A repository for Marcospinelli's comments and essays published at other websites.

Obama 2012 Campaign Helped By MoveOn.org, AFL-CIO Super PAC Alliance

Tuesday, August 21, 2012


Dr. Marcia Angell, a proponent of single payer universal health care, testifying before Congress as to the reason our health care system is in such a shambles:  

"It's set up to generate profits NOT to provide care.  To pay for care, we rely on hundreds of investor-owned insurance companies that profit by refusing coverage to the sickest patients and limiting services to the others.  And they cream roughly 20% off the top of the premium dollar for profits and overhead.  Our method of delivering care is no better than our method of paying for it.  We provide much of the care in investor-owned health facilities that profit by providing too many services for the well-insured and too few for those who cannot pay.  Most doctors are paid fee-for-sservice which gives them a similar incentive to focus on profitable services, particularly specialists, who receive very high fees for expensive tests and procedures.  In sum, health care is for maximizing income and not maximizing health..."

And ACA does nothing to change that.  

A real Democratic president, with Democratic ideals, coming into office with the political capital that Obama came into office with, could have gotten single payer, Medicare for all.  But that's not who or what Obama is.  He's a corporate tool, and his fans' support keep him from having to satisfy their interests.  The more they continue to support him, the more he can move to the right.
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Campaign Helped By MoveOn.org, AFL-CIO Super PAC Alliance


Congress is as Democratic as it's going to be for the next generation.  Everybody complains about Congress, but it's the other guys' elected representatives that they're complaining about, not their own.

In 2010, when Obama and Democrats had refused to use the political capital given by them when 10 million more voters voted for them, voters used their votes to dump incumbents -- On both sides of the aisle.  Democratic voters dumped BlueDog incumbents big time; liberals only lost 3 seats.   

The real problem is that Big Money/Big Business controls the political process, which includes high-priced propaganda campaigns that spin policy and candidates as things they're not.  Corporations have been able to control politicians, candidates, the primary process, so that populist candidates can't get a seat at the table.  

Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressives/liberals from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the WhiteHouse, the DNC, and the Democratic congressional committees behind BlueDogs, Republicans and Independents over progressives/liberals and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples: 

BlueDog BlancheLincoln over progressive Democrat Lt. Governor BillHalter. 

Republican-turned-Independent ArlenSpecter over progressive Democrat JoeSestak. 

Republican-turned-Independent LincolnChaffee over Democrat FrankCaprio (which, in turn, was an effective endorsement of the Republican JohnLoughlin over Democrat DavidCicilline for the congressional seat Democrat PatrickKennedy retired from, and all of the other seats up for grab in RhodeIsland). 

Republican-turned-Independent CharlieCrist over liberal Democrat KendrickMeek. 

Obama supports voting third parties, even when it risks Democratic turnout.

Republicans, with the smallest minority, have managed to thwart Democrats, who've had the greatest majority in decades.  You would think that with Republicans controlling the House, Democrats would've turned the tables and thwarted Republicans' continuing legislation like Bush's tax cuts for the rich?  Are Democrats just stupld?

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. 

Reid could've actually forced Republicans and turncoat Democratic senators to filibuster. He didn't (and doesn't).

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.
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Campaign Helped By MoveOn.org, AFL-CIO Super PAC Alliance


The $474 billion "Jobs Act"?:

What we got from Obama was a 2009 "Stimulus Light" proposal, with all the problems of the prior 2009 stimulus package in the form of inadequate magnitude of spending, wrong composition and targets and bad timing.

First, on the matter of the magnitude of spending in the proposal, some think it was bold. But put it in context; $447 billion just won't achieve the job creation it claims. It's once again too little for an economy the size of the US, for an economy in as deep an economic hole as it is and in an economy facing growing downward momentum at home in the context of a global economy also rapidly slipping.

In February 2009, President Obama proposed $787 billion in economic stimulus. Unemployment was about 25 million. More than two years later, after the $787 billion has been spent, unemployment (measured by the Labor Department's U-6 rate) is still around 25 million. Why, therefore, should Obama's latest proposals to create jobs, consisting about half the size of the 2009 stimulus, expect to create jobs when the larger stimulus did not?

Even more important than Obama's Jobs Act's insufficient magnitude, the composition is also seriously deficient - just as was the 2009 stimulus. Like the stimulus in 2009, it is once again overloaded in tax cuts. In fact, a greater percentage (60 percent) of the total Jobs Act is composed of tax cuts than was the 2009 stimulus (38 percent). Then and now, tax cuts simply cannot and will not create jobs, given the kind of "epic" recession in which the US economy now finds itself entrapped.

Read more -
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Campaign Helped By MoveOn.org, AFL-CIO Super PAC Alliance


Are you ever a cheap date.

Obama's support for gay marriage is like everything else 'liberal' that his handlers claim he's for: Weak tea.  

When it comes to 'lady parts', Obama's ACA leads to ending insurance coverage for abortion.  You got the language right, Obama's 'lawyer-speak', the spin, the talking points - Ending insurance coverage for abortion is "staying outa lady parts", all right.

And as far as your grad school daughter remaining on your insurance, it's at a huge cost.  What Obama did with ACA was keep a failed system in place that continues the highway robbery by the insurance and pharmaceutical industries of the American people.  Obama's ACA does NOTHING to lower medical costs and prevent bankruptcies due to medical bills.  
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Outspends Mitt Romney On Digital Ads 4:1


Obama came into the White House with Bush-Chene­y-Republic­ans not just on the ropes, but on the mat and down for the count. Obama issued a pardon and let them rise again.

After just one month in the White House, instead of going after Republican­s and how their failed policies have brought us to the brink of destructio­n, instead of hammering Bush-Chene­y-GOP for our economic woes and wars of choice, Obama and Rahm Emanuel went after Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh, two people with no role in the Republican Party.

Obama and Emanuel never mentioned Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Eric Canter, Karl R0ve, George W,  H.W., Jeb Bush, Cheney, NOBODY who is actually IN the Republican Party as the problem. Obama still doesn't.  During the Republican primaries, he mocked Donald Trump, an undeclared candidate for the presidency who every serious political pundit knew had no intention of actually running.

What makes Obama's most ardent supporters think he and Democrats would be any more successful achieving on our behalf in a second term?  More importantly, should Obama win, what do his supporters believe that Obama will say he has a mandate to do?  In his first term, he didn't do anything that he pledged to do in the 2008 campaign.  As a matter of fact, he flip-flopped on just about every promise.  

After the 2010 midterms, do you recall what Obama said that election's mandate was?  "More of the same", "more bipartisanship", more caving to Republicans, watering down legislation to satisfy conservatives.

I don't hear a single word out of Obama, not one commitment to the policies of the left, of the 99%.  Just more weak tea.

Whether it's Obama Watering Down Regulations More Than Bush, Study Shows, or making Americans more enemies by stepping up drone attacks on sovereign nations, or instituting Simpson-Bowles as he's expected to do, or pushing the job-outsourcing Trans-Pacific free trade treaty through like he did with the S. Korea and Colombia and Panama treaties, how is any of that good for us or any different than what Romney would do?  

Get real, O'bots -- Both parties have us gamed.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Campaign Helped By MoveOn.org, AFL-CIO Super PAC Alliance


I've asked Obama's 'most ardent supporters' a dozen different ways and they all keep dodging answering these questions. It looks like they all keep dodging even THINKING about these questions:

How do you think a win by Democrats in November would be interpretted by Obama, Democrats and the media? What do you think they will think they have a mandate to do?

Criticism and failing numbers in the polls have done nothing to persuade this president or this Congress to move to the left. What makes you think they're going to do in the next 2-4 years with less of a majority that which they refused to do when they had held the White House and both houses of Congress after the 2008 election?  

Right before the midterms in 2010, Obama and the Democratic leadership in Congress said that even with a Democratic victory they'd be caving more to the right.  It was Obama who put Social Security and Medicare on the table.  Ron Wyden was trying to sell his working with Paul Ryan as a good thing.  Nancy Pelosi has already announced she's behind Simpson-Bowles (Catfood Commission).     

We've been doing it the corporate DLC's way for 20 years now, and the government and the Democratic Party keeps moving farther to the right. If Obama's 'most ardent supporters' are on the same side and want real Democratic policies, and going about getting them their way (protecting Obama, reelecting DLC Democrats) is getting Republican policies and NOT Democratic policies, when do Obama's fans realize that maybe they don't know what they're talking about? 

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

Do they ever realize it?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Campaign Helped By MoveOn.org, AFL-CIO Super PAC Alliance


There is a bigger picture to this election. Some of these Supreme Court justices are gonna retire soon hopefully Scalia and Thomas. 

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

When all else fails, "The Supreme Court will be lost!"

The Supreme Court is lost already.

The Senate, in point the Democrats, failed us; Alito, Roberts, and Thomas made it through a Democratically-controlled Judiciary Committee and Senate.  And Democrats voted to confirm Thomas (52-48), Alito (58-42) and Roberts (78-22) and Scalia (98-0).

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).

http://www­.commondre­ams.org/vi­ew/2010/05­/09-0

http://www­.salon.com­/news/opin­ion/glenn_­greenwald/­2010/04/13­/kagan

http://www­.fair.org/­index.php?­page=4074

http://www.theroot.com/views/sotomayor-liberal-enough?page=0,1

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/18/AR2009071801787.html

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/07/17/abcs-greenburg-sotomayor-not-liberal-activist-almost-conservative

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2011/06/28/nprs-totenberg-kagan-sotomayor-not-nearly-liberal-predecessors

http://hispanic9.com/true_to_hispanic_beliefs,_sotomayor_is_not_a_liberal.htm

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

About This Blog

  © Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP