|
Obama administration 
Wed Mar 17, 2010 at 10:50:49 PDT
|
I am totally shocked by what has happened.
It had appeared that Dennis Kucinich had Obama worried, rather than the other way around.
It appeared with Obama and Kucinich "discussing" Health Care on Air Force 1 no less, that the opportunity existed where Obama might possibly consider making a concession or two, just to secure Kucinich's vote.
Suddenly, and sadly, Kucinich just gave in, and got absolutely nothing back in return.
While DKos, MoveOn.bored, and mainstream Democrats all publically threatened to oppose Kucinich and get their pay back and revenge on him, it is pretty well established that Kucinich is in a district which knows him well, and that re-elects him every two years -- whether or not he faces a Primary challenge. I can't see Kucinich caving just on something like empty "reelection" bluffs, hot air, and threats of this nature. Kucinich has been through all of that many times before and won the War.
Remember Dennis Kucinich is a guy who stared down the Bank Monopoly in Ohio before and won. He even faced an assassination attempt before and won. This is a man not easily shaken. So why would Kucinich suddenly be so easily intimidated now?
What threat did Obama issue? Black Ops? Did his unconstitutional wiretapping program create or fabricate some embarrassing family story or personal smear? Did Obama threaten Elizabeth Kucinich? Did Obama and Pelosi move to take away Kucinich's SubCommittee Chair (something they'd never do to Joe Lieberman)? Was Dennis Kucinich's life directly threatened?
|
|
There's More...
:: (72
Comments, 435 words in story)
|
|
Mon Mar 15, 2010 at 12:08:37 PDT
|
(10 am. Co-incident with Dennis' presser. - promoted by ek hornbeck)
Well..well.well. Guess who Barack Obama is finally paying attention to? Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Only not necessarily in a good way.
First, Obama chose the State of Ohio as his staged photo-op site for his last public Health Care Rally (apart from D.C. speeches), and guess who was onboard Air-Force 1? Dennis Kucinich. I'll bet Kucinich hasn't even been invited on Air Force 1 perhaps more than 2 or 3 times in his entire career.
But, then Obama put a plant in the audience to yell out "Vote Yes" right on cue, when Obama called out Congressman Kucinich's name.
The goal was to make it appear that RahmobombaMonopolyCare is just so overwhelmingly popular with the little people that Kucinich would have no choice but to drop his principled objections to the Corporate bailout bill, or otherwise face mutiny by his own district, and by his own supporters.
Well done bit of stage craft by Obama (he's slick), but the fact remains that progressives do not like this shabby excuse for "reform", once they are told what is in it (IRS forced mandates and enslavement to the Insurance Monopoly), and what is not going to be in it (cost control, competition, medicare expansion, public choice).
|
|
There's More...
:: (21
Comments, 515 words in story)
|
|
Fri Mar 12, 2010 at 13:35:53 PST
|
(11 am. - promoted by ek hornbeck)
We are now entering the final insult phase of Health Care by the Democratic Party.
Dick Durbin went on record to state that he would whip the Senate against any consideration for "public option" related amendments to be brought up in that chamber -- even though over 40+ Senators are already formally on record in favor of supporting having it added during reconcilliation. His excuse? The House would never agree to it. The same House that had already passed it last year. Keep in mind that the original reason why the Senate dropped the public option, was because it did not have 60 votes -- not 50. Simply getting 50 was never (originally) a problem.
Durbin has since said that he will strongly support the public option if (and only if) the House moves to add it back first (before the Senate acts) during the reconcillation process. So Durbin is trying to fool people into thinking that we would have a public option -- but it is just the House that is the obstacle (the same House that had already passed it last year). In fact, Durbin could allow the public option amendment, and whip the Senate in favor of it..and then make the House vote on that.
__
Meanwhile, over in the House, Nancy Pelosi is now saying that she will never take up the public option because the U.S. Senate could not ever pass the bill. But the Senate never had a problem with 50 people (it had been 60 that was the original problem), and already 40+ Senators have come out on their own and publically signed a statement pledging support for a Senate public option. Given Durbin's artifical and phony requirement that the House must act first, Nancy Pelosi could add the public option, if she really wanted to, into the House version -- as we know the House had already passed a bill last year with the public option included.
But now Nancy Pelosi (like Joe Lieberman) only supports a gutted House bill that is completely stripped of the public option. See: Pelosi Blocks Public Option. Of course, Pelosi wants to just blame it all on the Senate, where getting 60 votes had been the
problem -- not getting 50.
"We're talking about something that is not going to be part of the legislation."
--Nancy 'Impeachment is off the table' Pelosi, March 12, 2010
|
|
There's More...
:: (4
Comments, 331 words in story)
|
|
Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 04:19:32 PST
|
(8PM EST - promoted by Nightprowlkitty)
Original article, by Patrick Martin, via World Socialist Web Site:
The first week of March has seen a number of commentaries in the American media, mainly from liberal pundits, worrying over the declining public standing of President Obama and the growing signs of disarray in the Democratic Party.
|
|
There's More...
:: (6
Comments, 210 words in story)
|
|
Tue Feb 23, 2010 at 15:01:46 PST
|
( - promoted by buhdydharma )
The Obama Administration seems to be pulling back, on front after front, in the face of economic challenges, sobering poll numbers, and steadfast Republican obstinacy.
Whether on health care, jobs promoting legislation, EPA regulation of pollutants, and/or energy/climate policy, the political powers that be within the Obama White House have determined that 'tactical retreats' toward even more incremental policy concepts is the path forward in an illusive search for bipartisanship policy making with an elusive (and recalcitrant) Republican minority. Watering down already weakened (and inadequate) policy constructs and approaches is path toward increased problems, rather than solutions, on political, economic, and climate terms.
Rather than retreat toward ever weaker policy concepts, President Obama would well serve the nation through a step back to consider the totality of the environment with then a strong and aggressive step forward with stronger proposals to seize the huge opportunities that lie before use with real solutions to our jobs, economic, health care, energy, and climate challenges.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 863 words in story)
|
|
Thu Feb 18, 2010 at 18:20:42 PST
|
|
We've all heard from the Obama WH about the fact the the Great War on Terror, sometimes called The Long War, ended shortly after Obama took office in 2010, as was evidenced by the renaming of it to "Overseas Contingency Operations" last year.
Now after seven bloody years and by some counts over a million Iraqi deaths the Obama Administration has announced that Operation Iraqi Freedom is, according to the White House and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, finally over as well.
ABC News reported Thursday evening that...
...the Obama administration has decided to give the war in Iraq -- currently known as Operation Iraqi Freedom -- a new name.
The new name: "Operation New Dawn."
In a February 17, 2010, memo to the Commander of Central Command, Gen. David Petraeus, Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the "requested operation name change is approved to take effect 1 September 2010, coinciding with the change of mission for U.S. forces in Iraq."
You can read the memo -- a copy of which was sent to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen - HERE [.pdf].
[snip]
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell had no comment on the memo, saying it speaks for itself.
The move has met with some criticism. In a statement, Brian Wise, executive director of Military Families United said, "You cannot end a war simply by changing its name. Despite the Administration's efforts to spin realities on the ground, their efforts do not change the situation at hand in Iraq. Operational military decisions should not be made for purposes of public relations, as the Secretary of Defense cites, but should be made in the best interests of our nation, the troops on the ground and their families back home."
If Gates was hoping that "Operation New Dawn" would convey a new period in the US-Iraq relationship, it's not clear that was the best choice of name.
After all, Operation New Dawn was the name for the bloody and grueling 2004 battle for Fallujah.
|
|
Discuss
:: (32
Comments)
|
|
Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 01:07:47 PST
|
Original article, by Barry Grey, via World Socialist Web Site:
In an op-ed piece published January 10 entitled "The Other Plot to Wreck America," New York Times columnist Frank Rich denounces the criminal actions of Wall Street executives and the official cover-up of their operations. He correctly asserts that the havoc created by the bankers poses a threat to the American people "on a more devastating scale than any Al Qaeda attack."
|
|
There's More...
:: (4
Comments, 386 words in story)
|
|
Sun Jan 17, 2010 at 12:14:18 PST
|
|
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 1122 words in story)
|
|
Sat Jan 16, 2010 at 05:00:55 PST
|
(9 am. - promoted by ek hornbeck)
Original article, by Andre Damon and subtitled As JP Morgan reports record compensation, via World Socialist Web Site:
The Wall Street Journal published an estimate Thursday that total pay at the largest Wall Street firms reached $145 billion last year. The Journal's figure, based on preliminary figures, is more than any other year in history.
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 283 words in story)
|
|
Tue Jan 12, 2010 at 09:31:18 PST
|
It has been reported now that Obama officially received over $20 million from health insurance industry in 2008 campaign: Obama pockets $20 milllion from the enemy
While, I'm sure this surprises no one, all that money has been well spent on getting Obama to totally betray the public interest.
The tragedy is that Obama is all too willing and happy to do this.
Here's the money quote:
Historian and media critic Norman Solomon, who was also an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention, called the president's transformation on healthcare since taking office "shameful."
"Overall it's been a very corporate friendly healthcare approach from Obama as president," Solomon said in an interview with Raw Story. "Corporate friendly in a way that I believe is injurious to public health."
He underscored the subtle but substantive change in healthcare language used by Obama and the White House.
"We don't hear so much now about 'healthcare reform,'" Solomon said. "We're hearing a lot more about 'health insurance reform.' And that is absolutely in large measure driven by the White House."
"The funding from the healthcare industry to the Obama campaign, in retrospect, was not misplaced," Solomon said. "It appears, based on policy, that those funders are getting what they would've hoped for."
"Let me put it this way," he added. "Single-payer advocates literally couldn't get into the White House. And you have [chief pharmaceutical industry lobbyist and former Republican congressman] Billy Tauzin and Big Pharma and all of these in-depth strategy meetings in the White House in mid-2009 cutting deals. And I think it's shameful."
|
|
There's More...
:: (18
Comments, 212 words in story)
|
|
Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 08:02:03 PST
|
|
I've neglecting dipping my toe into the debate regarding the failed terror plot until now. What passed for debate quickly grew tedious since it became transformed into an inconsequential tit-for-tat back and forth regarding the President's decision to not make a statement or strong response in the middle of his vacation. Cable news networks with space to fill have used surrogates and talking heads to spin to their heart's content, but what I'd love to see was an actual substantive debate instead of all of the clutter. A start might be in discussing long-range plans for protecting us from subsequent plots and what we out here in the peanut gallery ought to expect or might even need to contribute ourselves to make the process far more efficient. Often our anti-terrorism response has been primarily reactive and defensive rather than taking the fight to our enemy, but by encouraging a more proactive approach I am notably not advocating for preemptive war or increased military buildup of any sort. Instead, I am pushing for a smarter strategy based on a compulsion to objectively study the complexities of a complex enemy. Some might call it "dithering".
I am not surprised that the Office of Homeland Security failed in its stated objective. I am not surprised that the system let all of us down. Republicans have long advanced the obsessive desire to pare down or even eliminate entirely many government agencies, and yet they established one of their own out of what was deemed at the time extreme necessity. That would be like handing Libertarians control of the United Nations and asking them to devise a new system that would add another seat to the Security Council. Moreover, I strongly believe that establishing a new agency was to some extent merely window dressing set in place to pacify people who were understandably worried and fearful after the 11 September 2001 attacks. Homeland Security, in many ways was a completely disingenuous, empty construct, like so many made in the immediate aftermath (See: Color-coded Terror Alert scale) since we know now that power and with it decision-making was primarily concentrated during the Bush Administration years in a very secretive, very small inner circle.
Many Futurists, those who observe existing trends and predict trends likely before us, have come to a belief that we are in for a 30-40 year period of terrorism. And as soon as it subsides, it is highly probable that something else will spring up in its place. We enjoyed a relaxing, but short-lived, decade-long respite from the Cold War, but before that we clung desperately to the notion of Mutually Assured Destruction as the most supreme deterrent to prevent nuclear war with the USSR. Furthermore, much of our national identity is based upon the first two centuries of this county's history, years when we were very much an isolationist country cautious of foreign entanglements. Back then we ran a strong second place to the nation/states of Western Europe, though we dreamed to scale those same heights. Our status as a superpower is still a relatively recent development and we have yet to either firmly embrace it or to understand its implications. If we did, we might understand one important reason why we are consistently targeted by radical Islam. Anyone who has been the runaway number one for any extended length of time is going to have a bull's eye emblazoned upon them and create instant motivation for those who are jealous and envious.
Additionally, though this nation has a long, ignoble history of disregarding the basic rights and just recompense owed to its own indigenous people as well as the natives of other countries when financial gain was at stake, that in and of itself is an insufficient sole rationale for why terrorist tactics are used against us. To be sure, exploitative power plays that privatized oil-rich plots of Native American land claims under the domain and care of the Federal government have antecedents that stretch back to the 1920's; it is also true that the United States government meddled in the affairs of other countries, particularly in the Middle East and South America to protect its supply of the natural resources coveted by big business. But as for why and where this hatred truly stems from, one needs consider class disparities and economic inequality, which are often the major offenders. Since terrorism cannot so broadly be defined and since each unique group has a different strategy and rationale, it cannot be emphasized enough that terrorism has no one set definition nor stated agenda. Where simplistic answers or a lack of them altogether exists, baseless speculation rushes in to fill the void.
It is indeed true that a common enemy in the form of the United States of America is the focal point upon which a variety of terrorist organizations draw unity. Yet, what we don't hear about quite so often is that many of these groups also target governments in their own region, so it would be a mischaracterization to assume that all cells purely project their entire hatred upon the Great Satan. When we over-simplify a very complex issue like Terrorism for the sake of time constraints or election year sloganeering, then we do everyone a grave disservice. So many Republican talking points would be reduced to either wishful thinking or naive saber-rattling if the public knew just how nuanced were the goals, ambitions, and agendas of those who advocate our utter destruction.
Cultural identity, just like individual identity is predicated on difference, not on similarity. We form our conception of ourselves and our country based on how we differ from other nations and other peoples. Those who have traveled outside of the U.S. are instantly aware of their American citizenship when surrounded by a culture completely different from their own. Those who would otherwise discount or take for granted their status as Americans often metaphorically wrap themselves in the Stars and Stripes when on foreign soil. In so doing, they often seek out conversation and companionship with other ex-patriots, even those they would likely never give a second glance to when back inside the borders of their own country. Other important identities we claim for ourselves manifest themselves in this same manner when we are isolated from a larger gathering, be it religious/spiritual identification, supporter of a particular sports team, adherent to a particular philosophy or movement---to merely state a few examples. As we have seen with Al-Qaeda, its adherents hail from a variety of countries and cultures, but it is unified out of a sense of collective purpose, a more or less common enemy, and a uniform belief system.
Any defensive measure we or any other country adopts to contain and detect terrorist cells is going to need to recognize that our commitment to keep the citizens of the United States safe from this unique threat should expect to be in place for at least a generation, perhaps even a bit longer than that. This was a long time coming and it will be a long time gone. Government does not need to be scrapped, but it does need to be streamlined considerably. We've seen this in plain view recently with the health care debate. Our legislative branch was never built for speed or swift decision making and, prior to that, we viewed the shameful epic fail of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), itself under the dubious control of Homeland Security. Populist anger drives the opinions of many at this time, but though I have heard the voices or read the words of those who tear into the worthlessness of government and with it the base incompetence of government officials, I have heard precious few solutions or proposals that might reduce or at least begin to address the problem. Notably this unfocused rage isn't just relegated to the person on the street. It also finds favor in the form of the person paid to state an opinion supposedly shared with the person on the street.
What continues to amaze me (perhaps I should not be surprised) is how a certain brand of ultra-hawk led by Dick Cheney has ripped into the President for somehow downplaying the importance of the would-be Christmas Day underwear bomber. While Americans can at times be duped, they are not rubes. Having seen the 11 September attacks transformed into a shaky rationale for a costly and highly unnecessary war, they now hold a skeptical, cynical opinion regarding the amazing assertion that anyone who argues that a new President elected to right those wrongs doesn't believe that we are really still at war. Cheney seems to want to live in the past, somewhere around 2003, when the Administration of which he was a vital part still held some degree of veracity with the American public. He fails also to understand that recent disappointment with President Obama does not mean that Bush Administration policies are somehow being vindicated in the process. The former Vice-President is just as unpopular now as he was the day he left office and those who might concede him one or two hair-splitting points do so grudgingly at best.
Much of what lies ahead of us is brand new and unprecedented. I can understand anyone's reluctance to sound the twelve-alarm-fire as we did after 11 September. It was taxing, exhausting, and emotionally draining. I have absolutely no desire to repeat the process. As many of us are already strained and feeling vulnerable from the recession and the dismal unemployment rate, I simply don't think we have much in reserve left to enter into the state of panic and paranoia that existed in the immediate aftermath of that awful day. Not overreacting would probably do us well, especially if one keeps in mind the aftermath of the attacks, which spawned a thousand unfounded rumors and knee-jerk reactions. It is notable that when we have the ability to create imaginary bogeymen, we do so in ways that hindsight renders absolutely ridiculous. When our free time and our ability to conjure up the fanciful is muted, then we are better able to keep things in perspective. It really makes one wonder if times of adversity are as bad as we might think they are.
|
|
Discuss
:: (3
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 07:16:03 PST
|
|
Recent Obama Administration attacks against the Chamber of Commerce, and, more notably, Fox News have been greeted with perfunctory attention and notice by the major media outlets. Though a few pundits and experts chimed in to state their case in the immediate aftermath of Team Obama's war on bias, few were willing to really say what they believed. Reaction from the chattering classes and the peanut gallery was largely negative and unfavorable of the decision but one got the feeling that many expressed heavily disingenuous views. Invoking Nixonian tactics in a critique reveals more about current station than All the President's Men and Women. In an era where every network and news agency is under increased pressure to maintain advertising revenue and, let we forget, often running significant deficits due to competition with electronic sources of information, caution prevents a major ratings war or uppercut. In another time, a direct challenge by the White House might have fueled a bare-knuckle brawl among the heavyweights, following its bold example, but at the moment the best one can expect is a holding pattern and resulting uneasy truce. Peace might be explained away as journalistic ethics, but ethics often are disregarded if monetary advantage is an option.
Low-octane, under the radar sniping that frequently resorts to passive-aggression is the most obvious sign of the friction between politicians and purveyors of content. As a result, the major cable networks have largely resisted the temptation to go after each other. Striking from a defensive posture, MSNBC recently ran effective ads that directly contradicted Fox News' claim that the 9/12 Tea Party demonstrations in Washington, DC, were not sufficiently covered by other outlets. MSNBC was, however, careful not to go for the jugular. To cite another example, despite recent attempts to modernize its programming and its look, CNN still takes a frequently unsatisfying middle ground between centrism and more progressive reporting that frequently comes across as artificial and plebeian in all the worst ways possible. Still, CNN runs self-serving promo ads on a regular basis that tout its status as number one cable news network, making particularly mention of those under its employ who have won numerous awards and accolades. This may be so, but CNN in many ways is the proverbial sleeping giant and it will take more than a direct challenge or surprise attack to fully rouse it from its self-satisfied stupor. CNN was the first on the scene and as a result its demographic is often older and beholden to brand loyalty, but if it continues to lose younger viewers, it will find itself hemorrhaging revenue.
Returning to the President's attack on Fox News, one would expect the network, despite its obvious disdain for labor unions, to be solid in its hatred for President Obama. However, a chink in the armor appears to have developed. One of its reporters has declined the opportunity to directly engage the President in hand-to-hand combat. The question remains whether or not he is violating policy or merely exercising a liberty he has the right to embrace. It is also possible that this decision is a coordinated attempt designed purely to make President Obama look like a child and make Fox News seem like the rational adult in the matter.
Returning to the relative surface placidity of Fox News versus Barack H. Obama, et al,
Fox News Channel correspondent Major Garrett called himself a "conscientious objector" in his network's fight with the White House after a brief interview with President Barack Obama Wednesday during which the topic never came up.
One wonders also if this is merely a shrewd tactical move or indicative of larger trends within Fox News. Much exists behind the scenes that we simply aren't privy to and whether the Obama Administration has struck a deal with Fox News is purely speculative because no one's talking. Naturally, at least one conservative pundit has taken the opportunity to take a condescending swipe at the President's strategy and perceived lack of satisfying and successful victories in foreign policy. It is the intention of many on the right to paint our President as little more than an empty suit.
Tongue in cheek, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said the interview "constitutes the most important truce in our history since the Korean armistice of 1953."
"We are South Korea in this particular analogy," he said.
To be completely honest, however, Fox News has never truly embraced an all out battle royal with the Obama Administration. While it continues to be snidely dismissive of its policies and eager to run stories with a healthy dollop of right-wing distortion, it has never counter-attacked with any kind of ferocity. When the immediate charges were levied against Fox News, namely that it was merely a propaganda wing of the Republican party, it became at most a two-day story, and notably reached no fevered pitch of nastiness. Clearly, no one really wanted to run with the story for very long. The truth is that the media had nothing to gain and quite a bit to lose if it pushed back too hard.
Any means of information dispersal has to justify its own existence from time to time and anything that might cause some degree of doubt on behalf of viewers or readers is poisonous. Opening up a major dialogue about the role of the media in daily life is the last thing any of the mainstream outlets wanted in this situation, which is unfortunate because I think it's a long-overdue topic that the American people need to debate and then decide for themselves. Fox News' stated objective is noble enough, until one realizes that it is cynically manipulative at best. We report, you decide? I suppose it depends on what one means by "reporting." The easiest populist tactic in the toolbox of any politician is the act of criticizing the media for unfair and unbalanced treatment. The irony, of course, is that the media, and by this I notably remove Fox News for the most part, is frequently criticized for fueling baseless fears as a means of pushing back against accurate, damning revelations. It is notably not held accountable for its real limitations and real shortcomings.
Snide commentary aside, one isn't sure whether this revelation constitutes victory, stalemate, or submission. The powers that be in this circumstance are shadow figures who always talk off the record and never wish to be identified. Nothing could be less transparent than the motives at play or the ultimate decision. Still, if conditions continue to deteriorate regarding the quality of content and a resulting shift towards partisan bias rather than impartiality, expect some major wars to break out that will not be assuaged by back-stage politics. If, at some critical juncture in the near future it seems like there's not enough money or enough oxygen to go round, one can be sure the gloves will be coming off and staying off.
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 22:42:53 PST
|
(9 am. - promoted by ek hornbeck)
Good old Robert Gates, good friend of the Bush family, a player in the Iran/Contra scandal, the man who wanted to bomb Nicaragua in 1984, and former head of the CIA and now Obama's ruler of all things Military Industrial Complex, has decided for us, that we shouldn't see the infamous torture photos that have for so long been hidden from our view.
You know, the ones of soldiers raping and murdering and torturing children in front of their parents, those nice nasty bits of American Empire which salted the wound we'd cut in the breast of Iraq, that led to the brutal murder of the five mercenaries whose charred corpses were hung from the bridge? Which led to the destruction of Fallujah, where American soldiers then shot families in their sleep, left the bodies to be eaten by dogs, burned people's flesh off their bones with white phosphorous, and shot unarmed people who were swimming across the river to escape the carnage?
Yeah, it's all part of the big picture, and we're not allowed to see it.
|
|
There's More...
:: (25
Comments, 607 words in story)
|
|
Wed Nov 04, 2009 at 10:28:47 PST
|
Congressman Dennis Kucinich made the following statement today:
"Before we celebrate the new health care legislation, keep in mind that the American people will be required by law to buy private insurance and that they will pay a penalty if they don't.
That insurance companies will be subsidized by the government.
That insurance companies have had double digit increases in premiums in the past four years.
That we are locking in a for profit structure.
This is the result of a health care debate of which the flawed premise is that health care reform can not happen without the cooperation of the insurance companies, which make money by not providing health care.
The truth is that reform can not happen with them. The insurance companies are the problem not the solution. This legislation, no matter how well intended, will likely not be able to deliver, cost too much and be another bail out for big business at the expense of the American people."
--Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-OH
|
|
There's More...
:: (37
Comments, 9 words in story)
|
|
Sun Nov 01, 2009 at 10:22:05 PST
|
(noon. - promoted by ek hornbeck)
The total vacuum of any principled leadership from President Obama, has inevitably produced the most directionless, anti-consumer, Insurance Monopoly boondoggle fraud imaginable -- which is now masquerading before Congress as "reform".
In fact, the Insurance Companies are silently doing cartwheels over this, and stand to jack up rates even more, and fatten their considerable death grip over the American public. The people who bother to read the fine print, like Congressman Dennis Kucinich, know this.
Who's to blame?
Well, for starters, Capitulator-in-Chief Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi (who lied to us, and promised "a robust public option"), Max Baucus, .... and the list goes on and on. In other words, The Democratic Party and it's entire leadership structure (do we have any?) created this fiasco all by themselves -- the same people who also want to keep funding and expanding the Bush Wars, Bailout Goldman Sachs and give them (crooks) your tax money for CEO profits, and who blindly support the unconstitutional Bush U.S. Patriot Act.
Some remarks from Congressman Kucinich:
Speaking to liberal MSNBC anchor Ed Schultz on Friday, Kucinich continued:
They're being mandated to buy private insurance. If you read the bill, the people are going to end up paying -- the insurance companies can raise rates 25 percent right off the bat, if you read the bill."
Schultz encouraged Kucinich to repeat himself on that point.
"It's on page 22 of the bill," he replied. "Right here, it says that rates shall be set at a level that does not exceed 125 percent of the prevailing standard rate for comparable coverage in the individual market. Now ... It's very easy to understand what that means."
"It's not reform," Schultz insisted.
"It means a 25 percent increase, they'll have the ability to execute and since insurance companies have already raised rates for the last four years by double-digits, we can expect -- based on the bill -- another rate increase by the insurance companies."
And what about the so-called "public option"?
|
|
There's More...
:: (35
Comments, 838 words in story)
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 14:34:06 PDT
|
"This is a moment of truth for the Democratic Party. Will we stand for the people or the insurance companies?
We compromised on [a] single payer [health care system] by backing a public option, and now we are being asked to compromise the public option with negotiated rates. In conference, we will likely be asked to compromise negotiated rates with a trigger.
In each and every step of the health care debate, the insurance companies have won. If they get hundreds of billions of dollars in new taxpayer subsidies, they get to raise their premiums, and increase their co-pays and deductibles, while the public is forced to pay for private insurance, then the insurance companies win big.
If this is the best we can do, then it is time to ask ourselves whether the two-party system is truly capable of representing the American people or whether the system has been so compromised by special interests that we can't even protect the health of our own people."
-- U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-OH
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 39 words in story)
|
|
Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 10:39:25 PDT
|
President Obama and his staff (Rahm Emanuel) are actively undermining Senator Harry Reid's efforts to get a Public Option through the Senate, with the opt-out provision, and instead favor the Insurance Company blessed "trigger" charade that has been championed by Republican Senator Olympia Snow.
A sitting U. S. President has enormous power to influence wavering Senators on close bills, and keep unity within the Party on important goals. But Obama is not only sitting by passively and refusing to get behind Harry Reid's effort, he is actually now scoffing at it, and projecting that Reid's effort can't work (i.e. sabotaging the momentum) while refusing to lend any proactive help to make it succeed.
NBC News reported that Obama administration officials called Reid's decision to go ahead with an opt-out public option "dangerous."
The administration basically told Reid, "You're the vote counter. But don't come crying to us when you need that last vote," Chuck Todd said on MSNBC.
Obama privately discouraged Senate Democrats from pursuing the opt-out plan. "Everybody knows we're close enough that these guys could be rolled. They just don't want to do it" a senior Democratic source told the Huffington Post, saying that Obama is worried about the political fate of Blue Dogs and conservative Senate Democrats. "These last couple folks, they could get them if Obama leaned on them."
Link:
|
|
There's More...
:: (23
Comments, 91 words in story)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reform Immigration -
March for America
Sunday, March 21
March on Washington
Saturday, March 20
|
