democrats) is getting Republican policies, NOT Democratic policies, when do you realize that maybe you don't know what you're talking about?

When do you realize that you've become that classic definition for 'insan!ty' ("Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results")?

Do you ever realize it?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

Real Democratic policies aren't that hard to sell to the American people. When most Americans want Medicare and other government programs which they've benefitted from to continue and teabaggers shout "No government control of healthcare; Get your hands off my Medicare", the answer is EDUCATION.

The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when RonaldReagan, LeeAtwater and KarlRove were demonizing the word. Instead of educating the public about liberalism , and how liberals were responsible for creating the largest middle class in the history of the world, a strong regulatory system that provided clean water systems and nutritious affordable food for everyone, a public education system that led the world, massive public works projects like the HooverDam, etc., the DLC convinced Americans that liberals could never win another election. The DLC attributed to ideology what is more accurately explained by lousy campaigns outgunned by election dirty tricks and fraud.

When informed of the issues, most Americans agree with liberal policies. Neither they (nor I) would characterize themselves as far-anything or extreme, but mainstream. For example, nobody likes the idea of abortion, but most Americans do not want the government involved if they find themselves in the predicament of an unwanted pregnancy. And if you frame it as, "You like to k!ll babies?!?! ?!?!", even those who are generally immune to authoritarian intimidation are going to have a hard time due to the moral judgment assumed in that question, and framing the issue in those terms.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

Anyone who says "Obama killed OBL", I ask, "How do you know?"

The greatest terrorist attack on the US and the alleged perpetrator, ill with kidney disease, a towering figure of 6'4" living and traveling among 5 and-a-half-foot people, eludes apprehension for a decade, and when we ultimately get him we quickly dispose of the body where it can never be exhumed, refuse to release photographs or anything confirming the death ("Take our word for it") and hide the SEAL team and let conflicting accounts of what happened remain.

It's as likely to be true as the official account of 9/11, where the US sent all of the steel from the WTC to China, untested, to be recycled.

We don't do that. We salvage downed air planes from the bottom of the ocean and reconstruct them in hangars to find out what happened. It's why we are a nation run by rule of law and not rule of man. Where we examine evidence in courtrooms to get to the truth.

But all that is over.

The situation might have been remedied had Democrats and Obama come into office investigating and prosecuting the Bush administertion, Wall Street, defense contractors, and restoring the 'rule of law'. BushCheney exploited the inherent weaknesses in the Constitution: A precarious balance of power between the three branches of government. But Obama refused, and has continued the BushCheney disregard of the Constitution, even going beyond BushCheney abuses.

Do you know that the Pentagon has no photos of the dead OBL, and no DNA analysis was done on OBL. Nor does any video exist of the raid, either at the scene, at the Pentagon, in the WH Situation Room.

If you want to talk about OBL, then let's throw the windows open and get a real investigation. Starting with what actually happened on 9/11 (the 911 Commission was a cruel joke), the policies that led to 9/11, our response to it, the post-9/11 policies which have us in a perpetual state of war with Americans being no safer.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

Obama didn't repeal DADT; Congress did.

Obama actually IMPEDED repeal.

Obama and Democrats didn't do everything in their power to end it. Not after the House had fallen to Republican control, and certainly not before the 2010 midterms or when Obama came into power on 1/20/09 and Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress.

Right before the midterms I asked commenters here if they thought Democrats would be as effective at obstructing Republicans as the Republicans as the minority party have been these past 4 years at obstructing Democrats.

Obama's been giving silent assent and aid to Republicans by not taking to the bully pulpit over this and all issues. Obama could certainly sign a stop-loss order (read my previous comments here and here before the standard knee-j3rk response about a new president overturning it).

As AxelDC said:

This was an obvious case for reconciliation. The bill is the DoD budget, and reconcilliation is to avoid filibusters on budget issues. The House overwhelmingly passed it, the Senate had 57 votes, and Reid and Obama refused to push it through.

What about a stop-loss order on Day 1? Obama has that authority and Congress would have to override him.

Instead, he thought he would be too clever by half and predictibly fail in the Senate and hope the public would punish Republicans for it. Didn't quite work out that way did it? Either pass it in reconciliation in December or the courts will have to do what Obama refuses to do.

The audacity of campaigning, the timidity of governing.

Back in November, 2010, Joe Lieberman leaked that 3 Republicans might sign onto repealing DADT if the process was "fair", i.e., if Republicans could add amendments onto the defense budget bill, among other things. I think this is the deal, agreeing to the Bush-Cheney 'Long War', continuing to kick the can down the road for ending these wars, is what Obama agreed to to get 3 Republicans to consider voting to repeal DADT. I think Obama's looking for cover, to hide behind Republicans, for his deceit about not fulfilling his promise to end these wars.

Obama and Democrats didn't need 60 -- They could've put the repeal of DADT in the defense budget bill and passed it through reconciliation. 50 + Biden.

After it did pass, Obama could've signed an executive order (stop-loss), that would have stopped discharged while the Pentagon "studied" it, but he refused.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

Obama ran on a public option with no mandate. People who voted for Obama/Democrats voted to get affordable, quality medical treatment. That was NOT a vote to protect and further enrich the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Voters didn't send Obama and Democrats into power to entrench the insurance industry as the gatekeepers to being able to get medical treatment. Voters did NOT send Obama and Democrats to Washington to continue tying insurance benefits to their employment.

Yet that is precisely what Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats did.

health insurance ≠ medical treatment

Obama's healthcare legislation doesn't control costs and doesn't deliver medical treatment to everyone (not even those who think they're going to get it). Insurance companies are not required to cover anyone's preexisting condition gratis. And between increased premium costs, deductibles and co-pays, ACA Unlikely to Stem Medical Bankruptcies

Meet The New 1%: - Healthcare CEOs replace bankers as America's best paid:

Pity Wall Street's bankers. Once the highest-paid bosses in the land, they are now also-rans. The real money is in healthcare and drugs, according to the latest survey of executive pay. One example is Joel Gemunder, CEO Omnicare, who had a total pay package in 2010 worth $98 million.

Obama's healthcare legislation is nothing more than a massive giveaway to the health insurance industry. It is one of the most corrupt pieces of legislation ever enacted by our government.

The health insurance industry provides no real service. All it does is take money out of the system. It's nothing more than a blood-sucking middleman.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

It is in retrospect that Obama's corruptness, his treachery, should be obvious for any willing to open their eyes. Obama never wanted a public option [A caller on CSpan a few months ago asked Richard Wolffe, who was out plugging his latest book written from his special access to the Obama White House, if we're ever going to get a public option to keep costs down. Wolffe makes it clear that Obama and the DLC-controlled Democrats never had any intention of going with a public option or expanding public healthcare in any way (although Wolffe is mistaken when he says that Obama never ran on supporting a public option -- Not only did Obama campaign on "a public option", he campaigned on single payer, universal health care -- Here's a campaign ad featuring Obama himself -- See the part where he says he has a plan to "cover everyone'? That's 'universal coverage' -- There's even a graphic in the ad that says "The Obama Plan - UNIVERSAL coverage for all Americans". Obama ran against mandates, and criticized Hillary for them in her campaign promises -- Here is Candidate Obama on mandates -- Here again -- Obama campaigned on public option).]

To make sure that there wouldn't be a public option in any final legislation (and that there really wouldn't be any reform of the system, that the insurance and pharmaceutical industries would continue to be able to make massive profits), single payer had to be taken off the table before negotiations ever began. And that's exactly what Obama did.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

When a president and his political party are swept into power to deliver affordable, quality medical treatment for all as Obama and Democrats were in 2008, and the one method that can accomplish it (and also happens to solve other unique problems facing us at the time, i.e., a crashing economy, joblessness, etc.) that president not only doesn't use his buIIy puIpit to sell, but unilaterally takes off the table, removes from even discussing, then the fix is in and that president is corrupt to the core.

Obama took SinglePayer (MedicareForAll) off the table, because if the goal is to get affordable quality medical care for all then everything else pales in comparison. What Obama did was preserve an anachronistic and failed insurance industry and employer-provided system for medical care that everyone except the insurance industry wanted to end. It's government sanctioned racketeering.

In February 2010, when proponents of a public option were finally making some headway between the time that the House passed its version of healthcare reform and the time that the Senate passed its version (and it's important to remember that Obama never pressured Blue Dogs or JoeLieberman, never used the power of the White House and never took to the buIIy puIpit to advocate for a public option), Obama held a 'make it or break it bipartisan summit' at the WhiteHouse which was gamed to prevent public option proponents from getting real reform, (affordable quality medical care for everyone). PO proponents were shut out of the negotiations. Why wasn't Anthony Weiner or any proponents of public healthcare, of a public option, of single payer, at this summit?

The summit was gamed to let insurance companies retain their lock on the path to getting healthcare.

Whether it's Republicans saying no or Democrats saying yes, to attend this summit you must have accepted that the insurance industry's ability to make profits off of you be preserved and protected, despite it bankrupting the American people individually and the nation at large.

And by the way, everybody, and I mean everybody (employers, employees, unemployed, etc.) wanted an end to employer-based health insurance. Everybody except the insurance industry. That was yet another facet of the perfect storm for reform that came together in 2008 - The general agreement that the insurance industry's control over people's access to affordable quality medical treatment had to end. Because insurance adds NOTHING to the medical model. The insurance industry is the 'Don Fanucci' (Godfather, Part II) of medical care; the insurance industry is "wetting its beak", letting you get medical care (maybe, if you can afford the deductibles, the co-pays, and if your illness is covered by your policy, but) only if you pay them a gratuity up front.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Nancy Pelosi: Republicans Will Continue Obstruction If Obama Is Reelected

FYI - ACA originated in the rightwing think-tank Heritage Foundation. It's RomneyCare, just on a national basis.

What I am is an old OLD liberal Democrat. If you could read and digest information, you'd know that.

But that's beside the point: You're off-topic and in violation of HP comment policy. Stick to discussing issues and not the commenters.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP