Third Party & Independents Archives

I thought the SOTU speech was a very realistic assessment of where we are today. The wake up call to the Congress was especially good although a bit to short and not forceful enough IMHO. Obama set a very optimistic tone with his words and we can only hope those in Congress will listen to him as he does seem to have hit the “nail” of the message the American people are sending to Congress on the head. Me thinks perhaps a bigger hammer would do more good yet time will tell.

I thought the silence spoke rather loudly when he informed us as to the state of the union he inherited upon taking office.

j2t2 said: “I thought the silence spoke rather loudly when he informed us as to the state of the union he inherited upon taking office.”

Actually, I think I heard some muffled groans and grunts from House Right during that part of his speech. Maybe they were just relieving themselves of some pent up heartburn and gas, from having to sit through an Obama speech out of an obligation to tradition and decorum. :-)

That noise you heard, David, could have been someone muffling Joe Wilson before he embarrassed himself again.

It was a fine speech, now let’s get to work.

Listening to the speech was difficult for me with Bobble Head Biden and Doll Head Pelosi sitting behind him.

His swipe at the Supreme Court was oafish and slimy. What’s next…singling out members of congress for redress?

Obama seems to forget that he represents just one branch of government. A little more respect and decorum would have been nice.

His whining about how tough his job is reminds me of Mr. Bush in his campaign debate with Kerry. I don’t think criticism of the previous administration is appropriate in a SOTU speech which traditionally, and rightfully, should look forward not backward.

He received tremendous applause from both sides with his positive remarks about oil exploration and building more nuclear plants. Hell will freeze over before those suggestions come to fruition. On second thought, maybe we’ll only have to wait until November.

I was struck by how negative the speech was. My biggest laugh came when he claimed credit for winning the war in Iraq. Really…I could see his nose grow as he said the words.

It was a rather good speech especially for those who relish rhetoric. In most instances, the President reflected on reality while avoiding it on occasion.

He announced that he would continue to make life easier for illegal immigrants without reflecting on their negative impact on the Middle Class and especially the Working To Be Poor Class.

His comments about inheriting the mess this country is in drew hums from the right as in ba humbug, and applause from the left. Obama should have immediately turned to the left and said, thanks in no small amount to the Democrats.

Obama chastised the Supreme Court for reaffirming that wealth rules.

He let all of us know that oil and nuclear power will be the mainstays of our energy needs for years to come. Domestic drilling for gas and oil coupled with the buliding of nuclear power plants assures us that the most costly route will be taken.

Obama spent time addressing the plight of the Middle Class. They are struggling to pay college tuition and student loans, struggling to pay the mortgage and struggling to save for their retirement. I heard him say nothing about the Working To Be Poor Class. They are struggling to pay rent to keep a roof over their family, struggling to pay the escallating cost of utilities, AEP wants a 37% rate increase, and savings, well that’s school clothes and Christmas.

jlw, and Royal Flush,

You are blessed indeed to live in America where expressing your disappointments and disagreements with the majority carry no negative consequences. As are we all.

I did my share of criticizing the Bush administration’s words and actions. After a few years, the majority of the rest of the country followed behind. I somehow think Obama’s legacy will be significantly better than that of GW Bush’s.

Addressing the nation’s future demands and challenges is precisely how one in office works for the “working to be poor” class. Even if there is no such thing as working to be poor. People work to provide for themselves by serving the needs of others. Think about it. You will find it is nearly universally true.

If you truly believe you are working to be poor, jlw, then obviously, you should get yourself fired, sign up for unemployment benefits and food stamps, so you too can share in the largess of federal assistance to the poor, without having to work so hard. Sorry, I don’t feel sorry for your plight.

Be damned glad you have a job and thank your federal government for rescuing the economy that the greed obsessed private sector nearly destroyed. Were it not for your federal government, you might not be employed, and worse, being unemployed, you might find your life savings depleting rapidly in the absence of federal contributions and extensions of the unemployment insurance program, food stamps, and COBRA subsidies to permit your family to keep health insurance while unemployed.

For those who find something meaningful in last night’s speech, a collection of quotes from this speech compared to nearly idential quotes from Bush SOTU speaches in the past…

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/28/bushs-third-term/

Rhinehold, the speech is only meaningful if the rest of America holds up their end to make the objectives in the speech a reality.

The price of ultra-partisanship is rigor mortis.

Yes, David, I am glad for the federal government every time I look at my paycheck and file my taxes to see nearly 60% of the compensation of my time is taken from me.

Thankfully, the government is there to protect me from letting me make my own choices with my hard earned salary, I might not have to depend on their services then and my life would be so very terrible indeed.

Rhinehold said: “Yes, David, I am glad for the federal government every time I look at my paycheck and file my taxes to see nearly 60% of the compensation of my time is taken from me.”

As well you should be, Rhinehold. It pays for our military which protects our sovereignty and borders from invasion, as well as the intelligence and policing arms of government. It secures and insures your savings and some of your investments from being ripped off. It provides roads upon which you can drive without fear of damaging your vehicle on pot holes or poorly designed road conditions. It oversees and insures the quality of the medications you receive and take, or will take, in your lifetime. It prevents mobs and hoards of homeless and desperate from looting your home out of desperation as was witnessed in Haiti.

I could go on for a thousand pages, but, what would be the point. You don’t like paying for the benefits you enjoy, even if you don’t know what they are or don’t appreciate them. That is clear by your statement.

Ah, and yes, your taxes enforce the laws that prevent your having to endure hostile consequences for critiquing your government and its office holders.

Me, I look at what citizens in other democracies pay as a percentage of their earnings and am immediately reminded of how fortunate I am to be an American, and have no reticence about paying my taxes, whatsoever.

Some believe in paying their way, and some believe others should pay for the benefits we all enjoy. Still others must ignore those benefits to avoid the cognitive dissonance that would arise from their ideologically opposing taxation and paying their share. We are indeed a diverse nation, and democracy, expensive as it is, insures that all kinds and opinions are equally free to express themselves in a free venue public forum.

Royal said “His whining about how tough his job is reminds me of Mr. Bush in his campaign debate with Kerry. I don’t think criticism of the previous administration is appropriate in a SOTU speech which traditionally, and rightfully, should look forward not backward.”

I listened to the SOTU speech yet didn’t hear any whining you speak of. As far as looking back it seems you conservatives once again speak with forked tongues or perhaps short memories. Whichever, can you guess whose first SOTU speech this “whining” belongs to?

“To understand the State of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we are going but at where we’ve been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous.
The last decade has seen a series of recessions. There was a recession in 1970, another in 1974, and again in the spring of 1980. Each time, unemployment has increased and inflation soon turned up again. We coined the word “stagflation” to describe this.
Government’s response to these recessions was to pump up the money supply and increase spending.
In the last six months of 1980, as an example, the money supply increased at the fastest rate in postwar history— 13%. Inflation remained in double digits and government spending increased at an annual rate of 17%. Interest rates reached a staggering 21 1/2 %. There were 8 million unemployed.
Late in 1981, we sank into the present recession—-largely because continued high interest rates hurt the auto industry and construction. There was a drop in productivity and the already-high unemployment rate increased.”

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan%27s_First_State_of_the_Union_Speech

The speech was a class act, and I sincerely believe Obama wants his agenda to include proposals from both parties.

The problem is that he said some of the same things before. It is more than a little embarrassing that he called from transparency, when he obviously doesn’t want it and for bipartisanship while he attacks the other party.

Obama is now the Man. He cannot run against the establishment when he is the establishment. No Republican has had the kind of overwhelming majority that Obama enjoys since the time of Warren G Harding. No more excuses Mr. President.

I liked his call for more nukes, but I don’t think his liberal allies will fall in line.

“No more excuses Mr. President”

So that’s what you call those 41 senators?

I call them sorry excuses, but I like your brevity.

Barrump pa pshhh.

DR
I am quite surprised. I expected you to turn on BHO like a faithless dog. Personally ,I am not overly happy with him. Its pretty faint praise to say he is at least better than the last one. I had high hopes. Just where is that audacity we heard about? I was just digusted by the cave in on HC. Well maybe we will do it later. The more time you give for the Rep/lie machine to work, the more people sucumb to the propaganda. Strike while the iron is hot and all.If you are right and they are wrong then compromise is not a virtue,period.There is a responsibility when in power,to act.

Christine
Just because you do not bother to read the information available from the Whitehouse does not mean it is not there. This is by far the most transparent Whitehouse for a long time . Is that the unfounded accusation of the week from the GOP playbook? Twaddle.Problem is ,as Goebbles said, keep lieing and people start beliving it.Guess it works for the Reps.It did on HC anyway.
God forbid he attack the Reps for trying to block nearly every initiative while offering discredited giberish as an alternative solution to national problems.

Attack, Christine? You call that modest bit of chastisement an Attack? Please. The repub/conservatives in Congress are deserving of much more than that “words to the wise” warning about being the party of politics not leadership. He even warned the dems about what the people expect from their leaders. For a group of people so quick to insult you guys sure whine over anything.

DR
You might find this of interest. Its a quite Constitutional attempt to get around the filibuster and actually get things done before we become a bannana republic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-udall/its-time-for-the-constitu_b_436935.html

All,especially DR

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/26/state-of-the-union-drinki_n_436932.html

How pray tell, bills, did the republicans block anything in the last year? With 60 democrats holding a super majority and you can’t get anything done something is wrong in the DEMOCRAT PARTY. Could it be the fighting within the party.

KAP, your comment doesn’t seem to be able to count.

Democrats held 58 seats in the Senate, 2 Independents, and 40 Republicans.

58, 58, 58, NOT 60 Democrats in the Senate.

And it only takes one Independent to filibuster Democrats, or, threaten filibuster as a bargaining chip to deny Democrats what they wanted to pass. And that KAP, is precisely what happened.

Let’s stick to the facts, shall we? 58 Democrats, not 60. Demonstrably, empirically, and verifiably true, prior to Scott Brown’s election.

And what party have them 2 independents been voting with Remer? Gee I think it might have been the DEMOCRATS. Lieberman is a Democrat only claiming independent to run in the last election. So yes, lets stick with the facts those 2 independents are basically Democrats.

Well you should ask, KAP, because your comment is obviously oblivious to the machinations of Democrats to acquire these Independent votes.

What your comment professes to know about Lieberman would fill a thimble. Lieberman held the entire HC reform bill up for his own concessions, and, oH! mY!, you must not have heard of his recent inquiries and bartering to join the Republican Party. Lieberman has not voted consistently with the Democrats. And Sanders acceeded to the HC reform bill only after some very tough negotiations. He wanted the single payer plan, and failing that, the public option.

So, in your mind, those independents who elected Scott Brown are ‘basically’ Democrats, right? I mean they consistently voted Democrat, before.

Your attempts to define independents as ‘basically either Republican or Democrat’, really, really misses the boat in understanding their politics. Nice try, though at defending an indefensible comment.

Democrats STILL only had 58 seats before Brown’s election. The fact remains true, however you need to spin them in your comments.

bills, Obama didn’t cave on HC.

He set out 3 requirements for a bill that he could sign, for Congress. Congress has yet to present him with a bill. The bills would have met his 3 campaign promise requirements, drive down health care costs, not add a dime to the deficit, and provide coverage for the uninsured including those with pre-existing conditions.

I fail to see where Obama caved, anywhere along the line.

As for striking while the iron is hot, neat phrase and imagery, but, the reality is, the votes were never there for this comprehensive a health care reform measure. Its the reason no one took it up previously. HC reform, as both Obama and Congress will now admit, must be accomplished incrementally. The total reforms required are too complex for the American people to grasp all at once, making them easy pawns of special interests opposed to the various measures of reform.

Reality is what it is. Wishing it were different, yelling at it to be different, or ignoring it, will not change it. Which leaves only the choice of embracing it and working within its limitations.

Until any gov’t official learns to use the word “we” instead of “I” they should stay away from the media. - it isn’t supposed to be about an individual, it is supposed to be about a nation. Obviously they doen’t pay much attention to the oaths they take to get in office. Oh and all the little people - it’s your government - time to let them know what it is you all want instead of being lead around by the hand like a child and spoon fed a bunch of crap. Y’all need to wake up and smell the coffee, pull the wool away from your eyes - step back and take a impartial look at what is really going on instead of playing the blame game. Who gives a r=== as—- about political affiliation so long as the job gets done - how about looking forward to a future where we can all have a meaningful job that allows for dignity and food on the table?

I know the mechanics of the Democrats, So what’s your point David, Reid had to buy their votes like he did Nelson and the Senator from Louisana along with Obama kissing butt with the unions. The point is they had a majority and couldn’t get anything done not even buy buying the votes. Yet you all blame republicans because your progressives or liberals whatever you want to call them tried to ram through a bill a majority of people didn’t want a majority even a liberal Democrat state like Mass. even said screw you at least the independents of Mass. The peole of this country have had enough of the BS from DC, even Obama realizes that somewhat. The real point is the Reps in DC from both parties have to start acting like adults instead of little kids and quit their pouting when someone disagrees with them and quit with the blame game. That includes the blogers here and myself.

There it is again, Americans are just unable to understand the greatness of all that is Obama…

What is there about Schizophrenia that we don’t understand exactly?

http://www.city-journal.org/2010/eon0129mkb.html

My god did Obama embarrass the republicans today. I don’t even think it was his intent. It was pathetic to watch republicans say that they have all of these great ideas for health care. Really?? If they have had these great ideas, why didn’t they push forward with them when they were in power?

Regardless if you are a republican or democrat, it was clear today that the man currently holding the office of president is the right man for the job at this time.

Rhinehold,

What is there about Schizophrenia that we don’t understand exactly?

Perhaps a complete ignorance of what Schizophrenia is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

But thanks for the completely non-partisan sarcasm that you never do.

DR
HC reform bills did pass both houses.The votes were and are there except for the arcane and undemocratic Senate rules that allow the tyranny of the minority. To my thinking, the House should pass the Senate version and work on reconcilliation through that process, avoiding the filibuster. The differences are not that great and getting the proposal into effect will disprove the Rep lies and distortions. I prefer the House version. For one thing provisions go into effect sooner but as you point out, the reality is that with current Senate rules there is zero chance that a reconcialed bill would ever get through the Senate again. At least we would have something to build on.

DR
Gee..I should also add a little point. Pushing the bill through would also provide health care, a point that sometimes gets forgotten.

bills said: “The votes were and are there except for the arcane and undemocratic Senate rules…”

Well, bills, just goes to show how STUPID and GREEDY Politicians can be for power. It clouds their judgment. The time to change the rules from 60 votes to 55 or 51, was when Democrats HAD 58 votes and two independents to support it.

Problem is: Lieberman WOULD NOT GO ALONG.

ERGO: They DID NOT HAVE THE VOTES, bills.

Any thing else is JUST SPIN and partisan posturing.

KAP said: “I know the mechanics of the Democrats, So what’s your point David, Reid had to buy their votes like he did Nelson and the Senator from Louisana along with Obama kissing butt with the unions. The point is they had a majority and couldn’t get anything done not even buy buying the votes.”

Yes, the Senate Majority Leader had to wheel and deal to get what votes he could. That is true of every Senate Leader since our government began. Yes, they had a majority.

No. That is not the point. The point was your inaccurate statement that they had 60 Democratic votes in the Senate to beat any filibuster.

I believe Democrats entirely missed the boat by not opening the new year’s session with a vote to drop the supermajority requirement from 60 to 55. Now they don’t have the votes to do that. Politically Dumb!

Obama didn’t kiss anyone’s butt on the HC reform. He wasn’t in charge of crafting the bill or passing it. As for his being pro-union, why is that any different than the GOP being anti-union? That is a political value each party has adopted. It does not constitute kissing butt, it constitutes representing the interests of a portion of the citizenry, which is in part, what democracy is all about.

KAP, your following statement is fallacious: “Yet you all blame republicans because your progressives or liberals whatever you want to call them tried to ram through a bill a majority of people didn’t want a majority even a liberal Democrat state like Mass. even said screw you at least the independents of Mass.”

Republicans did vote against Health Care Reform, to a person. That is a fact on record. Reality requires no blame. It is what it is. Democrats did not have the votes to get it passed as it stood. As for the American people, poll after poll demonstrated the American people were very confused as to just what the Bills entailed. Thanks to the misinformation campaign launched by Republicans and the Insurance industry, which Obama addressed yesterday in a devastating dialogue with House Republicans.

Clearly, House Republicans have to be regretting having invited Obama to their conference. Obama spoke the truth about the politics that were played with the HC bill, and it left Republicans looking the role of Snidely Whiplash dressed in Black, Whip in Hand, standing over the damsel in distress, which is our nation and economy going forward.

KAP said: “The real point is the Reps in DC from both parties have to start acting like adults instead of little kids and quit their pouting when someone disagrees with them and quit with the blame game. That includes the blogers here and myself.”

YES! We agree entirely on this. And this was the redressing point Obama drove home at the Republican House conference, yesterday, which the media covered in excerpts nearly all day, much to Republican’s chagrin. And as Obama pointed out yesterday, his own party is equally guilty.

Obama gets it. We can play politics, or we can solve American problems. Trying to do both at the same time is damaging our nation’s and people’s futures, in enormous ways. Obama rightly pointed out that the Minority Party has a place at the table of solutions negotiation, but, as the Minority Party, they must accept that their agenda must yield to solutions if they are to govern as representatives, or else carry the burden of obstructionists to solutions, undermining the nation and her people.

Truer words have ne’er been spoke.

DRR
What is the problem with one party disagreeing with the other? Republicans didn’t like the Democrats version and neither did a majority of the citizens in this country. Yet you and all the rest of liberals say it obstruction. Obama made his points yesterday and so did the Republicans. But then again we heard Pelosi’s comments which totaly negate the possibilty of negotiating. These are the things that are hurting this country when one party gets almost total control and has the attitude it’s my way or the highway then we have a problem. I’m looking forward to the midterms this year, I bet it’s going to be a real circus.

Sorry you don’t like my presenting an alternative view into the psyche of the president, gergle, I realize you never once presented any kind of similar view on the last president so it was obviously out of line…

Maybe actually read the link before acting as if you think you know what it said?

David, let me see if I have captured the essence of your belief. It is almost a universal truth that there is no such thing as working to be poor and that the poor should just be grateful that they have a government that cares so much about them.

I don’t think there are very many universal truths or very much of anything that is considered universal. As a matter of fact, I think there is only one thing that is considered universal, mathmatics. Even God is not a universal truth.

The fact remains that there are a few million in this country who work and who are poor. You should brush up on the welfare laws because many of those who work receive government assistance, why? because they are working and they are poor.

I guess that one could argue that the low income workers have government enforced wages that are more than generous and that if the low income workers weren’t so ignorant and stupid they could manage their wages and not be poor and not be in need of furthur government assistance.

Perhaps it would be best if God were to rapture all the poor in the world, including those who work, to heaven, hell or wherever and lift the great burden off the government and the Middle Class’s back.

I watched yesterday as Obama tried to give the Republicans a lesson in logic.

I also watched him say he couldn’t understand why the Republicans were rejecting the Senate health care bill because it was esentially a Republican bill and contained nearly everything that the Republicans wanted back in the 90’s when Clinton was trying to get a bill.

The Democrats had a health care bill and they couldn’t get it passed. So this time the Democrats offer up a Republican health care bill and they couldn’t get it passed either.

I would like to continue from another post. Obama produced three principles that he needed in a health care bill to the legislature saying, it is the legislatures job to produce a bill and it is my job to sign or veto that bill.

Is this basically correct? I hope so because that is basically what happened but, it is not all that happened. Obama did not stick to his word. He interfered and he instigated.

First there was PHARMA. Next, he did what I said he would do back before he did it. He went to the House and cajoled the progressives, in the name of party unity to abandon single payer so they could get health care reform passed. Let’s pass this and we will fix it later. Classic.

Obama went back to the House to get them to drop coverage for illegal immigrants. He said the illegal immigrants will be covered in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill.

The Senate committee passed a version that got one Republican vote. It was assumed that if the bill went to the floor for a vote it would get at least that one Republican vote. Many Democratic Senators rejected the plan.

The Senate produced a second bill, one that contained the Lieberman buy into Medicare proposal. That very same day, the Administration let it be known that it prefered the version with one Republican vote, bipartisanship. Within a day or two, Leiberman announced he would fillibuster the plan with his proposal. Obama sided with Lieberman. The House was enraged, they have no confidence in the multi-millionaires club and they have lost their trust in Obama.

After the victory by Brown, the House was the first to announce that there would be no health care bill.

IMO, the SOTU was addressed to the House Democrats as much as anyone else. The message was the same as the time he went to the House to cajole the progressives.

Rhinehold,

Nope, I never once called Bush schizophrenic. What you said was rather obvious, as was my sarcastic response.

My point being that you like to pretend in your posts that you are simply offering counterpoint, but you aren’t. You offer a consistent position of antagonism with Obama. You are free here to cite your positive articles regarding Obama.

The article you refer to misuses the word schizophrenic, to describe some form of perceived inconsistency, which of course has zero to do with the term. Your question accepts the ignorant use of this word. I’m ignoring the psycho babble nonsense of the article itself, since it really isn’t even worthy of response.

To put it bluntly, the title of this hatchet piece may as well have been, “Obama is really an angry crazy nigger, inside.” Of course, we all know that Nixon was nuts (sarcasm). That’s why he is still seen as a foreign policy mensch. I think this piece is much more revealing about the personal issues of the author than anything else.

What use is this diatribe, other than a personal attack? None.

I don’t mind you attacking Obama, but at least say something approaching intelligent commentary. You are capable of much better posts.

What use is this diatribe, other than a personal attack?

An honest assessment concerning why Obama thinks he can get away with saying one thing and doing/meaning another when he feels confident enough to get away with it. As the beginning of the piece says:

Cyril Connolly once said that imprisoned in every fat man was a thin one wildly signaling to be let out. A similar drama has for some time been unfolding in the mind of President Barack Obama. Outwardly, the president seems a cool and commonsensical pragmatist, a dispassionate lawyer with a no-nonsense approach to solving problems. But another, very different character writhes passionately just beneath the surface of the president’s consciousness. This is the messianic dreamer of the social millennium, the prophet of the moment when “the perfection begins”—an intoxicated visionary who signals frantically to be released from bondage.

Now, does the author confuse this with dissociative identity disorder? Probably, though there is some aspects of the behavior that Obama is presenting that hints at some of bits an pieces of a large swath of symptoms that is Schizophrenia.

But it explains much without going into the darker thoughts that perhaps Narcissism is at play, or just an obvious political ploy that he is hoping will all convince people isn’t there until after he is out of office and the results of what he is trying to do come to fruition.

I personally don’t think that, I think that he genuinely believes that he can do all of the things he says he can do, many at odds with others, without creating even more problems and the erosion of the ideals of liberty that this country is the foundation of to the point that the house falls in upon itself. That leads us to consider a personality disorder that may be directing him towards those behaviors. Much the same way that Nixon’s personality disorders resulted in his deep seated fear of the media and his ‘enemies’ ganging up on him.

I’m sorry that you have a problem with trying to work out these things, gergle… And obviously you never said anything negative like that against Bush and his mental state/prowess/abilities. Never…

BTW, I have Obsessive/Compulsive disorder and Clinical Depression. That is just a reality of who I am, it doesn’t make me a bad or good person because of it, in fact I think it helps me do what I do well very well. But I am not going to try to pretend that I don’t have these ‘disorders’, it doesn’t mean that Obama is a bad person or unqualified to be president if he does as well, but knowing the driving forces behind some of the more … well, confused thinking that he presents helps predict where he may go next and what is a well thought out plan compared to a deep seated need that he can’t help but play out through his position…

What’s worse is when normally intelligent people buy into the ‘pragmatic sensibilities’ and ignore the inconsistencies bubbling under the surface that have presented themselves in many times over the course if the past couple of years.

That could be a whole other path of study in itself…

You offer a consistent position of antagonism with Obama.

It is most likely that his view of the world and mine are in diametrically opposed states. He sees the government as the means to solve all of the world’s ills and I see the government as, more often than not, the CAUSE of all of the world’s ills. It is therefore very obvious that I am going to find little common ground.

Having said that, I find a lot of common ground on many of the things he SAYS. That’s the real problem, isn’t it? The difference between what he says to convince people to follow his path and the result of his actions, which belie a completely different world view.

The article you refer to misuses the word schizophrenic, to describe some form of perceived inconsistency, which of course has zero to do with the term.

The article makes a common error in including dissociative identity disorder in with what we now know as Schizophrenia, something that wasn’t always so clear cut. It is a phrase that most people use in this regard because of the layman’s knowledge of such things. Is your problem that I did not ‘correct’ this common error? Does it change, in any way, the entirety of the post beyond that one often displayed mis-attribution of the term?

I’m ignoring the psycho babble nonsense of the article itself, since it really isn’t even worthy of response.

You’re free to do so. And, having pointed out that the term was misued by the article, I’m sure that there should be no further disagreement between us on my comment then, right?

To put it bluntly, the title of this hatchet piece may as well have been, “Obama is really an angry crazy nigger, inside.”

Bluntly? No, more like ignorantly racist… I guess I’m not surprised in you going there and not only bringing race into the equation (again) but also calling people with personality disorders ‘crazy’.

That’s an awful lot of hate in your ‘view’ of an examination of inconsistencies…

Rhinehold,

First, thank you for a reasoned response. I was fearful I would get something else.

I generally don’t buy into the psycho babble about George W Bush being a dry drunk, or even the child appeasing his “daddy”. I’m sure though that I have been guilty of using this kind of rhetoric, in making arguments against his policies. My having been wrong doesn’t make this post right. I tend to think of him as a privileged socialite who was also a political opportunist.

It isn’t that I can’t “work these things out” or see the linkages, it simply isn’t analysis, in my opinion. It is speculation without intimate knowledge of the man, and usually more about projection. That is exactly why I used the term psycho babble.

All people have inconsistencies in their psyches. That doesn’t make them mentally ill, schizoid, or, as it obvious you well understand the meaning of, schizophrenia.

People close to Nixon, have speculated about his personal issues, including Kissinger. I have no idea about his mental health, but Watergate wasn’t about Nixon pursuing an enemies list, it was about a poorly executed cover-up. I don’t know of any successful politician that isn’t aware of his “enemies”. It is naive to think otherwise. Nixon’s policies did not reveal to me any psychotic breaks.

The tired old talking points of Obama the socialist or radical is simply more stupid rhetoric. His moderate record is plain to see.

This brings us to the use of inflammatory language. Both you and the author of this article were likely not ignorant of the word schizophrenic’s meaning. Why was it chosen? To demean the President?

Psycho babble, anyone?

Bluntly? No, more like ignorantly racist… I guess I’m not surprised in you going there and not only bringing race into the equation (again) but also calling people with personality disorders ‘crazy’.

I agree. Which is why I pointed out the author’s ignorant racist remarks. I am surprised by your moderate tone, but not surprised you blamed me for pointing out racism introduced by the author in the article you chose. It was entirely MY fault. I simply chose to peel back the phony tone of rationality on a completely racist undertone. Did I use racist words to expose this? Yup.

I did call crazy crazy, and racist racist. If that is hate filled, well then I guess I do hate haters.

At least I didn’t call anyone schizophrenic while claiming it a common error…I mean that would be crazy…or maybe schizo…I mean..ah, hell with it. :)

BTW, I am nuts, but so far, undiagnosed.

Rhinehold,

I have used Alzheimer’s to talk about Ronald Reagan, which of course, he DID have. The truth is though that I never considered Reagan a hands on President. He was a figure head. It was his ‘style’ of management. He could have believed in psychics (apparently Nancy did)and his handlers would have still set policy.

This sadly is part of the problem of the Republican Party.

George H.W. Bush was a hands on president.

W. wasn’t. He was another figure head. Sarah Palin, and to a lesser extent, John McCain were set to be figure heads, but someone who could talk and chew gum came along, other than Hilary.

DR the votes I was refering to are the votes that move the HC bill through the Senate. It passed,remember. Re: filibuster. Did you read the link about Udall’s move to use the Constituion to modify the rules in the next session?

If BHO does not get the HC reform passage passed then he runs the real risk of becomming a caretaker president. Even now, the new jobs bill may not pass and it is paltry compared to the actual need . How will he possibly solve other problems like energy,education? Yes,he is smart. Yes he is well spoken and thoughtful. We knew that. Now he needs to start showing leadership.

bills, a bill passed the Senate designated to go to Conference Committee, whereupon, differences would be resolved with the House bill. It would then have to pass the Senate again. HC reform has not passed, or it would be on the Pres.’s desk to be signed into law or vetoed. It’s not a minor difference.

The Constitution does not address filibuster supermajorities vs. simple majority. That is an internal Senate matter, as I understand it.

It was NEVER Obama’s job nor in his power to pass any legislative bill. The Executive’s role is to endorse or veto, and execute laws signed into law. The HC reform bill is not Obama’s to create, or pass. That is the Congress’ responsibility. Why is that simple matter in the Constitution so very hard for Americans to understand and accept? Must be our education system failing to teach even the basics of American government.

When you say, Obama needs to show leadership, in context of your comment, you seem to be saying Obama needs to make HC reform happen. That was never, ever, in his power or his responsibility to accomplish. In a dictatorship, yes. That is not the structure of our government.

jlw said: “The fact remains that there are a few million in this country who work and who are poor.”

That is a fact. But, that they are working in order to remain poor, as your comment implied, is utter nonsense. People work to stay alive and live. And yes, I know folks who are completely broke as a result of being laid off by this Great Recession, and one of them is enormously grateful for a government that cares enough to extend her unemployment benefits, and provide her Medicare assistance for her health issue.

Also, facts. It is generally true, that when people receive assistance they need to prevent suffering, they are grateful. Your mileage may very, but, it is generally true, nonetheless.

Just as it is safe to say more Texans would be appreciative of the Stimulus Spending if the Republican run State Government would post signs on the many Stimulus bill road and bridge improvement projects taking place indicating those projects are funded by the Stimulus Bill. But, no one knows they are Stimulus bill projects and the Texans employed on those projects are employed by the Stimulus bill, and the improvements to the roads are made by the Stimulus bill.

All this is true and factual as well. I have a project which has been ongoing for 5 months now on the road in front of our homestead. I inquired of TxDOT why, after being told by the work crew members that this was a Stimulus bill project, there were no signs indicating this. The answer was simply, we chose not to put them in place.

Now, it is conjecture that the reason these projects are not advertised to the public in Texas is purely political. But, one could argue, I suppose, that of the multi-10’s of millions of federal stimulus bill dollars going to Tx. Roads, the cost of erecting such public information signs, commonplace elsewhere in the nation, would be too expensive. I call that hogwash.

KAP said: “Republicans didn’t like the Democrats version and neither did a majority of the citizens in this country. “

First, the majority of Americans didn’t know or understand what was in the bill(s) for all the ugly misinformation about them.

Second, THERE IS NOT BILL EVER PASSED that is not opposed by some minority, or another. That is no reason or excuse not to pass them. If we let every peacenik, veto budgets for the military, where would America be? Think about it.

Our Constitution guarantees minorities the right of political speech and representation, NOT the right to govern, nor to prevent the majority from governing, even as the minority opposes such governance. If it did, America would not have lasted 2 decades, let alone 2 centuries.

The minority party has a right to be heard in our legislative process, but, to allow a minority to block majority legislative efforts, is a prescription for disaster, or authoritarian government. America MUST reform health care in order to remain solvent.

No proposal can be fashioned which will receive universal approval. Ergo, allowing a minority in Congress to block health care reform, is injurious to nation’s future economic health and sustainability.

It just doesn’t get more logical or straight forward than this. Pass HC reform, or, our nation will bankrupt under ever growing entitlement mandates. And I assure you, and the polls reflect this, doing away with entitlements is vastly more political difficult than passing this HC reform legislation.

I would ask the board if there is a general disappointment over the character and integrity of this administration’s “staff”. Why is it that I am intelletually perked up when I listen to someone on Bill Moyers show much more than any David Axelrods they throw at us? I was hoping Obama would seek the counsel of the brightest brains we have on various issues. Instead I see a fraternity type endorsement given to Timmy when the WHOLE country has him on their watchlist. I feel Obama is a good man. But I also beleive the most direct path to sensiblity comes from the fringe(not the extreme but off the mainline).

Remer
Yes we need reform but a majority of the people in this country DO NOT WANT THE VERSION THAT CONGRESS CAME UP WITH. How hard is that for Democrats and you to understand. I don’t need a civics lesson either.

KAP, the American people will want the Republican version, EVEN LESS, since, it does NOT insure a great many of those who are uninsured, calls for the honor system of Insurance companies to become competitive across state lines (no government enforcement of competition), would deny nearly ALL patients and their families the right to sue for wrongful death or malpractice which accounts for more than 40,000 deaths now, and some 90,000 negative health consequences as a result of malpractice (that’s a conservative estimate), and does nothing to mandate or fund the data sharing technologies which would dramatically reduce duplicative and unnecessary repetitive procedures costing 100’s of millions if not billions, each year.

That’s the RUB, KAP. All of the American people are not going to want ANY health care reform politicians come up with. The Democrats are the majority party. If HC reform is going to pass, it will be on their watch. If it doesn’t, Democrats will not allow it to pass under a Republican majority, if that is even possible in the foreseeable future.

So, if not now, WHEN, KAP. Waiting for a perfect bill which all Americans can approve of, WILL NEVER arrive. And our economic future worsens with every year we don’t have HC reform.

There are political realities which most Americans don’t understand, or if they do, reject since, those realities won’t get their version passed. Everyone knows the Americans you refer to are NOT a monolithic block as your comment suggests, and that the Independents are split between those who want FREE health care reform, and those who are willing to see it paid for today so we can save much more tomorrow. Then there are the Democrats, 80+ percent of whom support a Democrat HC reform, and the Republicans, 80% of whom support the GOP plan which has barely any numbers associated with it, at all, for comparison or credibility. In other words, the GOP and Insurance industry did a very good job with their misinformation and lying campaigns confusing the hell out of the independents, and depriving the ENTIRE nation of a solution to dramatically rising health care costs in the long run.

I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one who gets frustrated seeing bills get written that are the size of ‘Gone With the Wind’ and the HC versions have been guilty of this as well. Does it really need to be so complicated? Taking a simplistic look at the economics of healthcare it seems to me th fall some what like this: Expenses for HC are education, insurance(malpractise), equipment, supplies, employees(all their associated costs), building maintenance, licensing, legal fees, etc. Some one has to pay to make these practises break even and even make a profit. That has to come from those who use the services, grants, donations and the like. Seems kind of uneven between outlay and income sources. So where do the changes get made that will benefit the most people without jeopardizing the quality of care? I don’t think it should be a government problem or solution. I think costs savings could come from lowering education/licensing costs, putting limits on malpractise lawsuits hense lowering insurance cost and no more free rides no matter what your residential status is. If you can not pay in legal tender than you should have to work off the amount owed as a staff volunteer at that medical facility. That alone may save a tremendous amount of temp hires that these folks could easily take care of. It would also give that individual work experience that may pay off in a better job in the future. This becomes a win-win type situation. This kind of thing doesn’t need a gov’t nightmare to dictate just some good managerial thinking and resourcefulness.

Scott, Obama has some of the brightest people available. Doesn’t mean they are unbiased, nor conditioned to thing and believe in a certain way by their professional career experience.

Obama listened and followed Geithner and Summers UNTIL several months ago, when he gave them a real dressing down, you should see Obama’s expression in that meeting, he was very Angry for their ignoring of Main St. in their advice to save Wall St. Today, Obama is listening much more to Voelker who has no political or professional stake in the advice he offers, only a lifetime of experience and education in economics.

Voelker’s advice however, real and pragmatic as it is, will not go over well on prime time TV, I suspect, for the simple reason that their are no easy answers ANYMORE. The time for lower cost, preventative economic measures was 20 years ago, 15 years ago, 10 years ago, cost going up every year.

That time has passed along with the 5.65 Trillion in national debt that just got elevated to over 14 trillion in the coming 12 months. We have passed the inflection point where avoiding 20+ trillion in national debt is no longer possible, without a 50 to 100+ million Americans suffering in ways that are not politically acceptable.

Obama is quite aware of this, and spoke to this issue at the House Republicans conference, much to the chagrin and embarrassment of Republicans. I would bet dollars to donuts that Republicans will NOT invite Obama back for a televised and transparent dialogue of the nation’s ills and solutions. Obama face a couple hundred of them and their questions and jabs. One Obama against hundreds of Republicans, and Obama came out the TV as the clear champion of ideas, commander of the facts and figures, and face of reality in grasping how we got here, and how we can amend going forward. There are no free amendments.

That is where Obama dropped the bottom out of Republican’s proposals, pointing out to the American people that the Republican’s plans carry no costs. Which makes their plans completely outside the realm of reality.

Remer
Maybe it would be better if both parties got together and formulated a bill that we all could agree on or is that to much to ask of Democrats. Something simplistic like Kathryn suggested, that everyone could understand and not need a team of lawyers to explain it. We don’t need a 2000+ pages of legal nonsence.

And David I doubt if this country will go down the tubes because we don’t have HC reform by tomorrow. Like I said everyone wants reform but not what Pelosi and Co. are putting together. We all don’t need a bunch of law makers thinking they Know what’s best for us.

Thanks for your response David. I still gotta stick to my guns though . Damn tired of listening to political operatives all my life. Elizabeth Warren has tons of credibility. We the simple masses need these kind of personalities explaining things to us. I know when someone rocks me. I feel it in my gut. Too many lawyers and people who at one time probably ran for student counsel in my face trying to get in my head. I was encouraged to see Volker reemerge. Best to you. Scott

Thanks for your response David. I still gotta stick to my guns though . Damn tired of listening to political operatives all my life. Elizabeth Warren has tons of credibility. We the simple masses need these kind of personalities explaining things to us. I know when someone rocks me. I feel it in my gut. Too many lawyers and people who at one time probably ran for student counsel in my face trying to get in my head. I was encouraged to see Volker reemerge. Best to you. Scott

I thought I posted this already, but can’t find it.

It’s an interesting read on why voters vote against their own interest at times.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm?

KAP
“Maybe it would be better if both parties got together and formulated a bill that we all could agree on …”
Baucus spent months trying to get the Reps on his committee to agree to anything. Even with total Rep refusal to offer anything but worthless Rep boiler plate, the Dems crafted a very moderate plan bearing a close resemblance to the one that Rohmney implemented.
Complainning about how complex the proposal is is the talking point of the week. Of course its complicated. Its a complicated problem. You might peruse gergles link.

Bills - I went to the bbc link earlier and it does have some valid points. IMHO though the American people tend to over-think problems anymore instead of tackling them headon. I seldom see any one break down a problem into smaller ‘tasks’ to solve. We seem to want to fix the whole thing all at once - but that isn’t always feasible. Doesn’t it make more since to ‘fix’ the most cost prohibitted issues with HC or any other area first and work your way down? We have an excellent HC system - why ruin it for an insurance issue.

Kathryn
Problem is that the nearly 50 million Americans have limited access to the system and we are paying a good deal more than we should be with the cost raising above the inflation rate every year and threatening to bankrupt medicare. This is not good.These are not attributes of an “excellent system”. The Dem proposal in no way threatened to reduce quality . In fact it would have improved quality for millions,providing preventive care,streamlinning record keeping etc. However it is complicated. I just can’t think of any simplistic fables to explain the mechanics right now.I should go through my 5yo.’s nursury rhyme books. Let’s see,did Goldilocks have a pre-existing condition?

KAP said: “Maybe it would be better if both parties got together and formulated a bill that we all could agree on or is that to much to ask of Democrats.”

That would be better, and Obama has been making that overture for 2 years now. But, Republicans want no part of it. They decided on the day Obama was elected that the only reason for their existing as a minority party is to bring Obama and Democrats down. Doesn’t leave ANY room for bi-partisan legislation, and their voting record in both the House and Senate demonstrates this reality.

But, even if the GOP had change of heart and decided the way to improve their polling numbers is to lead the way realistically and productively toward bi-partisan solutions, the Progressive Majority is in no mood and lacks the mind set to compromise with Republicans. Hell, some of them in the House and Senate don’t even want to compromise with members of their own party.

Every member of Congress wants and believes they need to bring a piece of the federal budget home to their constituents and make inroads on ideological grounds with their base in their district, in order to get reelected. That is also a major, major political reality.

There is wishful thinking, and then there are the political realities on the ground, which have to be navigated. Kathryn’s sentiment is shared by a rising tide of independent voters, but, her view is a bit naive. In answer to her question, health care reform does have to be very complicated for the very reasons I cite above, and due to the fact that her wish is for Congress and the Political Parties to change their stripes from within.

The reality is, Congress and the political parties’ stripes were shaped by a history of party line voting by the public and voter apathy and disinterest. The only way the Congress and the parties are going to change their stripes is if enough voters first change their own stripes, adopting an anti-incumbent voting position for as long as it takes to force the Congress and parties to change their stripes and produce government those voters can approve of.

All blame to be assigned in a democracy ultimately has to be laid at the feet of the voters, and overcoming inertia to change in government process, structure, and results will only occur by unequivocal mandate from the voting public which denies incumbents their incumbency while such change is not forthcoming.

I see unmistakable signs that this very change in the voters is finally taking place in growing numbers. But, it will not occur in 1 or 2 elections. But, it can occur over 4 or 5 elections, in which the data from the elections make it abundantly clear to the Parties and incumbents that their chances of being reelected are clearly deteriorating as a result of continuing to do business as before. The 2006, 2008, and 2009 elections are a substantial down payment on this movement toward anti-incumbency which must presage the kind of change most Americans would like to see out of federal government.

We must work to insure the growth and organization of this anti-incumbent move, if we are serious about reforming federal government to act responsibly on behalf of the people’s and nation’s future, as their means to reelection.

To these ends, Vote Out Incumbents Democracy (VOID) was formed by and for voters demanding better federal government results. There are no other political action committees like VOID, though some folks use the ‘anti-incumbent’ word or message, VOID is registered and non-profit, and unconnected with any political party, or any other organization, and serves the interests of its voting supporters exclusively, regardless of party affiliation or political leanings, promoting the anti-incumbency strategy and organization of voters.

Then why David,ON NATIONAL TV, at the republican retreat, republican Reps asked the PRESIDENT why the ideas they sent to him and the congressional leadership were never answered. To me that is Democratic obstruction. So who is the lier, the President, congressional leadership, the media. Who David? You say you watch and listen to all the news programs did the Democrats miss something here. Or is the DEMOCRATS MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY BS.

KAP, you apparently tuned out Obama’s response.

Obama responded, 1) many of their ideas were included and accepted, 2) many of their ideas like a budget proposal, had NO NUMBERS associated with it and were useless except for political propaganda, and 3)when Republicans offer and idea like a bi-partisan commission to design a plan to end the deficits, and Democrats put that idea up for a vote, and 7 Republicans vote against it defeating the measure, it becomes obvious Republicans are not interested in solving the nation’s problems.

WOW, really can’t imagine how you missed that KAP, unless you are cherry-picking for the sake of argument, which nullifies your argument from the get-go. God gave us two ears so we could hear both sides of an argument or conversation, KAP. There are some excellent products on the market for removing ear wax build up in one’s Right or Left ear. :-)

Republicans truly embarrassed themselves in that televised Conference with Obama. They apparently believed their own propaganda about Obama and did not expect such a command performance by one of our nation’s most capable intellects to hold office in the White House. I can almost guarantee that Republicans will not host another such event with Obama to be televised.

David
You said “Obama responded many of the ideas were included and accepted” Then why all the Democrats saying Republicans never shared anything? Many of the Dem ideas in the HC bill, Dems said push it through we’ll fix it later. Budget proposals get them into commitee work out numbers there it didn’t even get to that point. Plans to end the deficits could it be that Democrats added something that the 7 republicans didn’t like we don’t hear things like that. Obama is a good saleman and could probably embarrass Einstein on his theory of relitivity but that doesn’t make it true. Or sell you ocean front property in Arizona.

KAP asked: “Then why all the Democrats saying Republicans never shared anything?”

You must be listening to GOP talking heads or conservative entertainment talk show hosts, because ALL the Democrats are NOT saying Republicans never shared anything.

In fact, many Democrats in the House were complaining about Republican amendments included in the Senate version of the HC reform bill.

The liberals have their own ignorant, or willfully deceitful talking heads in the media who make outrageously unsubstantiated and false claims as well, like the one you indicate.

But, that is neither here, nor there, and everywhere. Obama came to Republicans armed with relevant information and insights as to where we are as a nation, and the status of our politics, and where we must go if our nation’s future is to shaped in a fashion that we would want for ourselves and our children.

Some of his facts were slightly off, like reporting 1.3 trillion deficit upon entering the W.H., when the source I can find, CBO, indicates 1.2 Trillion. And one of his references to the year 2000 was off by one year, regarding the surplus and Bush’s deficits. But, these were minor and somewhat expected when one answers questions extemporaneously and unscripted while recalling an enormous amount of data and numbers.

The reality is, Republicans voted down the very measure and bill they proposed. 7 Republicans voted against it. If it passed, they wouldn’t be able to claim Democrats were shutting them out of the process.

Obviously, they were counting on Democrats shutting them down and accepting nothing from them. That is because, as Obama accurately said to them, they are believing their own propaganda instead of the reality before them and acting on the propaganda instead of the reality.

When Democrats wouldn’t play along, Republicans had to improvise, lying to their constituents that Democrats were shutting them out, and voting down the very bill they proposed in the first place for a commission on deficit reduction, and get this!, their public reason for voting down their own bill was because they didn’t like the Republicans who were going to represent them on the commission.

Republicans are still acting like the majority Party and still fuming that Democrats are also! That is what is taking place in reality. Not that it matters much. Democrats played the same kind of games and assumed many of the same postures and positions regarding legislation the last two years of Bush’s administration, which were dubbed, ‘The Do Nothing Congress’ years.

Politics have replaced governance. And more and more Americans are awakening to this reality and taking the only action they as voters can take, voting against the politician who is currently in office and therefore, partially responsible for this politics substituting for governance. They get it.

An anti-incumbent vote against their own representative is their ONLY way to effectively rebuke the results coming out of Congress. They can’t vote for or against other people’s representatives, only their own. Therein lies the power the change what is wrong in Congress and in the political parties.

Ok so what your saying is we would have the same problem no matter what party is in control and that David is where we would agree. IMO both parties are acting like little children and getting absolutly nothing done. Time to put the partisan BS to sleep.

KAP, yes, we agree entirely. I would however disagree on one point. The majority party reflects a plurality of the choice of the American people at election time, and the minority party reflects a minority. Even in a democratic republic, that should mean the majority party gets to govern and the people get to vote on that governance in the next election.

Republicans however as the minority party are abandoning all ethical, moral, and democratic standards in order to block the majority from governing, with the only exception being on the war in Afghanistan. That is NOT how our system was EVER supposed to function or work. And in fact, our system is NOT working as a direct result.

I am reminded of something a philosophy professor said in class one day. He said, if your opponent’s intentions (which can’t be proved) are so very bad, the only way to prove them bad is to allow them to enact those intentions.

If Republicans really believed Democrat’s legislation was going to be so injurious to the public’s welfare, and if they had a logical approach to their party’s future, they would permit the Democrats to have their way on HC reform, stimulus spending, etc. After all, the public will feel whether that legislation is helping or hurting them.

But, there’s the rub. By Republican’s own actions, it is clear they harbor the belief that the Democrat’s proposals WOULD become well received by the majority of the public, and therefore, they must do the illogical, and become the obstructionist party that can’t prove their claims against Democrats, and therefore, the GOP bears the costs associated with the Party that denies the people a functional government.

The Health Care reform bill, whether one agrees with its costs and objectives, or not, is a solution to many of the problems of our health care system. And a partial solution is better than no solution, like a life saving amputation of a limb is better than bleeding to death. This is just one example.

The Stimulus bill has only seen 1/3 of its money actually allocated into the economy so far, and every economic indicator supports the view that the economy has been stimulated. Republicans are well aware of this. There response like Boehner’s just 2 days ago, is to put forth a bald faced lie, that the Stimulus bill has failed. The exact opposite is in fact true.

The majority of the Stimulus bill will be spent this year, and therein, lies the confidence which Obama and some Democratic analysts carry that the 2010 elections will not produce the results the GOP anticipates.

At the moment, I agree with Obama’s likely assessment, that the economy will be looking vastly improved by Fall of this year and though unemployment may still hover around 9%, the public is going to be feeling far more confident about Democrats lead the latter part of this year, as a result.

The GOP’s credibility was sacrificed to fight this political ideological war with Democrats, and their credibility was going to be essential in reversing majority roles in November. The only option left for Republicans now, is to pull out all the stops in trying to destroy Democrat’s credibility. The problem is, they can’t control the economic data, and that is pointing across the board to an improving American and global economy. And so the credibility ammunition fired by Republicans will do a U turn and hit them square in the keester come November.

Democrats are going to lose seats for purely demographic and statistical reasons emboldened somewhat by a growing anti-incumbent sentiment. But, a reversal of majority roles in Congress, which is the only prize worth anything to the GOP, I don’t see as even remotely possible provided the economy continues to improve at this rate, and the unemployment drops below double digit numbers. Worse, for Republicans, is in the absence of another major terrorist attack before 2012, and a vastly improved economy and improving employment landscape, Obama gets his second term in office.

I am aware that my view is not shared by the majority of political pollsters and pundits out there today. But, those same political pollsters and pundits thought an anti-incumbent movement in this country was ridiculous in 2005, when I started up Vote Out Incumbents Democracy. Now, that can’t seem to use that word ‘anti-incumbent’ enough on TV and radio.

Some things are just obvious, for those who are capable and willing to take the blinders and biases out of the way of logical reasoning and squarely face the data and realities for what they are.

Of course, I have to add the caveat, political warfare is psychological warfare at its roots, and human psychology is always vulnerable to illogical and irrational fear based influences. So, predicting elections will always remain as tentative as predicting the next day’s stock market the night before, and for the same reasons.

So, my predictions, if you want to label them such, are, “all else being equal” predictions. Real life hates keeping all else equal, however. Hence, the caveat.

Bill-of those 50 million, how many do you suppose are illegal immigrants and feel they cannot get care without getting deported? Medicare is being so abused there are businesses having to pay back thousands of overcharges even when the fee agreement does not cover the actual cost. My reference to care is just that - the actual care you get at the facility. I am no stranger to the surgical unit by any means. I AM fortunate enough to have full coverage with the VA due to service connected issues. The HC proposal threatens quality simply by virtue of the number of medical personnel who would quit and/or be ‘fired’ due to over staffing or lack of funding. A computerized record system is good if the population remains mobile and has care at differing facilities otherwise it becomes a vunerability to yours, mine and everyone elses private/personal information. Hackers prove on a daily basis that no system is fully secured against them. Even as a single parent I ensured my children had preventitive care - medically and dental - even if we had to do without the ‘toys’ the rest of the neighborhood had. They came first, so if children are not getting care, the fault lies with the parent, not with the government. Every medical facility I have ever been in has had a sign posted on the wall stating that regardless of ability to pay, they can/will not turn anyone away who needs care. There are also churches and many non-profits that assist people as well.
Also your comment about ‘pre-existing conditions’ goes right back to what I was saying before about insurance. That is what needs to be fixed - it will bring down the cost, along with other over-priced procedures designed to ‘make-up’ for the losses due to medicare and non-payment from patients, among other things. So Bills/David - it isn’t a case of being Naive - I know the system is complicated - the solution doesn’t have to be. Try thinking outside of the box for a change, maybe a paradigm shift in management is what is needed instead of government meddling.

Kathryn, some of your comments are half baked and not well thought through.

First, Obama’s Budget, Sebelius announced today, contains healthy sums to go after and prosecute Medicare fraud and abuse of the system in an unprecedented fashion including new software designed for fraud detection. Democrats are serious about cutting the waste, fraud, and abuse out of the Medicare system.

Second, why would you think that the HC proposal, which would create increased demand on WELL CARE services, would threaten quality due to medical personnel who would quit and/or be ‘fired’ due to over staffing or lack of funding? Well Care which the HC proposal would promote would reduce in part the demand on health delivery systems over a given period of time, and why anyone be fired due to overstaffing with more Americans able to afford health and preventive care? Sorry, this is just not logical thinking.

In addition, Obama’s budget promotes education in the health care industry, which would provide for more health care professionals. Base is covered.

You said: “A computerized record system is good if the population remains mobile and has care at differing facilities otherwise it becomes a vunerability to yours, mine and everyone elses private/personal information.”

Pure nonsensical thinking and erroneous information. We have become a health care system of specialists. Gone are the days when a family all visited the same general practitioner for all their health care needs. If you have insurance, you go to a podiatrist for foot problems, a cardiologist for chest pains, and a dermatologist for skin rashes. You go to your GP for flu shots, general checkups and referrals to specialists which the GP can’t handle. So, the need for the computerized records is mandated by the billions in costs it will save in duplicative and repetitive procedures, as well as Rx medications coordination and overview which accounts for an enormous amount of preventable health care problems, as well as abuse.

As for security. What can I say? We do our banking on the internet, we do most of our purchasing on the internet, we manage our investments over the internet, pay our taxes online, and handle all our insurance needs over the internet. Have been for years, without compromising our financial well being, by following simple, logical steps to insure against mishaps. Are safeguards of private information flawless and incapable of being stolen? No. Perfection in cyber-security is not achievable. But, as a probability and statistics matter, medical records will be as safe as all other internet data exchanges including those of banks and the U.S. government.

This is a simple risk reward assessment. The risk of invasion of medical records will be low, and the savings to tax payers and all insurance rate payers, high. A no brainer.

You said: “They came first, so if children are not getting care, the fault lies with the parent…”

Pure right wing ignorant propaganda! There are over 15 million Americans thrown out of work by this Great Recession many of whom cannot afford health care for their children out of their own resources, and losing their job WAS NOT THEIR FAULT, by any stretch of the imagination. Chalk that up to the greed of the banking and mortgage industries and irresponsible politicians failing their duties in oversight and regulation, most conspicuously, Republicans from 2001 through 2008. Dum Dum Clinton didn’t help by signing the Republican Gramm Leach Bliley Act which many Democrats voted for at the time, as well.

You said: “There are also churches and many non-profits that assist people as well.”

That is true. But, non-profits have a fiduciary duty to assist the most people for every dollar of donation as they possibly can, which leaves folks in rural areas, Indian reservations, and Western States without the advantage of numerous non-profits capable of affording to provide free or low cost health care as are more likely found in large urban areas. This is precisely why the Elymosenary System (private charity system) failed in the 1930’s and has not been relied upon exclusively, ever since.

Thinking outside of the box, is not our problem, Kathryn. Being well informed however about our economic history and lessons learned is a problem in your comments, and accepting ideologically biased views bearing no reflection of reality is a major flaw in your argument when you attribute the fault to all parents for not being able to provide health care for their children. It not only ignores reality, but, the needs of the children, as well.

Reform is needed. That you got right.

However, HC reform is complex both politically, economically, and logistically. Reform cannot be free. And most people who cannot afford health care for their families out of their earnings are not in that situation due to faulty choices of their own. Dispense with these false notions and propaganda, and thinking outside the box might actually result in something useful being offered.

“Democrats are serious about talking about cutting the waste, fraud, and abuse out of the Medicare system. “

There, fixed your statement for you David.

No, Rhinehold. This Democratic President put forth the budget and legal mandate inherent within it to go after the waste fraud and abuse and actually fund the effort to make it work.

It is Republicans who talked about it, but wouldn’t fund the actual doing of it. If Obama’s budget passes, the measures to cut the WF&A will take place as proscribed by law and the budgetary allocations to enforce that law.

Thanks for the knee jerk conservative spin on an accurate statement, however.

Kathryn
How good it is that you have VA care. You do realize that that system is entirely socialist,much more so than anything being proposed by congress. There are mixed results but most people in it think the VA does a pretty good job and they do it much cheaper,largely because they negotiate drug prices and have consoladated record keeping.
I would have prefered a much simpler bill also. I would have liked to see about one sentence in the Medicare autorization changed to allow any American at whatever age to enroll. I would also have required Medicare to negotiate reasonable prices with providers. This would also reduce paperwork expenses dramatically. Yes we would have to pay for it. We are already paying for it and not getting a good deal.
BTW those un-insured Americans I mentioned are American citizens. Those numbers are rough. 45-50. I suspect they are increasing with the Republican Recession.

Bills - thanks for understanding what I am saying. I am well aware of the kind of system the VA is - I don’t have the option of walk-in care unless I drive about 2hrs to Togus. Unless it is a life threatening emergency they will not pay for any emergency room visits/walk-in care that is only 10miles away from where I live in Maine. Keep in mind this is a GOVERNMENT RUN medical system and what everyone else is in for. Since I have been unemployed for about 18months now, I don’t have any supplemental insurance.
David, I have been in the military ie government health care system most of my 47yrs and often because of the wait times to get in to see my PC doc I put off medical issues until my semi-annual appointments. This problem of wait times is only going to get worse - look how long and EXPENSIVE med schoos are. Most of the training I see being asked for in the career centers and help wanted ads are for administrative, lab techs, PCA, social workers and hurses. So how is this going to help with getting more people in to see the limited number of PA’s and Dr.s? Oh and yeah Maine is pretty rural as are those western and central states that I have also been to. I am not a hermit, there are only 2 US states I have not been in(RI,AZ) and 10 foreign countries that I have worked in. While this may not be as much worldly experience as some, it is more than most in my area.
David -while you still like to blame big biz, banks , etc. for everyones problems - how about a little personal responsability for their own actions. I would hope no mortgage writer actually took the hand of an individual and forced them to sign a contract that was iffy in the best of times. I almost did an ARM but smartened up at the last minuted and got a flat rate for my home. Its extremely tight making that mortgage right now but it is the first thing that gets paid - Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs ya know. Yeah the job market sucks right now. but you know what - it looks like a great time to start up a sole propietorship and be my own boss for a change. Might as well use some of the skills and interests I gathered over the years to good use. So intead of whining about poor me - I would much rather be pro-active and do something.