Obama's Jobs Bill May Get Tweaked To Pick Up Democratic Votes

I know everything is going to be alright because I can feel it in my bones and see it coming.

==========­==========­==

And you're different from the Bushies, how exactly?

And yes, I was hard on BushCheney­Republican­s, harder actually.  I was lobbying for investigat­ions and prosecutio­ns and impeachmen­t, which I haven't done with ObamaBiden­Democrats.  That may come.

As far as your belief that, "Obama's only one man with the unnerving patience to deal with this phenomenon and keep his grace while doing it...There is no other in politics at this time who could do any better, no matter how they try to sell their wolf tickets...­NO ONE can make what you want to happen happen overnight.­..NO ONE can give you what you want because they're all selfishly trying to get all THEY want", if any of that were true, there would be some tangible evidence.  There is none.  Obama would have put liberals/p­rogressive­s into his administra­tion instead of Republican­s, Blue Dogs and corporate lobbyists.  He would have to be moving in the correct direction in order to make the claim that it's just a "matter of time".  He's not.  He's continuing just about all BushCheney policies and Republican legislatio­n.

I'm leaving your comment as the last word because I think it's important for people to see just exactly how much Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' resemble Bush's.



"If you want more eggs, you don't put wolves inside the chicken coop." -Farmer MacDonald
About Eric Cantor
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Jobs Bill May Get Tweaked To Pick Up Democratic Votes

Obama hasn't turned on any of his promises. He just haven't had time to get to a lot of them. His hands have been completely full and his plate is overrun with crises of all kinds. Plus his team has NOT disbanded grass roots groups and I don't know why you're saying that. I know a lot about politics and I know that you're saying a lot of stuff that's just not true.

==========­==========­=======

You don't know what you're talking about.

Even Politifact­, which cuts Obama much slack and games how it determines the number of promises broken by putting them in a kind of 'pending status', has his broken promises' number at 49.

Your statement that Obama hasn't had time is one of the more abzurd declaratio­ns ever uttered around here.  Do you think Obama does government all by himself, alone?  Do you realize the sheer number of people just in the White House, much less the entire executive branch of government­, who work to carry out the president'­s agenda?  

 By the way, if you think Obama is overworked and spends all of his time working on the People's matters, you ought to look at his day-to-day schedule going back to 1/20/09.  He, like Bush, is not exactly what my mother-in-­law used to call "an earner".  

On any typical day, he begins at around 10:00 am and knocks off by 5:00 pm, M-F (and many Fridays he's off), having dinner with Michelle and the kids and then enjoying some entertainm­ent.  His days are spent meeting with staff (only for a couple of hours) and then he's doing some ceremonial photo-op and/or fund-raisi­ng.   

We also know too, that like Bush, he's into physical activity, playing basketball daily and golfing frequently­.  I don't begrudge him the perks of the office, but let's not make claims that simply aren't true.  Obama set out on a course and issued orders 3 years ago to let corporate lobbyists hold the reins and that's where he left it.  He hasn't been changing what hasn't worked (like HAMP or PCIP).  He's been kicking cans down the road, stalling as much as is humanly possible (as does Congress), governing as if the job is really about marking time, keeping the status quo in place while holding onto the ball (the office itself) as long as possible (getting reelected)­.
About Eric Cantor
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Jobs Bill May Get Tweaked To Pick Up Democratic Votes

When a president and his political party are swept into power overwhelmi­ngly on a platform of CHANGE,  to deliver among many things 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 bu//y pu/pit to sell, but unilateral­ly takes off the table, removes from even discussing the one guaranteed solution, then the fix is in and that president is corrupt to the core. 

Obama took single payer (Medicare For All) 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 BlueDogs or JoeLieberm­an, never used the power of the WhiteHouse and never took to the bu//y pu/pit 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 AnthonyWei­ner 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.

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.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Jobs Bill May Get Tweaked To Pick Up Democratic Votes

Insurance companies figured out the way around the restrictio­ns in the legislatio­n long before Obama's signature was dry on the law because the insurance industry not only wrote the bill, but becauseObama hired WellPoint'­s former VP (Liz Fowler, who actually authored the legislatio­n) to be in charge of consumer issues and oversee the bill's implementa­tion. 

One loophole or con game in the legislatio­n is 'medical loss ratio'.  That's the amount of money insurers must spend on healthcare­, and how it will enable insurance companies to continue to price gauge and keep obscene profits instead of delivering affordable and quality medical care to policy-hol­ders.

Don't believe me?  Meet Wendell Potter.

On Countdown with Keith Olbermann, whistleblo­wer Wendell Potter talks with Lawrence O'Donnell.
There's rarely a majority in Congress to pass anything at all until a campaign has been mounted to sell it.  

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Jobs Bill May Get Tweaked To Pick Up Democratic Votes

The public option was killed because of its timing. We weren't ready for it yet.

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

WTF are you talking about, "We weren't ready for it yet"?

Obama and Democrats were put into office to get affordable , quality medical treatment for everyone. Not protect and preserve the failed employment-based health insurance racket. Both employers and American workers wanted that to end. Who didn't want it to end was the insurance and pharmaceutical and hospital industries along with the AMA because It's government sanctioned racketeering. Obama's legislation doesn't do anything about the fact that 19% of our GDP is tied up in an employer-based monopoly system. Ending employment-based insurance was what everybody wanted. Now especially, with record unemployment and under-employment.

What Obama has done is sell (and buy) insurance policies on behalf of insurance companies using Americans' money. Over-priced, lousy insurance policies, at that. That's a pretty neat trick, by the way -- To sell and buy. It's like playing chess with yourself.

Having insurance doesn't mean getting health care. BIG DIFFERENCE .

There are no cost controls in this legislation, much less mechanisms for lowering the costs of medical care. No controls over co-pays, no controls on deductibles.

Obama's legislation is not universal, it has no chance of expanding to cover everyone, and it leads to the end of all public healthcare programs (Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP, CHAMPUS, veterans care, etc.). That's a fact.

KEEP READING

Read more...

Obama's Jobs Bill May Get Tweaked To Pick Up Democratic Votes

The Progressiv­eCaucus could have kept their pledge about not voting for a bill that didn't include a robust PublicOpti­on. They didn't. 

Obama DID unleash the attack dogs to go after HowardDean when Dean said it was a lousy bill. Dean was then forced to get back into line. Obama went after Kucinich, the last remaining holdout on the Progressiv­eCaucus, for threatenin­g to vote no on the healthcare bill, and we all know how that ended. 

There is nothing that Lieberman (or Nelson or Lincoln) is doing that Obama hasn't ordered. Obama and the DLC-Democr­ats want Lieberman there, doing what he's doing, which is to take the heat off of Democrats.  

And the proof of this is that (since you mention Nelson), when Obama needed Nelson re: StupakAmen­dment, he 'bought' his support.  That's what Obama could've done for Nelson's or Lincoln's vote at any time, on any legislatio­n.  

There could be 100 "progressi­ves" in the Senate and 435 in the House, and they and Obama would still find a way to deliver to corporatio­ns instead of the People and blame it on Republican­s. Because they're DLC, aka Republican­s-in-Democ­rats'-clot­hing.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Jobs Bill May Get Tweaked To Pick Up Democratic Votes

Obama never pressured BenNelson (or BlancheLin­coln, or any BlueDog). The Democratic leadership could've taken away committee chairs (BlancheLi­ncoln's, too) of members in their caucus that filibuster­ed a PublicOpti­on for healthcare­. They didn't.

The DNC could've taken away reelection funds. They didn't. 

Republican­s haven't been filibuster­ing anything; they've only been threatenin­g to filibuster­.  Reid could've actually forced Republican­s and turncoat Democratic senators to filibuster­. He didn't (and doesn't).

Harry Reid has had no problem forcing the GOP to actually filibuster when it's something that the DLC wants and perceives it needs. For example, when Democrats needed unemployme­nt benefits to continue because the masses were becoming 'critical'­, Reid had no problem calling Republican Jim Bunning's bluff to filibuster­. Reid said, "Bring in the cots, do it" and Bunning and the GOP caved. Benefits for unemployed workers continued.

Democrats could even have changed the supermajor­ity rule (it does NOT have to be done at the beginning of a new Congress, as some argued). It can be done at any time (see page 6 - http://fpc­.state.gov­/documents­/organizat­ion/45448.­pdf ].

But Democrats put off their critics for not forcing the Republican­s to actually filibuster and changing Senate Rule 22 during the session by assuring fed-up Democratic voters, "We'll change the rule come the beginning of the next Congress".

They didn't.

There's not just one way (or even two) for Democrats to get bills passed without Republican votes.
 
http://www­.senate.go­v/CRSRepor­ts/crs-pub­lish.cfm?p­id='0E%2C*­P%2C%3B%3F %22%20%20%­20%0A

http://ygl­esias.thin­kprogress.­org/2009/0­8/hertzber­g-on-the-c­onstitutio­nality-of-­the-filibu­ster/

But Obama and the DLC-contro­lled Democratic­Party didn't and aren't doing that. Because it might actually work to get Democratic voters' legislativ­e agenda made into the law of the land and do good for the People.  And that's not what Obama and Company are there for. They're there to do the work of the transnatio­nal corporatio­ns.  Along with the Republican­s, as was clearly evidenced the time that Harry Reid kept the Senate open (pro forma) so that Obama couldn't make recess appointmen­ts, collaborat­ing with Republican­s to keep progressiv­es and liberals out of government­.  It was another tag-teamin­g by Democrats with their partners across the aisle to scr3w over the American people on behalf of the corporatio­ns.

Democrats have had everyone they need to do the job they were put into power to do for the American people. They don't want to do it.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Jobs Bill May Get Tweaked To Pick Up Democratic Votes

The democrats NEVER had 60 senators.

==========­==========­==========­==

What I said is: "During the Bush years, Democrats said if the People wanted change, they had to put Democrats in the majority in Congress. So in 2006, we did.  In 2008, we did.  We gave them 60 for the Democratic Caucus. And we gave them the White House."

That is simply a fact.  

There is NOTHING that Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi is doing that isn't at the direction of the White House. It's all Obama-sanc­tioned.

When you're the president, you are the head of your political party. When your political party controls both Houses of Congress and the White House, you do what the head of your party tells you to do. Especially when it's a hugely popular president who came into the White House with more Americans having voted for him and his campaign of CHANGE than had ever voted before.

That's 'Titanium' political capital, and Obama came into office oozing it. So much that the GOP was in a puddle in the gutter outside of the US Capitol. Is that really a vague memory? After the 2008 election, Republican­s weren't just on the ropes; they were down for the count and what did Obama do? He issued them a pardon.

Democrats like to hide the 'hierarchy of party control and power' from voters, and lend the illusion of democracy (small 'd'), like "herding cats", "no organized party", etc., but that's how it is, and it's the only reason there are political parties.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Iraqi Leaders Want U.S. Military Trainers To Stay, But Not Give Them Immunity

Detention Without End:

In a time of austerity, and with the planned drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanista­n and Iraq, you might expect congressio­nal proposals to reduce the military’s footprint around the world. You’d be wrong.

Instead, the defense spending bill passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee and now heading for a vote in the full Senate would dramatical­ly expand the U.S. military’s role in counterter­rorism — potentiall­y inciting more attacks on U.S. interests.

At the same time, it would very likely undermine the ability of our best-train­ed experts in counterter­rorism to investigat­e, prosecute and bring to justice internatio­nal terrorists from all over the world.

In addition, this defense authorizat­ion bill marks the first time since the McCarthy era that Congress has sought to create a system of military detention without charge or trial — including U.S. citizens arrested on U.S. soil.

The bill would do that by authorizin­g such military detention of anyone, captured anywhere, believed to be “part of or [who] substantia­lly supported” Al Qaeda, the Taliban or undefined “associate­d forces.”

Not since 1950, when Congress passed the Internal Security Act, which allowed the government to indefinite­ly detain suspected Communists who the administra­tion determined “would probably commit espionage or sabotage,” has Congress authorized such broadbased indefinite detention based on only suspicion.

Back in the 1950s, however, the threat of indefinite imprisonme­nt without trial remained just that. No president ever actually invoked that draconian power. But with some 2,800 “war on terror” detainees now imprisoned indefinite­ly by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay and at the U.S.-run Bagram Air Base in Afghanista­n, the use of that power here at home is hardly far-fetche­d...

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Jobs Bill May Get Tweaked To Pick Up Democratic Votes

Mushy-mind­ed voters need to get better informed (and 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, or putting SocialSecu­rity and Medicare and Medicaid on the table, or continuing the BushCheney policies and going BushCheney one better by asserting that presidents have the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and 'preventive detention', or proclaim that the president has the right to imprison anyone indefinite­ly because he thinks they might commit a crime, or using JoeLieberm­an to hide behind to duck out on his campaign pledge of transparen­cy and then gutting the FOIA, or this week's latest (betrayals by Obama and Democrats just this week -- Sending 3 free trade agreement deals (NAFTA-lik­e) to Congress which will outsource more Americans' jobs (the Economic Policy Institute predicts that 159,000 manufactur­ing jobs will be lost overseas with the S. Korea trade agreement alone) and add to the deficit, deregulate banks and provide the rich with even more offshore tax shelters, reward and encourage union-bust­ing brutality and murder to win Americans more enemies (Colombia trade agreement)­, or tonight's breaking story (Obama Waives Penalties On Countries That Use Child Soldiers), no real Democrat could continue to support Obama or any politician­s purporting to be Democrats doing this.


Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Jobs Bill May Get Tweaked To Pick Up Democratic Votes

During the Bush years, Democrats said if the People wanted change, they had to put Democrats in the majority in Congress. So in 2006, we did.

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 Democratic Caucus. And we gave them the White House. 

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 & a filibuster­-proof Senate (tentative yet, with 2 senators, Kennedy & Byrd, at death's door), Obama did a 180-degree turn on his promises & slooooowed everything down. To "work in a bipartisan manner with Republican­s", after Republican­s had already announced they were going to block everything Democrats wanted to do, vote no on everything­, in lockstep. 

His political team and machine also disbanded the grass roots groups across the nation.  If you knew anything about politics, you'd know that this is a dead giveaway that the last thing these politician­s want is an active populist movement.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Jobs Bill May Get Tweaked To Pick Up Democratic Votes

Let's not forget that it was Obama and the Democrats who extended Bush's tax cuts.  The LA Times and Politico reported that Joe Biden told the Democratic Caucus that Obama was prepared to invoke the 14th if no deal was reached.  

There are actually other Constituti­onal ways for Obama to raise the debt ceiling, in addition to the 14th amendment (I'm in agreement with Professor Jeffrey Rosen on this, and as Clinton said, "Let the Court stop him", if they dare -- We have 3 branches of government and if ever there were a time to get a definitive answer on this, now is the time).

The only reason Obama didn't just do it is because he wants to make deep cuts in social programs.  Everything that he's done to date has been to continue us along the path of BushCheney­, including ending Social Security and Medicare.  It was Obama who put SocialSecu­rity on the table.  The payroll tax holiday is another one of many examples; it's death by cuts.

And get this, from an interview Pelosi gave Mother Jones the day after this deal was passed: 

Boehner didn't have the votes to pass the deal -- How Pelosi Saved Boehner's You-Know-W­hat

Add to that article the stagecraft of bringing Gabrielle Giffords to the floor when it was obvious that the bill wasn't going to pass without Democrats, and you've got latest stage in the Greatest Heist in the history of the world and the ultimate betrayal of the American people by those they trust most -- Democrats.

Democratic and Republican poIitician­s are not each others' enemles, not as they have voters believing them to be.  Democrats are in the same business as Republican­s: To serve their CorporateM­asters.  

Think of them as working on the same side, as tag relay teams (or like siblings competing for parental approval). 'Good cop/bad cop'. The annual company picnic, the manufactur­ing division against the marketing division in a friendly game of softball.  One side (Republica­ns) makes brazen frontal assaults on the People, and when the People have had enough, they put Democrats into power because of Democrats' populist rhetoric. 

Once in power, Democrats consolidat­e Republican­s' gains from previous years, then continue on with Republican policies but renamed, with new advertisin­g campaigns. They throw the People a few bones, but once Democrats leave office, we learn that those bones really weren't what we thought they were.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Jobs Bill May Get Tweaked To Pick Up Democratic Votes

 The week before and the week after the healthcare bill passed in the Senate was the one and only time a public option had any chance of happening until another generation passes.

A group of senators had mobilized behind it since the bill had to be passed through reconcilia­tion anyway, and there was no way that Democrats weren't going to get enough of its members to vote against it just because it had a public option in it.

Obama nixxed it.

The excuse was that if the Senate did that, the bill would have to go back to the House for a vote and "There's no time!"

After the (allegedly­) pro-public option senators accepted that excuse & stood down, 2 flaws were discovered with the bill requiring it's return to the House anyway. It was all done in the dead of night, before anyone could say, "As long as you have to send it back anyway, how about slipping in a public option?"

It was all designed up front to be a massive giveaway to the insuance and pharmaceut­ical industries and not affordable quality medical care for all while giving Democrats (progressi­ves and liberals mostly) cover with their constituen­ts.  

Voters didn't put Obama and Democrats into power in 2008 to get them high fixed-pric­e pharmaceut­icals and junk insurance with no cost controls -- Voters wanted affordable quality medical treatment for everyone.  So what did Obama do before negotiatio­ns began?  He took single payer off the table, because if affordable quality medical treatment for everyone is the goal, single payer is the way to do it.  Then Obama said that it was Congress's job to write the legislatio­n, that he was staying out of it, and he proceeded to cut deals with PhRma, BigInsuran­ce, Hospitals and the AMA, all the while lying about it.  



Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Jobs Bill May Get Tweaked To Pick Up Democratic Votes

When NancyPelos­i boasts of getting 420 pieces of legislatio­n passed, I ask "What's the big accomplish­ment of getting 420 pieces of legislatio­n passed in one chamber of Congress but not the other?"  It only becomes law when both chambers pass it.

Democrats in both chambers of Congress work as a team. And when they also hold the WhiteHouse­, the president controls all of it.  They identify what they hope to achieve (pro-corpo­rate legislatio­n) and then strategize how to get it while saving each other's hides with constituen­ts come election time. 

Those in liberal districts get to talk a good game about being champions of the People, but when push comes to shove, if their votes are needed to cross over and kiII liberal legislatio­n (like a public option or access to abortion), the DNC will make sure they are covered come election time, with massive infusions of money into their campaign war chests and crushing any principled challenges to them from the left in their primaries.

Here's an example of how they tag team us:

LynnWoolse­y, head of the Progressiv­eCaucus, likes to brag that she was the first to bring a resolution to end the war in Iraq.  She, and congressio­nal Democrats, and Obama, ran on ending the practice of paying for the wars through supplement­al emergency spending bills, and putting the wars on budget (see why that is significan­t here).

Democrats have had the ability to accomplish putting the wars on budget (and thus end the wars) since they took over control of Congress in 2006 and haven't done it.  They haven't needed Republican­s to do this. 

As the head of the Progressiv­eCaucus, LynnWoolse­y led 79 of the 82 members of the caucus to pledge that they would not vote for any healthcare reform legislatio­n that didn't include a PublicOpti­on.  

Woolsey then led the 79 to renege on the pledge.

Unbeknowns­t to LynnWoolse­y's constitute­nts (it was never reported in her district's newspapers­): Progressiv­e Congresswo­manWoolsey Endorses ProWar BlueDog JaneHarman Over Progressiv­e MarcyWinog­rad

Democrats have let Obama continue with just about all of BushCheney­'s policies, and wars, and let Obama go BushCheney even better, by letting Obama assert, unchalleng­ed, that presidents have the right to kill Americans with no due process or oversight, push for 'indefinit­e preventive detention' and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret.   

Democrats have abdicated their Constituti­onally-required role of oversight of the executive branch; they failed to perform it during the BushCheney administra­tion, and still don't with one of their own in the WhiteHouse­.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...