Now I remember why I was an independent all those years.

[LouieB]

I never believed that Obama could change much of anything, but I wanted to believe. And the fact that we now praise Obama by comparing him to what is worse is quite simply devastating.

Well yes and no...

 

I couldnt be prouder of the President and Congress for getting this legislation through. The pissing and moaning is from folks who obviously have zero idea of how things work in Washington DC

 

The idea that the two parties are the same or even anywhere near the same is absolutely fucking laughable but i hope it makes you feel better and smarter than everyone to say it. what a crock.

My reply to futureage1 is that those of us who read the Nation, Huffington Post, listen to progressive radio (you know who the talk show hosts are) or even Democracy Now and the other more leftist press or media are a sliver of the American public, a mere minority within a minority. yea, wake up, third party blah blah blah, both parties are the same, etc, is so fucking easy to say and so ultimately lame. I also am resonably proud of Obama, because we really aren't all that far from a President Palin. If the left, the young, the minorities, etc, sit out an election in three years that may be who we get. Sure I KNOW all about how politics really works in this country. Most congress persons are bought and sold by corporations and special intersts, so what else is new?? In fact that is NOT new and dreadfully obvious, but not all of them are. Just enough that if we think everyone is, then the special interests (as if we aren't special interests too) get their way. This was true in the 60s the 19 teens the 1800s and in 2100. It is also true in nearly every country in the world.

 

The healthcare bill isn't all that great, but even Bernie Sanders knows that if we do away with pre-exising conditions and try and keep the health insurance companies from dumping people or not paying up, we have moved things along. Was anyone really expecting a revolution here? Hell we didn't get a revolution even during those periods when we thought we might have a revolution, so I sure as hell wasn't expecing one on the heels of George W Bush.

 

Face it we aren't getting Ralph Nader (like he could run this country anyway) or Dennis Kucinich (like he could barely run Cleveland, Ohio) or any other truly progressive or radical president. But do you really want Sarah Palin (or someone like her) picking Supreme Court Justices or prmoting her screwball ideas about morality, religion, or science. Come on. Barack is light years better than the right wing alternative. All the rest of the talk about don't you know how things work, etc. is just total bullshit. None of us are blind. Get real.

 

Merry fucking Christmas everyone....who would you rather wake up to this morning, Barack Obama or Sarah Palin (insert John McCain here or any other right wing tool.....) And yea, Obama has done some good things and will hopefully do alot more. Sadly this stuft takes time. Health care reform has been on the agenda for 100 years......

 

LouieB

[Beltmann]

Merry fucking Christmas everyone....

This really ought to be somebody's sig line...

[ikol]

Merry fucking Christmas everyone....who would you rather wake up to this morning, Barack Obama or Sarah Palin (insert John McCain here or any other right wing tool.....)

 

I couldn't care less. I'm certainly not gonna let whatever tool (right or left wing) that is in office ruin my Christmas.

[futureage1]

Well yes and no...

 

 

My reply to futureage1 is that those of us who read the Nation, Huffington Post, listen to progressive radio (you know who the talk show hosts are) or even Democracy Now and the other more leftist press or media are a sliver of the American public, a mere minority within a minority. yea, wake up, third party blah blah blah, both parties are the same, etc, is so fucking easy to say and so ultimately lame. I also am resonably proud of Obama, because we really aren't all that far from a President Palin. If the left, the young, the minorities, etc, sit out an election in three years that may be who we get. Sure I KNOW all about how politics really works in this country. Most congress persons are bought and sold by corporations and special intersts, so what else is new?? In fact that is NOT new and dreadfully obvious, but not all of them are. Just enough that if we think everyone is, then the special interests (as if we aren't special interests too) get their way. This was true in the 60s the 19 teens the 1800s and in 2100. It is also true in nearly every country in the world.

 

The healthcare bill isn't all that great, but even Bernie Sanders knows that if we do away with pre-exising conditions and try and keep the health insurance companies from dumping people or not paying up, we have moved things along. Was anyone really expecting a revolution here? Hell we didn't get a revolution even during those periods when we thought we might have a revolution, so I sure as hell wasn't expecing one on the heels of George W Bush.

 

Face it we aren't getting Ralph Nader (like he could run this country anyway) or Dennis Kucinich (like he could barely run Cleveland, Ohio) or any other truly progressive or radical president. But do you really want Sarah Palin (or someone like her) picking Supreme Court Justices or prmoting her screwball ideas about morality, religion, or science. Come on. Barack is light years better than the right wing alternative. All the rest of the talk about don't you know how things work, etc. is just total bullshit. None of us are blind. Get real.

 

Merry fucking Christmas everyone....who would you rather wake up to this morning, Barack Obama or Sarah Palin (insert John McCain here or any other right wing tool.....) And yea, Obama has done some good things and will hopefully do alot more. Sadly this stuft takes time. Health care reform has been on the agenda for 100 years......

 

LouieB

 

I don't agree with most of what you wrote. And I am well aware of how long things have been going this direction. You are wrong, right now a third party has a very good chance. In fact, there are very credible rumors that Jesse Ventura and Robert Kennedy Jr. are going to run on a third party ticket together. And honestly I can't think of one good thing Obama has done for this country. I also recognize I have more in common with the tea baggers,at this point, than the progressives but that will change. Obama has splintered his base considerably over this Bill and unless he starts to pass some legislation for his base he will be down in Bush territory for popularity. He is already bordering on lame duck status. When the Dems lose the House and Senate next year then he will be. In my opinion, this should have happened when he continued Bush's bank bailouts and war policies and when he voted to continue FISA two summers ago. And honestly, I would not support a Palin but I would support Ron Paul, if by some miracle he got the nomination,which I don't expect to happen. I don't agree with him on all issues but I do agree with him on economic and war policy, so that is enough for me. The biggest lie is the media telling you that you only have two choices and keeping third party candidates from debates. I guess Perot scared the parties in the 90's and they are not going to risk that again. I didn't vote for either major party candidate in the last election or the previous elections. The EU now has three parties and the same can and will happen here. Nothing will change until then, just more wars and the continued economic assault on the middle class. There are more alternatives and I don't expect the "lesser of two evils" defense to work next time for Obama and he will have brought it on himself. And merry fucking Christmas to you too.

[futureage1]

And merry Christmas from Geithner and the Treasury. This is how you bankrupt a country and cause currency failure.

 

Fannie And Freddie Receive Unlimited Future Funds To Stay Afloat

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/24/fannie-mae-and-freddie-ma_0_n_403413.html

 

The government has handed its ATM card to beleaguered mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

 

The Treasury Department said Thursday it removed the $400 billion financial cap on the money it will provide to keep the companies afloat. Already, taxpayers have shelled out $111 billion to the pair, and a senior Treasury official said losses are not expected to exceed the government's estimate this summer of $170 billion over 10 years.

 

Treasury Department officials said it will now use a flexible formula to ensure the two agencies can stand behind the billions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities they sell to investors. Under the formula, financial support would increase according to how much each firm loses in a quarter. The cap in place at the end of 2012 would apply thereafter.

 

By making the change before year-end, Treasury sidestepped the need for an OK from a bailout-weary Congress.

 

While most analysts say the companies are unlikely to use the full $400 billion, Treasury officials said they decided to lift the caps to eliminate any uncertainty among investors about the government's commitments. But the timing of the announcement on a traditionally slow news day raised eyebrows.

 

"The companies are nowhere close to using the $400 billion they had before, so why do this now?" said Bert Ely, a banking consultant in Alexandria, Va. "It's possible we may see some horrendous numbers for the fourth quarter and, thus 2009, and Treasury wants to calm the markets."

[LouieB]

. In fact, there are very credible rumors that Jesse Ventura and Robert Kennedy Jr. are going to run on a third party ticket together.

This is totally laughable. Jesse Ventura President?? With Robert Kennedy. Don't hold your breath too long, you will pass out. A third party has little or no chance even with people being disenchanted with the two we have. Jesse Ventura is a is not exactly a leftie. Ron Paul has no traction either. No third party candidate has had any traction since Perot or John Anderson. As I have pointed out during both of the last two elections, everyone can vote for a third party candidate, but they almost always end up being a spoiler, not a viable candidate. You said it yourself that if Ron Paul got nominated. Getting nominated isn't the issue, because clearly anyone can run third party (see the Greens, see Ralph Nader underwhatever party he happens to join or invent on any given year) (see the Communisty Party USA, or the any other sectarian left party, see any other right wing party such as Lyndon LaRouche or other perrenial third party candidates) but ultimately one of the two parties controls congress(or sort of as we now see the Democrats aren't exactly a party. Disagree all you want, facts simply aren't on your side in this argument. Not since Eugene V Debs has a third party had any long term traction and Debs was in an entirely different era and also never came close to winning.

 

Right, Obama has done nothing for us. Obama and McCain would have been exactly the same.

 

LouieB

[futureage1]

Right, Obama has done nothing for us. Obama and McCain would have been exactly the same.

 

LouieB

 

 

Then name one, other than this great healthcare reform bill. Obamapoligists seem never to be able to come up with any, just it's some great chess match. And I'm glad you are alright with getting extorted out of more of your tax dollars without Congressional approval for Fannie and Freddie. Some might call that dictatorial and authoritarian.

[u2roolz]

In fact, there are very credible rumors that Jesse Ventura and Robert Kennedy Jr. are going to run on a third party ticket together.

[LouieB]

Right, Obama has done nothing for us. Obama and McCain would have been exactly the same.

 

LouieB

 

 

Then name one, other than this great healthcare reform bill. Obamapoligists seem never to be able to come up with any, just it's some great chess match. And I'm glad you are alright with getting extorted out of more of your tax dollars without Congressional approval for Fannie and Freddie. Some might call that dictatorial and authoritarian.

Off the top.....closing down Gitmo (yes it is taking time) and ending the Iraq War (also taking time) and at least talking about climate change, appointing someone NOT ultra conservative to the Supreme Court (with more to come in the next seven years), attempting to end the Afganistan War (sure this is taking time too) trying to change the health care system (okay not to everyone's liking but getting Congress to act is like herding cats), attempting to use diplomacy when possible instead of starting a war, initiating recovering that isn't just tax cuts for the rich but also grant programs and money to local governments, discussing changes to NCLB, and changing the profile of the US of A from what Bush had lowered us to (which certainly incudes the reason he won the Nobel despite everyone thinking it is premature.)

 

Is he perfect?? Not at all. But he is certainly different and in some better ways. This is not Bush III, but then if you want to believe that, I guess I can't particulary persude you others. Feel free to vote for Jesse Ventura if he runs, or Ralph Nader, or Ron Paul or Dennis Kuchinich or any other third party candidate. I know it is fun and certainly satisfying, but most folks are going to vote for one of the candidates of the major parties and leave the third parties in the single digits.

 

Me personally, I dig that he is from Chicago, someone of color, can put sentences together in a coherant fashion, etc. A big step up for me. He has also brought truckloads of pride to young and old African Americans and given some of us (maybe not you) the hope that things can eventually change. All this is good enough for me after eight years of Bush.

 

When this ongoing discussion (and as far as I know it has been going since I got here low these many years and with many different characters), some sort of magical thinking about what is real and what is not keeps taking over. Sure we would all like some kind of revolution either on the left or right or somewhere else imaginary, but the real work of government gets done pretty much in the middle. So if you listen to the talk radio on the right, Barack is the biggest Commie since Stalin and if you listen to left (mostly places like Democracy Now, etc.) he is the biggest sell out capitalist lacky ever elected. Neither is true and those firmly involved in reality know this. Everyone else just wants to engage in wishful thinking, ideological mind games, and conspiracy theories. Ultimately everyone governs from and to the middle, which is where the vast majority of the American public is from.

 

LouieB

[bobbob1313]

Wait, so Louie you actually think Obama winning the Nobel wasn't entirely misguided and premature?

 

Come on, man. Take off those blinders.

[LouieB]

Wait, so Louie you actually think Obama winning the Nobel wasn't entirely misguided and premature?

 

Come on, man. Take off those blinders.

Let's see, I think I said it WAS premature....Was it misguided?? Maybe. But the Peace prize went to Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho, as well as Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin too, both choices were somewhat misguided. Prizes of all sorts are given out in misguided ways all the time, from the Nobels to the Oscars to the Grammy's to anything else you can name.

 

This one was clearly given to Obama simply because he wasn't Bush. Is that at good decision. Probably not, but then again people all over the world were fairly relieved when Bush was gone. Should they have waited. For sure. It was an indefensible decision; more of wishful thinking really.

 

LouieB

[bjorn_skurj]

Obama getting the Nobel was nothing more than an indication of how relieved the world is that the Republicans no longer have the keys to the U.S. military.

I'll let you know what I think of health care reform next March, when we find out what our new insurance rates will be. Truly, I hope it does do some good for some people, but my reporter's intuition tells me that for those of us with standard-issue meh health insurance, there's not going to be vast relief, and it might be the opposite.

 

[futureage1]

Off the top.....closing down Gitmo (yes it is taking time) and ending the Iraq War (also taking time) and at least talking about climate change, appointing someone NOT ultra conservative to the Supreme Court (with more to come in the next seven years), attempting to end the Afganistan War (sure this is taking time too) trying to change the health care system (okay not to everyone's liking but getting Congress to act is like herding cats), attempting to use diplomacy when possible instead of starting a war, initiating recovering that isn't just tax cuts for the rich but also grant programs and money to local governments, discussing changes to NCLB, and changing the profile of the US of A from what Bush had lowered us to (which certainly incudes the reason he won the Nobel despite everyone thinking it is premature.)

 

Is he perfect?? Not at all. But he is certainly different and in some better ways. This is not Bush III, but then if you want to believe that, I guess I can't particulary persude you others. Feel free to vote for Jesse Ventura if he runs, or Ralph Nader, or Ron Paul or Dennis Kuchinich or any other third party candidate. I know it is fun and certainly satisfying, but most folks are going to vote for one of the candidates of the major parties and leave the third parties in the single digits.

 

Me personally, I dig that he is from Chicago, someone of color, can put sentences together in a coherant fashion, etc. A big step up for me. He has also brought truckloads of pride to young and old African Americans and given some of us (maybe not you) the hope that things can eventually change. All this is good enough for me after eight years of Bush.

 

When this ongoing discussion (and as far as I know it has been going since I got here low these many years and with many different characters), some sort of magical thinking about what is real and what is not keeps taking over. Sure we would all like some kind of revolution either on the left or right or somewhere else imaginary, but the real work of government gets done pretty much in the middle. So if you listen to the talk radio on the right, Barack is the biggest Commie since Stalin and if you listen to left (mostly places like Democracy Now, etc.) he is the biggest sell out capitalist lacky ever elected. Neither is true and those firmly involved in reality know this. Everyone else just wants to engage in wishful thinking, ideological mind games, and conspiracy theories. Ultimately everyone governs from and to the middle, which is where the vast majority of the American public is from.

 

LouieB

 

If you really believe all that then I have nothing to say, since you are so off the mark. Obama has great rhetoric but that's all it is. He always does the opposite of what he says. How is committing 30k troops in Afghanistan bringing that war to a close? But then again, I knew that would be one campaign promise he would keep. Bringing up Gitmo really? It will never be closed his entire presidency, unless they dump them in rural IL, where the torture will continue unabated. You might actually want to look up the number of casualties from Afghanistan this year. You will find we have lost more soldiers in Obama's first year there than Bush's entire presidency. I don't see any difference whatsoever and am not going to support killing women and children that my corrupt govt. tells me are a threat when most probably could not even identify the USA on a map. And people who vote third party don't think it's "fun". And if the middle is supporting illegal wars and banks profiting at will and throwing people out of their homes because the banks make more money that way, then my guess is the middle will be a really lonely place by the next election. Most people that do live in reality have had enough. This just can't continue and I could care less if Obama has a (D) by his name or not. Blind loyalty to these two parties is for suckers.

[LouieB]

If you really believe all that then I have nothing to say, since you are so off the mark. Obama has great rhetoric but that's all it is. He always does the opposite of what he says. How is committing 30k troops in Afghanistan bringing that war to a close? But then again, I knew that would be one campaign promise he would keep. Bringing up Gitmo really? It will never be closed his entire presidency, unless they dump them in rural IL, where the torture will continue unabated. You might actually want to look up the number of casualties from Afghanistan this year. You will find we have lost more soldiers in Obama's first year there than Bush's entire presidency. I don't see any difference whatsoever and am not going to support killing women and children that my corrupt govt. tells me are a threat when most probably could not even identify the USA on a map. And people who vote third party don't think it's "fun". And if the middle is supporting illegal wars and banks profiting at will and throwing people out of their homes because the banks make more money that way, then my guess is the middle will be a really lonely place by the next election. Most people that do live in reality have had enough. This just can't continue and I could care less if Obama has a (D) by his name or not. Blind loyalty to these two parties is for suckers.

Blind loyalty is for suckers, yes. But no one is blindly loyal to their party at all. In fact each party encompases several ideologies all at once. The Republicans include the wildly social conservative and a diminishing number of fiscal conservatives who aren't all that socially conservatives (Arnold Schwartenegger or however you spell it.) The Demoncrats include some fairly conservative folks such as Ben Nelson who held up health care so abortion is not included to the fairly radical Dennis Kucinich. In my life time (and you don't reveal what your life time is so I can't tell if you are 25 or 55) third party candidates haven't even really been part of a "party" they have just been guys out there running for president because they want to. That is NOT being part of a party. What is YOUR party called? Probably nothng so you would be an independent and that is fine too, but it isn't a party, not organized, not showing up in elections and not having a platform that is identifiable. I would not show up at a party that no one else attended. (And don't start in about the Greens who are mainly a collection of folks who have nowhere else to go. I vote for them regularly, but have no illusion of them actually getting their act together any time soon.) If the health care reform debate has proved anything it, it is that the Democrats (maybe not the Republicas because on their side no one broke ranks) are not organized or unified at all. Many of them need to be bought off. (And damn those pesky and insane Senate rules....which Obama can't do a thing about either.)

 

I am off the mark? Okay fine. Sure. Obama has done nothing, not a thing. I guess what you really want is someone to take charge, make changes without consensus and rule with an iron fist. Not sure if you know this or not, but that is called a dictator. Lots of them around, but so far the US Constitution doesn't make room for it. Health care reform was not something Obama could plunk down on all of us full blown. It had to go through Congress with its quirks and personalities. Hell that is even the same with the war in Afganistan, moving Gitmo, etc. No one in the US of A does hardly anything unilaterally. But I am sure you will tell me you know that. The debate about health care has been going on in the US Congress for 100 years, and what is coming through now is certainly not what I want either, but it is what has made it through the system. Feel free to talk about how badly the system sucks. You won't get an argument from me. But blaming it all on Obama, well that is just simply simple minded.

 

(See Doonesbury for funny stuff on the left giving up on Obama.....and the opening it is creating already for Palin.)

 

Okay as usual I am done (I am always done). I just can't wait to get out to Thompson down the road a peice and start torturing prisoners, that is if Congress will actually allocate funds to move them there. We may never close Gitmo because elected officials, etc. aren't too keen on closing down Gitmo, not because Obama doesn't want to do it. So who's fault is that? OH yea, Obama, because he won't dicate everything, I forgot.

 

LouieB

[futureage1]

Blind loyalty is for suckers, yes. But no one is blindly loyal to their party at all. In fact each party encompases several ideologies all at once. The Republicans include the wildly social conservative and a diminishing number of fiscal conservatives who aren't all that socially conservatives (Arnold Schwartenegger or however you spell it.) The Demoncrats include some fairly conservative folks such as Ben Nelson who held up health care so abortion is not included to the fairly radical Dennis Kucinich. In my life time (and you don't reveal what your life time is so I can't tell if you are 25 or 55) third party candidates haven't even really been part of a "party" they have just been guys out there running for president because they want to. That is NOT being part of a party. What is YOUR party called? Probably nothng so you would be an independent and that is fine too, but it isn't a party, not organized, not showing up in elections and not having a platform that is identifiable. I would not show up at a party that no one else attended. (And don't start in about the Greens who are mainly a collection of folks who have nowhere else to go. I vote for them regularly, but have no illusion of them actually getting their act together any time soon.) If the health care reform debate has proved anything it, it is that the Democrats (maybe not the Republicas because on their side no one broke ranks) are not organized or unified at all. Many of them need to be bought off. (And damn those pesky and insane Senate rules....which Obama can't do a thing about either.)

 

I am off the mark? Okay fine. Sure. Obama has done nothing, not a thing. I guess what you really want is someone to take charge, make changes without consensus and rule with an iron fist. Not sure if you know this or not, but that is called a dictator. Lots of them around, but so far the US Constitution doesn't make room for it. Health care reform was not something Obama could plunk down on all of us full blown. It had to go through Congress with its quirks and personalities. Hell that is even the same with the war in Afganistan, moving Gitmo, etc. No one in the US of A does hardly anything unilaterally. But I am sure you will tell me you know that. The debate about health care has been going on in the US Congress for 100 years, and what is coming through now is certainly not what I want either, but it is what has made it through the system. Feel free to talk about how badly the system sucks. You won't get an argument from me. But blaming it all on Obama, well that is just simply simple minded.

 

(See Doonesbury for funny stuff on the left giving up on Obama.....and the opening it is creating already for Palin.)

 

Okay as usual I am done (I am always done). I just can't wait to get out to Thompson down the road a peice and start torturing prisoners, that is if Congress will actually allocate funds to move them there. We may never close Gitmo because elected officials, etc. aren't too keen on closing down Gitmo, not because Obama doesn't want to do it. So who's fault is that? OH yea, Obama, because he won't dicate everything, I forgot.

 

LouieB

 

One could also argue the simple mindedness of blaming and holding Bush to a higher standard than Obama. If Bush is responsible for the problems you say then Obama can definitely be held accountable for continuing the third Bush term. And we don't move unilaterally? Come on, I just posted the treasury's half a trillion Christmas present to Fannie and Freddie with no Congressional approval. Anyways, I thought this thread was about healthcare.

 

An email I received from a progressive group I belong to:

 

How bad is the bill?

 

• Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations—whether you want to or not

 

• If you refuse to buy the insurance, you’ll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS

 

• After being forced to pay thousands in premiums for junk insurance, you can still be on the hook for up to $11,900 a year in out-of-pocket medical expenses.

 

• Massive restriction on a woman’s right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court

 

• Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them (employers) to cut back benefits and increase co-pays

 

• Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now (at passage of the bill), but most Americans won’t see any benefits—like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions—until 2014 when the program begins.

 

• Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others

 

There's more.

http://makethemaccountable.com/index.php/2009/12/23/whats-not-to-like/

 

And sorry to say Obama definitely has a big part of the blame for this. Like I said earlier, he didn't want a public option. It's painfully obvious to all that care to see. These are the qualities that he deserves a second term for?

 

Lieberman: Obama Never Pressed Me On Public Option

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/21/lieberman-obama-never-pre_n_399355.html

 

Obama Silent On Public Option In Speech To Senators

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/06/obama-silent-on-public-op_n_381847.html

 

Leaderless: Senate Pushes For Public Option Without Obama's Support

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/24/leaderless-senate-pushes_n_332844.html

Rahm Emanuel Personally Pressed Reid To Cut Deal With Lieberman: Sources

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/rahm-emanuel-personally-p_n_391786.html

 

Obama Gets Health Reform Bill He Wanted, Lieberman Gets Thanks, Howard Dean Gets Insulted

 

http://rootswire.org/content/obama-gets-health-reform-bill-he-wanted-lieberman-gets-thanks-howard-dean-gets-insulted

 

White House as helpless victim on healthcare

By Glenn Greenwald

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/16/white_house/index.html

 

Of all the posts I wrote this year, the one that produced the most vociferous email backlash -- easily -- was this one from August, which examined substantial evidence showing that, contrary to Obama's occasional public statements in support of a public option, the White House clearly intended from the start that the final health care reform bill would contain no such provision and was actively and privately participating in efforts to shape a final bill without it.

 

McConnell Hints That GOP Will Campaign On Repealing Health Care Reform

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/27/mcconnell-hints-that-gop_n_404264.html

 

If anyone has played into the Republican's hands it's Obama, not the left.

[LouieB]

 

 

An email I received from a progressive group I belong to:

 

 

If anyone has played into the Republican's hands it's Obama, not the left.

What group would that be??

 

Okay fine. Let's repeal this bill and start over....maybe in another 100 years. This bill is clearly worse than no bill at all.

 

LouieB

[Tweedling]

What group would that be??

 

Okay fine. Let's repeal this bill and start over....maybe in another 100 years. This bill is clearly worse than no bill at all.

 

LouieB

You can say that again.

[LouieB]

You can say that again.

Sorry, I don't know how to put the correct inflection on stuff on the internet. Clearly I don't believe this. I don't have another hundred years to wait. There are things in this bill that will in fact benefit us all, but for those who WANT to kill it, have at it. For the rest of us, building on what isn't a perfect bill is better than no bill at all.

 

Meanwhile the left and right wings want the same thing....no-thing.

 

LouieB

[Guest Jules]

Meanwhile the left and right wings want the same thing....no-thing.

I would simply prefer my government to not be involved in decisions regarding what I provide for my employees, and how I provide it.

[bjorn_skurj]

I would simply prefer my government to not be involved in decisions regarding what I provide for my employees, and how I provide it.

Thus the argument for socialized medicine, which would take that matter to between your employees and Uncle Sam.

[LouieB]

I would simply prefer my government to not be involved in decisions regarding what I provide for my employees, and how I provide it.

Wow.....the public option was going to be that...an option. If you decided not to provide coverage they could get it from the government instead of you and that idea keeps being shot down. The entire bill should have been much shorter, but of course nothing the government does is short. Everyone should have been given options that were realistic and workable.

 

And of course this is all Obama's fault....totally...time to impeach him...since Congress had nothing to do with the contents of this bill.

 

LouieB

[Beltmann]

I would simply prefer my government to not be involved in decisions regarding what I provide for my employees, and how I provide it.

Totally. I'm still pissed about the government interfering with their damn child labor laws.

[MattZ]

For what it's worth LouieB, I don't disagree with you. I think futureage1 is way off base, and of course I think Obama is governing as a pragmatist and is doing a good job in many areas. He certainly can't be blamed for the fact that the Dems don't have a backbone and/or don't beat their members into submission on health care. But the fact remains that Obama set a very high bar, and I am disappointed in as many areas as I am pleased.

 

And Jules, come on. Just cut through the white noise. You don't want to pay. It's as simple as that. Government is in the business of setting up rules for business in myriad ways that result in costs to businesses. Beltmann's example is a good one, but there are countless other examples. Don't pretend that this is some moral issue about govt butting into your business and telling you what to do.

[Guest Speed Racer]

I would simply prefer my government to not be involved in decisions regarding what I provide for my employees, and how I provide it.

 

Like equal-opportunity employment, FMLA, over-time rules and stuff?

[caliber66]

Don't forget OSHA.