US Healthcare Reform

[ChezGiven 0]

Yeah, well done all the Obama critics, managed to put so much negativity out against him that the Democrats lost Ted Kennedy's seat.

 

I blame Happy Face and the Huffington Post.

[AgentAxeman 86]

Yeah, well done all the Obama critics, managed to put so much negativity out against him that the Democrats lost Ted Kennedy's seat.

 

I blame Happy Face and the Huffington Post.

 

 

[trophyshy 6443]

The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2010 for about 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues. Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 25-29% of budgeted expenditures and 38-44% of estimated tax revenues.

 

The 2009 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined

 

We will defend our interests and our nation but the fat, poor, bovine masses can die in the streets. What is amazing is so many americans think this concept of looking after eachother is a bad idea and too expensive but wtf are they doing about the above?

[Park Life 71]

The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2010 for about 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues. Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 25-29% of budgeted expenditures and 38-44% of estimated tax revenues.

 

The 2009 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined

 

We will defend our interests and our nation but the fat, poor, bovine masses can die in the streets. What is amazing is so many americans think this concept of looking after eachother is a bad idea and too expensive but wtf are they doing about the above?

 

The above is nothing to do with the masses. It's just the top 3% protecting what THEY have and looking for ways to get more of it. The masses are basically not in the game. THIS is CAPITALISM dear boy.

[trophyshy 6443]

The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2010 for about 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues. Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 25-29% of budgeted expenditures and 38-44% of estimated tax revenues.

 

The 2009 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined

 

We will defend our interests and our nation but the fat, poor, bovine masses can die in the streets. What is amazing is so many americans think this concept of looking after eachother is a bad idea and too expensive but wtf are they doing about the above?

 

The above is nothing to do with the masses. It's just the top 3% protecting what THEY have and looking for ways to get more of it. The masses are basically not in the game. THIS is CAPITALISM dear boy.

 

Obviously, old fruit.

 

What is interesting is how easlily the masses are manipulated against their own interests - they revolt at paying for healthcare but think the above is somehow acceptable.

[AgentAxeman 86]

The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2010 for about 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues. Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 25-29% of budgeted expenditures and 38-44% of estimated tax revenues.

 

The 2009 U.S. military budget is almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined

 

We will defend our interests and our nation but the fat, poor, bovine masses can die in the streets. What is amazing is so many americans think this concept of looking after eachother is a bad idea and too expensive but wtf are they doing about the above?

 

The above is nothing to do with the masses. It's just the top 3% protecting what THEY have and looking for ways to get more of it. The masses are basically not in the game. THIS is CAPITALISM dear boy.

 

Obviously, old fruit.

 

What is interesting is how easlily the masses are manipulated against their own interests - they revolt at paying for healthcare but think the above is somehow acceptable.

 

 

whats the unemployment level like in the states? a lot of americans would baulk at the idea of paying for someone elses healthcare. just selfish i guess........... (or looking out for no.1, depending upon your pov.)

[ewerk 26807]

a lot of americans would baulk at the idea of paying for someone elses healthcare. just selfish i guess........... (or looking out for no.1, depending upon your pov.)

 

I had this conversation with an American colleague of mine last week, apparently the only people in America who will benefit from Obama's healthcare plan are the illegal immigrants.

[Happy Face 29]

Yeah, well done all the Obama critics, managed to put so much negativity out against him that the Democrats lost Ted Kennedy's seat.

 

I blame Happy Face and the Huffington Post.

 

Once again the liberal elite refuse to blame Obama for his fuck up. It's worse than the Bush idolatry.

 

Ted Kennedy's seat wouldn't have been close if Obama had stuck to the progressive policies he outlined on the campaign trail.

[trophyshy 6443]

whats the unemployment level like in the states? a lot of americans would baulk at the idea of paying for someone elses healthcare. just selfish i guess........... (or looking out for no.1, depending upon your pov.)

I understand the point and acknowledge the employment situation there is bad and greed is good and the place is built on the rights of the individual to have a gun and get rich. This approach seems to pretty much dominate government thinking.

 

My semi rhetorical question then, is do americans not baulk at around 40% of their taxes being spent on 'defence'? Their government saying, 'Look. you can have guns, hell, shoot the shit out of eachother if you want, but obviously we are going to have the most and biggest and best guns'. The iniquitousness cascades.

 

Depressing.

[Happy Face 29]

I have a contribution this morning to the New York Times examining the Scott Brown victory, and I'll post the link to it once it's up. But for the moment, I want to address two equally moronic themes emerging over the last couple of days which seek to blame the omnipotent, dominant, super-human "Left" for the Democrats' woes -- one coming from right-wing Democrats and the other from hard-core Obama loyalists (those two categories are not mutually exclusive but, rather, often overlap).

 

Last night, Evan Bayh blamed the Democrats' problems on "the furthest left elements," which he claims dominates the Democratic Party -- seriously. And in one of the dumbest and most dishonest Op-Eds ever written, Lanny Davis echoes that claim in The Wall St. Journal: "Blame the Left for Massachusetts" (Davis attributes the unpopularity of health care reform to the "liberal" public option and mandate; he apparently doesn't know that the health care bill has no public option [someone should tell him], that the public option was one of the most popular provisions in the various proposals, and the "mandate" is there to please the insurance industry, not "the Left," which, in the absence of a public option, hates the mandate; Davis' claim that "candidate Obama's health-care proposal did not include a public option" is nothing short of an outright lie).

 

In what universe must someone be living to believe that the Democratic Party is controlled by "the Left," let alone "the furthest left elements" of the Party? As Ezra Klein says, the Left "ha gotten exactly nothing they wanted in recent months." The Left wanted a single-payer system, then settled for a public option, then an opt-out public option, then Medicare expansion -- only to get none of it, instead being handed a bill that forces every American to buy health insurance from the private insurance industry. Nor was it "the Left" -- but rather corporatist Democrats like Evan Bayh and Lanny Davis -- who cheered for the hated Wall Street bailout; blocked drug re-importation; are stopping genuine reform of the financial industry; prevented a larger stimulus package to lower unemployment; refuse to allow programs to help Americans with foreclosures; supported escalation in Afghanistan (twice); and favor the same Bush/Cheney terrorism policies of indefinite detention, military commissions, and state secrets.

 

The very idea that an administration run by Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel and staffed with centrists, Wall Street mavens, and former Bush officials -- and a Congress beholden to Blue Dogs and Lieberdems -- has been captive "to the Left" is so patently false that everyone should be too embarrassed to utter it. For better or worse, the Democratic strategy has long been and still is to steer clear of their leftist base and instead govern as "pragmatists" and centrists -- which means keeping the permanent Washington factions pleased. That strategy may or not be politically shrewd, but it is just a fact that the dreaded "Left" has gotten very little of what it wanted the entire year. Is there anyone who actually believes that "The Left" is in control of anything, let alone the Democratic Party? The fact that Lanny Davis -- to prove the Left's dominance -- has to cite one provision that was jettisoned (the public option) and another which the Left hates (the mandate) reflects how false that claim is. What are all of the Far Left policies the Democrats have been enacting and Obama has been advocating? I'd honestly love to know.

 

And then there is the "Blame the Left" theme from Obama loyalists, who actually claim that the Democrats' problems are due to the fact that the Left hasn't been cheering loudly enough for the Leader. I recall quite vividly how Bush followers spent years claiming that the failings of the Iraq War were not the fault of George Bush -- who had control of the entire war, the entire Congress, and the power to do everything he wanted -- but, rather, it was all "the Left's" fault for excessively criticizing the President, and thus weakening both him and the war effort.

 

To insist that the Democratic Party's failures are not the fault of Barack Obama -- who controls the entire party infrastructure, its agenda, the news cycle, and the health care plan -- we now hear from Obama supporters a similar claim: it's all the Left's fault for excessively criticizing the Leader. A couple of days ago, Josh Marshall promoted -- and Kevin Drum endorsed -- a post that made this claim:

 

And we can look no further than Howard Dean, and MSNBC, and Arianna Huffington, and, yes, some columnists at the Times and bloggers here at TPM--you know, real progressives--who have lambasted Obama again and again since last March over arguable need-to-haves like the "public option," as if nobody else was listening. They've been thinking: "Oh, if only we ran things, how much more subtle would the legislation be," as if 41 senators add up to subtle. Meanwhile the undecideds are thinking: "Hell, if his own people think he's a sell-out and jerk, why should we support this?"

 

The reason "the Left" criticized the Iraq War was because . . . they thought it was a bad thing and thus opposed it. The reason some on the Left have been criticizing the health care plan and other Obama policies (the ones I listed above) is because . . . they think they're bad things and thus oppose them. For instance, health care opponents believe that forcing Americans to buy private insurance that they can't afford and/or do not want is bad policy and will harm the Democrats politically. That's what rational citizens do: they support proposals that they think are good and oppose the ones they think are bad. What are people on "the Left" supposed to do: go on television and into their columns and lie by pretending they support things that they actually oppose, all in order to sustain high levels of affection and excitement for Barack Obama? Someone who would do that is what we call a dishonest propagandist and party loyalist, and, in any event, is unlikely to have any credibility with anyone beyond already-converted, fellow Obama admirers.

 

A political party is actually much healthier and stronger when criticisms of the Leader are permitted. Ask the Republicans circa 2005 and 2006 about how a party fares when party-loyalty and leader-loyalty trump all other considerations. Moreover, if a political party adopts a strategy of ignoring its base, as the Democrats routinely do, it's an inevitable cost that the base will become dispirited and unmotivated. As Darcy Burner put it yesterday: "Perhaps if the Democratic base doesn't show up to elect Coakley, party leadership should consider *trying to appeal* to the base." There's a reason it's called "the base" -- it's because it's the foundation of the party -- and, as the Republicans never forget, there is a serious cost to ignoring or spurning them.

 

As I note in my NYT contribution today, the reasons for the Democrats' failings generally -- and the Scott Brown victory specifically -- are complex, and shouldn't be simplified in order to declare vindication for pre-existing beliefs (Obama loyalists: it was all about Coakley!; right-wing Democrats: it's all the Left's fault!; Republicans: it's a rejection of liberalism!). But whatever else is true, the Left, as usual, has very little power, both within the Party and in general. Blaming them for the Democrats' failings is about as rational as the 2006 attempt to blame them for the collapsing Iraq War. The Left is many things; "dominant within the Democratic Party and our political discourse" is not one of them.

 

* * * * *

 

All that said, and as horrible as the Democrats have been all year, the most amazing -- and depressing -- aspect of all of this is how Americans have so quickly forgotten how thoroughly the Republicans, during their eight-year reign, destroyed the country. Whatever the source of our national woes are, re-empowering that faction cannot possibly be the answer to anything.

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/

[Park Life 71]

whats the unemployment level like in the states? a lot of americans would baulk at the idea of paying for someone elses healthcare. just selfish i guess........... (or looking out for no.1, depending upon your pov.)

I understand the point and acknowledge the employment situation there is bad and greed is good and the place is built on the rights of the individual to have a gun and get rich. This approach seems to pretty much dominate government thinking.

 

My semi rhetorical question then, is do americans not baulk at around 40% of their taxes being spent on 'defence'? Their government saying, 'Look. you can have guns, hell, shoot the shit out of eachother if you want, but obviously we are going to have the most and biggest and best guns'. The iniquitousness cascades.

 

Depressing.

 

Most of then don't know and those that do don't care.

[ChezGiven 0]

HF I absolutely hate that article, his opposition to the 'blame the left' theme is shit. Iraq is an absurd anology, just cos someone said it was just like underming Bush doesn't mean that it is.

 

The American electorate are facile when it comes to domestic health care policy i.e. they don't give a fuck. People really gave a shit about Iraq though and that guilt ridden article should be dismissed as the incredulous nonsense that it is. The first black president of america with a long term centrist yet progressive 'plan' for this and his second term is going to be the subject of vitriolic criticism, something that will filter through to non engaged and uninformed middle America.

 

What these far left jerks don't get is that the majority are not sure about reform and that the real political and economic objective was and is to sort out the finance. I've sat in ASCO sessions with federal finance guys doing apocalyptic scenarios on the economy, never mind the federal reserve. Reform will hurt everyone apart fom those too rich to care.

[Happy Face 29]

HF I absolutely hate that article, his opposition to the 'blame the left' theme is shit. Iraq is an absurd anology, just cos someone said it was just like underming Bush doesn't mean that it is.

 

The American electorate are facile when it comes to domestic health care policy i.e. they don't give a fuck. People really gave a shit about Iraq though and that guilt ridden article should be dismissed as the incredulous nonsense that it is. The first black president of america with a long term centrist yet progressive 'plan' for this and his second term is going to be the subject of vitriolic criticism, something that will filter through to non engaged and uninformed middle America.

 

What these far left jerks don't get is that the majority are not sure about reform and that the real political and economic objective was and is to sort out the finance. I've sat in ASCO sessions with federal finance guys doing apocalyptic scenarios on the economy, never mind the federal reserve. Reform will hurt everyone apart fom those too rich to care.

 

Utter nonsense.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ST2009101902502

[ChezGiven 0]

Equivocal results with no insight into respondents's understanding of the proposals or whether they are views based on media output. It also wasnt clear in October, when that poll was taken, what would be in the reform proposals since they weren't written. Opposition to the proposals could therefore be counted as republican opposition. Also, if support for the public option was running at 57% in Massachussets this week, how come the Republicans got voted in. Either the US electorate is so collectively clever they are scuppering healthcare reform because its isnt health economically sound and is actually inequitable OR..... they have heard vitriolic criticism from all quarters and voted against him on some basic media consumption?

 

Having just spent 4 days in New York discussing healthcare reform and watching their news, i'm going for the latter and that poll only needing a 5% error to be about equal back before we knew what was happening.

[Park Life 71]

HF I absolutely hate that article, his opposition to the 'blame the left' theme is shit. Iraq is an absurd anology, just cos someone said it was just like underming Bush doesn't mean that it is.

 

The American electorate are facile when it comes to domestic health care policy i.e. they don't give a fuck. People really gave a shit about Iraq though and that guilt ridden article should be dismissed as the incredulous nonsense that it is. The first black president of america with a long term centrist yet progressive 'plan' for this and his second term is going to be the subject of vitriolic criticism, something that will filter through to non engaged and uninformed middle America.

 

What these far left jerks don't get is that the majority are not sure about reform and that the real political and economic objective was and is to sort out the finance. I've sat in ASCO sessions with federal finance guys doing apocalyptic scenarios on the economy, never mind the federal reserve. Reform will hurt everyone apart fom those too rich to care.

 

I've been shocked by the criticism Obama has been under lately and the on-the-fly decsision making of those that could have made a difference by explaining things correctly to the wider populace. I realise now AMERICA CAN'T BE SAVED. It is on a collison course with history and the universe and those boys have yert to drop a set.

[Cid_MCDP 0]

HF I absolutely hate that article, his opposition to the 'blame the left' theme is shit. Iraq is an absurd anology, just cos someone said it was just like underming Bush doesn't mean that it is.

 

The American electorate are facile when it comes to domestic health care policy i.e. they don't give a fuck. People really gave a shit about Iraq though and that guilt ridden article should be dismissed as the incredulous nonsense that it is. The first black president of america with a long term centrist yet progressive 'plan' for this and his second term is going to be the subject of vitriolic criticism, something that will filter through to non engaged and uninformed middle America.

 

What these far left jerks don't get is that the majority are not sure about reform and that the real political and economic objective was and is to sort out the finance. I've sat in ASCO sessions with federal finance guys doing apocalyptic scenarios on the economy, never mind the federal reserve. Reform will hurt everyone apart fom those too rich to care.

 

I've been shocked by the criticism Obama has been under lately and the on-the-fly decsision making of those that could have made a difference by explaining things correctly to the wider populace. I realise now AMERICA CAN'T BE SAVED. It is on a collison course with history and the universe and those boys have yert to drop a set.

 

Welcome to my world. I swear, the only reason I'm still here is my folks are old and won't move. God forbid, if anything happened to them, I'd be asking if any of y'all have a spare room to rent.

 

To address a couple of questions being asked about my country and it's views on things...

 

1) The 40% tax revenue, defense spending, et al

Most people in this country don't really realize how much their being taxed. There's tons of reasons for this (serpentine tax law, relatively low education levels, etc.), but it basically comes down to this point- if you ask a person how much money they make and how much taxes they pay, the first answer will be their salary before taxes (because that's how a business presents it to you, obviously) and the second will be a woefully low estimate. I remember arguing about healthcare with some people back in 2006 and used Canada's model as my basis of argument. One of the opponents said, "Yeah, but don't they pay like 40% or 50% in taxes?", to which I replied, "Motherfucker! You ever look at your (pay)check stub? Your recepit from the grocery store or whatever? I don't know about you, but I already pay well over 40% of my wages in tax- I might as well get free healthcare for my trouble!"

 

2) Criticism of Obama

Right or wrong, when you run on a platform of change, some shit has to change. And as everyone knows, we're the most impatient country on earth. It's been a year and we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, we still don't have national healtcare, our economy is still shit, and a lot of people are still out of work. Is it Obama's fault? Of course it isn't. Is he taking the blame for it nonetheless? Of course he is. The Bush Administration took over banks in the bailout and yet Fox News Channel and the Republicans can't stop refering to Obama as a socialist. Yes, I'm serious.

 

3) National healtcare

There's a tremendous amount of money being pumped into scaring Americans into thinking the government will destroy healtcare if given the chance. I've personally had conversations here at work where otherwise seemingly rational people will tell me they don't think the government should run healtcare because they'll kill old people. It's mind boggling. I've also heard a co-work rail on about the subject of national healthcare then later mention that his grandson (whom he supports by the way, along with his own deadbeat kids) lost his silver tooth and was hoping the tooth fairy would leave him more of a reward. This kid, needless to say, on public aid programs and we, the taxpayers, paid for a 5 year-old to have a silver tooth put in.

 

Don't know if y'all have run across it, but there have been people in this country speaking out against giving aid to Haiti; namely, Rush Limbaugh. Now, I'm not so much of an unsavvy stooge to realize that Limbaugh only spoke out against aiding the Haitians because it would generate a tremendous amount of media coverage for him and his goofy radio show, but the problem is, there are a lot of unsavvy stooges who listen to that show who now actually believe we shouldn't help Haiti. History and everything else aside, I don't see how anyone could read about the aftermath of the earthquakes and see the footage coming out of that country and not be moved in some way to help. Unsurprisingly though, the Limbaugh listeners and Pat Robertson's zealots are doing just that. If that isn't the definition of heartbreakingly sad, I don't know what is.

 

There have been other events that really made me question the notion that this country could ever recover some of the spirit that once made it great- the bank bailouts and subsequent financial crisis, allowing media conglomerates to merge the outlets to control output of news, the war in Iraq, the two controversial Bush elections, the outright FUD regarding some form of nationalized healthcare, but for whatever reason, this whole Haiti thing really has gone a long way towards convincing me that we're just so far gone, there will be no recovery. All that other stuff you couldn't justify, but could at least rationalize as somebody being greedy, but speaking out against people who are trying to aid people who are the victims of a natural disaster of epic proportions is just evil.

[Park Life 71]

HF I absolutely hate that article, his opposition to the 'blame the left' theme is shit. Iraq is an absurd anology, just cos someone said it was just like underming Bush doesn't mean that it is.

 

The American electorate are facile when it comes to domestic health care policy i.e. they don't give a fuck. People really gave a shit about Iraq though and that guilt ridden article should be dismissed as the incredulous nonsense that it is. The first black president of america with a long term centrist yet progressive 'plan' for this and his second term is going to be the subject of vitriolic criticism, something that will filter through to non engaged and uninformed middle America.

 

What these far left jerks don't get is that the majority are not sure about reform and that the real political and economic objective was and is to sort out the finance. I've sat in ASCO sessions with federal finance guys doing apocalyptic scenarios on the economy, never mind the federal reserve. Reform will hurt everyone apart fom those too rich to care.

 

I've been shocked by the criticism Obama has been under lately and the on-the-fly decsision making of those that could have made a difference by explaining things correctly to the wider populace. I realise now AMERICA CAN'T BE SAVED. It is on a collison course with history and the universe and those boys have yert to drop a set.

 

Welcome to my world. I swear, the only reason I'm still here is my folks are old and won't move. God forbid, if anything happened to them, I'd be asking if any of y'all have a spare room to rent.

 

To address a couple of questions being asked about my country and it's views on things...

 

1) The 40% tax revenue, defense spending, et al

Most people in this country don't really realize how much their being taxed. There's tons of reasons for this (serpentine tax law, relatively low education levels, etc.), but it basically comes down to this point- if you ask a person how much money they make and how much taxes they pay, the first answer will be their salary before taxes (because that's how a business presents it to you, obviously) and the second will be a woefully low estimate. I remember arguing about healthcare with some people back in 2006 and used Canada's model as my basis of argument. One of the opponents said, "Yeah, but don't they pay like 40% or 50% in taxes?", to which I replied, "Motherfucker! You ever look at your (pay)check stub? Your recepit from the grocery store or whatever? I don't know about you, but I already pay well over 40% of my wages in tax- I might as well get free healthcare for my trouble!"

 

2) Criticism of Obama

Right or wrong, when you run on a platform of change, some shit has to change. And as everyone knows, we're the most impatient country on earth. It's been a year and we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, we still don't have national healtcare, our economy is still shit, and a lot of people are still out of work. Is it Obama's fault? Of course it isn't. Is he taking the blame for it nonetheless? Of course he is. The Bush Administration took over banks in the bailout and yet Fox News Channel and the Republicans can't stop refering to Obama as a socialist. Yes, I'm serious.

 

3) National healtcare

There's a tremendous amount of money being pumped into scaring Americans into thinking the government will destroy healtcare if given the chance. I've personally had conversations here at work where otherwise seemingly rational people will tell me they don't think the government should run healtcare because they'll kill old people. It's mind boggling. I've also heard a co-work rail on about the subject of national healthcare then later mention that his grandson (whom he supports by the way, along with his own deadbeat kids) lost his silver tooth and was hoping the tooth fairy would leave him more of a reward. This kid, needless to say, on public aid programs and we, the taxpayers, paid for a 5 year-old to have a silver tooth put in.

 

Don't know if y'all have run across it, but there have been people in this country speaking out against giving aid to Haiti; namely, Rush Limbaugh. Now, I'm not so much of an unsavvy stooge to realize that Limbaugh only spoke out against aiding the Haitians because it would generate a tremendous amount of media coverage for him and his goofy radio show, but the problem is, there are a lot of unsavvy stooges who listen to that show who now actually believe we shouldn't help Haiti. History and everything else aside, I don't see how anyone could read about the aftermath of the earthquakes and see the footage coming out of that country and not be moved in some way to help. Unsurprisingly though, the Limbaugh listeners and Pat Robertson's zealots are doing just that. If that isn't the definition of heartbreakingly sad, I don't know what is.

 

There have been other events that really made me question the notion that this country could ever recover some of the spirit that once made it great- the bank bailouts and subsequent financial crisis, allowing media conglomerates to merge the outlets to control output of news, the war in Iraq, the two controversial Bush elections, the outright FUD regarding some form of nationalized healthcare, but for whatever reason, this whole Haiti thing really has gone a long way towards convincing me that we're just so far gone, there will be no recovery. All that other stuff you couldn't justify, but could at least rationalize as somebody being greedy, but speaking out against people who are trying to aid people who are the victims of a natural disaster of epic proportions is just evil.

 

Will get back to this. A lot of the ills of 'the West' aren't actually ills of 'the West', they are ills of America, but they are packaged and sold as of all our making. They aren't. Europe really needs to de-link, - this is a child gone bad (America)....

[Renton 18049]

HF I absolutely hate that article, his opposition to the 'blame the left' theme is shit. Iraq is an absurd anology, just cos someone said it was just like underming Bush doesn't mean that it is.

 

The American electorate are facile when it comes to domestic health care policy i.e. they don't give a fuck. People really gave a shit about Iraq though and that guilt ridden article should be dismissed as the incredulous nonsense that it is. The first black president of america with a long term centrist yet progressive 'plan' for this and his second term is going to be the subject of vitriolic criticism, something that will filter through to non engaged and uninformed middle America.

 

What these far left jerks don't get is that the majority are not sure about reform and that the real political and economic objective was and is to sort out the finance. I've sat in ASCO sessions with federal finance guys doing apocalyptic scenarios on the economy, never mind the federal reserve. Reform will hurt everyone apart fom those too rich to care.

 

I've been shocked by the criticism Obama has been under lately and the on-the-fly decsision making of those that could have made a difference by explaining things correctly to the wider populace. I realise now AMERICA CAN'T BE SAVED. It is on a collison course with history and the universe and those boys have yert to drop a set.

 

Welcome to my world. I swear, the only reason I'm still here is my folks are old and won't move. God forbid, if anything happened to them, I'd be asking if any of y'all have a spare room to rent.

 

To address a couple of questions being asked about my country and it's views on things...

 

1) The 40% tax revenue, defense spending, et al

Most people in this country don't really realize how much their being taxed. There's tons of reasons for this (serpentine tax law, relatively low education levels, etc.), but it basically comes down to this point- if you ask a person how much money they make and how much taxes they pay, the first answer will be their salary before taxes (because that's how a business presents it to you, obviously) and the second will be a woefully low estimate. I remember arguing about healthcare with some people back in 2006 and used Canada's model as my basis of argument. One of the opponents said, "Yeah, but don't they pay like 40% or 50% in taxes?", to which I replied, "Motherfucker! You ever look at your (pay)check stub? Your recepit from the grocery store or whatever? I don't know about you, but I already pay well over 40% of my wages in tax- I might as well get free healthcare for my trouble!"

 

2) Criticism of Obama

Right or wrong, when you run on a platform of change, some shit has to change. And as everyone knows, we're the most impatient country on earth. It's been a year and we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, we still don't have national healtcare, our economy is still shit, and a lot of people are still out of work. Is it Obama's fault? Of course it isn't. Is he taking the blame for it nonetheless? Of course he is. The Bush Administration took over banks in the bailout and yet Fox News Channel and the Republicans can't stop refering to Obama as a socialist. Yes, I'm serious.

 

3) National healtcare

There's a tremendous amount of money being pumped into scaring Americans into thinking the government will destroy healtcare if given the chance. I've personally had conversations here at work where otherwise seemingly rational people will tell me they don't think the government should run healtcare because they'll kill old people. It's mind boggling. I've also heard a co-work rail on about the subject of national healthcare then later mention that his grandson (whom he supports by the way, along with his own deadbeat kids) lost his silver tooth and was hoping the tooth fairy would leave him more of a reward. This kid, needless to say, on public aid programs and we, the taxpayers, paid for a 5 year-old to have a silver tooth put in.

 

Don't know if y'all have run across it, but there have been people in this country speaking out against giving aid to Haiti; namely, Rush Limbaugh. Now, I'm not so much of an unsavvy stooge to realize that Limbaugh only spoke out against aiding the Haitians because it would generate a tremendous amount of media coverage for him and his goofy radio show, but the problem is, there are a lot of unsavvy stooges who listen to that show who now actually believe we shouldn't help Haiti. History and everything else aside, I don't see how anyone could read about the aftermath of the earthquakes and see the footage coming out of that country and not be moved in some way to help. Unsurprisingly though, the Limbaugh listeners and Pat Robertson's zealots are doing just that. If that isn't the definition of heartbreakingly sad, I don't know what is.

 

There have been other events that really made me question the notion that this country could ever recover some of the spirit that once made it great- the bank bailouts and subsequent financial crisis, allowing media conglomerates to merge the outlets to control output of news, the war in Iraq, the two controversial Bush elections, the outright FUD regarding some form of nationalized healthcare, but for whatever reason, this whole Haiti thing really has gone a long way towards convincing me that we're just so far gone, there will be no recovery. All that other stuff you couldn't justify, but could at least rationalize as somebody being greedy, but speaking out against people who are trying to aid people who are the victims of a natural disaster of epic proportions is just evil.

 

What an interesting and thoroughly depressing post.

[Guest Stevie]

HF I absolutely hate that article, his opposition to the 'blame the left' theme is shit. Iraq is an absurd anology, just cos someone said it was just like underming Bush doesn't mean that it is.

 

The American electorate are facile when it comes to domestic health care policy i.e. they don't give a fuck. People really gave a shit about Iraq though and that guilt ridden article should be dismissed as the incredulous nonsense that it is. The first black president of america with a long term centrist yet progressive 'plan' for this and his second term is going to be the subject of vitriolic criticism, something that will filter through to non engaged and uninformed middle America.

 

What these far left jerks don't get is that the majority are not sure about reform and that the real political and economic objective was and is to sort out the finance. I've sat in ASCO sessions with federal finance guys doing apocalyptic scenarios on the economy, never mind the federal reserve. Reform will hurt everyone apart fom those too rich to care.

 

I've been shocked by the criticism Obama has been under lately and the on-the-fly decsision making of those that could have made a difference by explaining things correctly to the wider populace. I realise now AMERICA CAN'T BE SAVED. It is on a collison course with history and the universe and those boys have yert to drop a set.

 

Welcome to my world. I swear, the only reason I'm still here is my folks are old and won't move. God forbid, if anything happened to them, I'd be asking if any of y'all have a spare room to rent.

 

To address a couple of questions being asked about my country and it's views on things...

 

1) The 40% tax revenue, defense spending, et al

Most people in this country don't really realize how much their being taxed. There's tons of reasons for this (serpentine tax law, relatively low education levels, etc.), but it basically comes down to this point- if you ask a person how much money they make and how much taxes they pay, the first answer will be their salary before taxes (because that's how a business presents it to you, obviously) and the second will be a woefully low estimate. I remember arguing about healthcare with some people back in 2006 and used Canada's model as my basis of argument. One of the opponents said, "Yeah, but don't they pay like 40% or 50% in taxes?", to which I replied, "Motherfucker! You ever look at your (pay)check stub? Your recepit from the grocery store or whatever? I don't know about you, but I already pay well over 40% of my wages in tax- I might as well get free healthcare for my trouble!"

 

2) Criticism of Obama

Right or wrong, when you run on a platform of change, some shit has to change. And as everyone knows, we're the most impatient country on earth. It's been a year and we're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, we still don't have national healtcare, our economy is still shit, and a lot of people are still out of work. Is it Obama's fault? Of course it isn't. Is he taking the blame for it nonetheless? Of course he is. The Bush Administration took over banks in the bailout and yet Fox News Channel and the Republicans can't stop refering to Obama as a socialist. Yes, I'm serious.

 

3) National healtcare

There's a tremendous amount of money being pumped into scaring Americans into thinking the government will destroy healtcare if given the chance. I've personally had conversations here at work where otherwise seemingly rational people will tell me they don't think the government should run healtcare because they'll kill old people. It's mind boggling. I've also heard a co-work rail on about the subject of national healthcare then later mention that his grandson (whom he supports by the way, along with his own deadbeat kids) lost his silver tooth and was hoping the tooth fairy would leave him more of a reward. This kid, needless to say, on public aid programs and we, the taxpayers, paid for a 5 year-old to have a silver tooth put in.

 

Don't know if y'all have run across it, but there have been people in this country speaking out against giving aid to Haiti; namely, Rush Limbaugh. Now, I'm not so much of an unsavvy stooge to realize that Limbaugh only spoke out against aiding the Haitians because it would generate a tremendous amount of media coverage for him and his goofy radio show, but the problem is, there are a lot of unsavvy stooges who listen to that show who now actually believe we shouldn't help Haiti. History and everything else aside, I don't see how anyone could read about the aftermath of the earthquakes and see the footage coming out of that country and not be moved in some way to help. Unsurprisingly though, the Limbaugh listeners and Pat Robertson's zealots are doing just that. If that isn't the definition of heartbreakingly sad, I don't know what is.

 

There have been other events that really made me question the notion that this country could ever recover some of the spirit that once made it great- the bank bailouts and subsequent financial crisis, allowing media conglomerates to merge the outlets to control output of news, the war in Iraq, the two controversial Bush elections, the outright FUD regarding some form of nationalized healthcare, but for whatever reason, this whole Haiti thing really has gone a long way towards convincing me that we're just so far gone, there will be no recovery. All that other stuff you couldn't justify, but could at least rationalize as somebody being greedy, but speaking out against people who are trying to aid people who are the victims of a natural disaster of epic proportions is just evil.

 

Will get back to this. A lot of the ills of 'the West' aren't actually ills of 'the West', they are ills of America, but they are packaged and sold as of all our making. They aren't. Europe really needs to de-link, - this is a child gone bad (America)....

I've said that phrase for years, they're like a naughty child who have no respect for their masters anymore. It was always going to happen to a society based on lies, propaganda and greed though, you can't expect a large portion of the country to grow up being anything other than arseholes.

 

Good post thought CID, if the Haiti disaster happened to Britain do you think people would universally try to support us in the United States?

[Happy Face 29]

Equivocal results with no insight into respondents's understanding of the proposals or whether they are views based on media output. It also wasnt clear in October, when that poll was taken, what would be in the reform proposals since they weren't written. Opposition to the proposals could therefore be counted as republican opposition.

 

Also, if support for the public option was running at 57% in Massachussets this week, how come the Republicans got voted in. Either the US electorate is so collectively clever they are scuppering healthcare reform because its isnt health economically sound and is actually inequitable OR..... they have heard vitriolic criticism from all quarters and voted against him on some basic media consumption?

 

Having just spent 4 days in New York discussing healthcare reform and watching their news, i'm going for the latter and that poll only needing a 5% error to be about equal back before we knew what was happening.

 

You can't have it both ways mate. You can't say the majority don't give a fuck or don't want reform, then when it's clear the majority have provided a clear mandate for reform that includes a government provided option, say "yeah but they're too stupid to know what they want."

 

There are many reasons why the Democrats lost Massachussets, not least of which would be their candidates absolutley shocking show in the election. Oakley said Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling was a Yankee fan, refused to shake hands with anyone, incortrectly spelled Massachusetts (spelling it Massachusettes) on a campaign ad and pushed over a journalist who asked her a question.

 

Healthcare reform is low on the agenda in Massachusetts because of the Massachusetts health care reform law of 2006 which already requires nearly every resident of Massachusetts to obtain health insurance coverage. The bill proposed will therefore have basically no effect on residents of that state.

 

Obama has broken promise after promise. He's not made a single concession to the left on any matter and he's pissed off his base.

[Happy Face 29]

Whatever else is true, last night’s result — along with earlier gubernatorial losses in Virginia and New Jersey, polling disasters for Democratic Congressional incumbents, and the bizarre resurgence of a party widely assumed to be dead only a year ago — conclusively proves that something has gone radically wrong for the Democratic Party. One has to be in serious denial not to acknowledge that their approach is not working.

 

Some important factors — especially the collapsing economy and exploding unemployment which Obama inherited — were beyond their control. But an electorate that delivered smashing victories to the Democrats in two consecutive national elections — and which had such high hopes for the “change” Obama repeatedly vowed to usher in — is now turning on them. To insist that Obama and party leaders are blameless is to ensure the downward spiral continues.

 

The notion that Obama’s policies are too “liberal” for the country is simply absurd, given that these are exactly the policies on which he successfully campaigned. But the central pledge of the Obama candidacy, beyond any specific issues, was his vow to change the way Washington works. It is his failure to do that which has become the party’s greatest liability.

 

A candidate who railed against secret deals and lobbyist influence negotiated this health care plan in secrecy with industry lobbyists, got caught entering into secret deals with the pharmaceutical industry, agreed to abandon his commitment to drug re-importation and bulk price negotiations in order to please the pharmaceutical lobby, and cavalierly refused to abide by his promise to conduct all negotiations out in the open.

 

Worse still, two of the most popular provisions — the public option and Medicare expansion — were jettisoned, leaving the insurance-industry-pleasing provisions as the bill’s dominant features.

 

When one adds to that the subservience of the administration’s top financial officials to Wall Street and the lack of programs designed to aid struggling Americans, the perception has arisen that Democrats are both guardians of the Washington status quo and loyal only to powerful interests. That has allowed the corporatist G.O.P. to masquerade as populists and monopolize populist anger.

 

One significant disadvantage burdening Democrats is that they must accommodate far more ideological diversity than Republicans. A party that has both Ben Nelson and Russ Feingold will be prone to in-fighting.

 

The choice now for the White House is whether to move even further to the right or whether they will finally focus on galvanizing their base. As it always does, Beltway conventional wisdom will insist that they do the former (which may include abandoning health care altogether), but a party that has an already demoralized base demoralizes them further at its peril.

 

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/201...s-day-after/?hp

[ChezGiven 0]

http://pol.moveon.org/brownpoll/results.html

 

95% of voters said the economy was important or very important when it came to deciding their vote.

 

53% of Obama voters who voted for Brown and 56% of Obama voters who did not vote in the Massachusetts election said that Democrats enacting tighter restrictions on Wall Street would make them more likely to vote Democratic in the 2010 elections.

 

51% of voters who voted for Obama in 2008 but Brown in 2010 said that Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street.

Nearly half (49%) of Obama voters who voted for Brown support the Senate health care bill or think it does not go far enough. Only 11% think the legislation goes too far.

[Park Life 71]

America needs a fucking dictatorship...They must be sick to the back of their teeth explaining this shit to what are basically savages.

[Happy Face 29]

http://pol.moveon.org/brownpoll/results.html

 

95% of voters said the economy was important or very important when it came to deciding their vote.

 

53% of Obama voters who voted for Brown and 56% of Obama voters who did not vote in the Massachusetts election said that Democrats enacting tighter restrictions on Wall Street would make them more likely to vote Democratic in the 2010 elections.

 

51% of voters who voted for Obama in 2008 but Brown in 2010 said that Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street.

Nearly half (49%) of Obama voters who voted for Brown support the Senate health care bill or think it does not go far enough. Only 11% think the legislation goes too far.

 

Are you quoting those figures to show you agree or am I interpreting them differently?

 

53% of Obama voters who didn't turn out this week think the reform is too diluted.

 

In the October poll I posted over half were in favor of reform (when a public option was an option). In your poll only 32%-34% of DEMOCRATS are in favor of the reform as it is (as a corporate blow job).

[ChezGiven 0]

http://pol.moveon.org/brownpoll/results.html

 

95% of voters said the economy was important or very important when it came to deciding their vote.

 

53% of Obama voters who voted for Brown and 56% of Obama voters who did not vote in the Massachusetts election said that Democrats enacting tighter restrictions on Wall Street would make them more likely to vote Democratic in the 2010 elections.

 

51% of voters who voted for Obama in 2008 but Brown in 2010 said that Democratic policies were doing more to help Wall Street than Main Street.

Nearly half (49%) of Obama voters who voted for Brown support the Senate health care bill or think it does not go far enough. Only 11% think the legislation goes too far.

 

Are you quoting those figures to show you agree or am I interpreting them differently?

 

53% of Obama voters who didn't turn out this week think the reform is too diluted.

 

In the October poll I posted over half were in favor of reform (when a public option was an option). In your poll only 32%-34% of DEMOCRATS are in favor of the reform as it is (as a corporate blow job).

 

Just being objective and posting up the exit poll. I think it does show there are issues about the reform proposals which supports your point. I also think that the conversation inside a voter's head isnt that complicated and that the vociferous criticism from the left has undermined Obama when people need re-assurance about him. They need to be re-assured about the economy, one way to sort that out is to stop the current healthcare expenditure trajectory that will see 1 in every 3 US dollars spent on healthcare by 2020. The other is to sort the economy which means a tough call on how to address Wall Street, since although it may be just, it may not be prudent to fuck them over.

 

Arriana Huffington has an interesting take on it.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huff...r_b_430678.html