Bill Moyers message for Obama re: health reform
Comments
-
Didn't you hear the NY Congressman who said last month that he doesn't care what his constituents want. He's going to vote as he sees fit.
no. he should do what he thinks is right.
And he is a Democrat.
Doesn't that piss you off?? -
dakotas way wrote: Just remember that politicians aren't in this for you. They're in it for themselves. Didn't you hear the NY Congressman who said last month that he doesn't care what his constituents want. He's going to vote as he sees fit.
That's what representative government is supposed to be about. This is a Republic, not a Democracy. They're not supposed to take a poll on every issue and vote according to the poll. They're supposed to let us know where they stand on the issues while running for office, and then do what they think is right once they get into office.
And he is a Democrat.
Doesn't that piss you off?? -
MeredithB wrote: If you want to think that the republicans would do any reform of anything except to help out the rich and powerful then you can keep your head in the sand. (wait, is that an insult, shit!)
Health care is a bipartisan failure. Nixon tried to pass universal health care and was opposed by both parties, Ted Kennedy was against it for years before he was for it.
At least Obama is doing something, pushing the envelope a bit.
Better then the status quo which has got us into this mess.
Just keep repeating FOIGM!
Health care is not a republican or democratic failure, it is both. Right now, Obama and a Democratic congress are the failures. I think the saying is, “the buck stops here.” As far as pushing the envelope, Obama hasn’t gotten anything done yet and even the health care reporter at the NY Times is calling health care reform a lost cause. And if Obama manages to get anything done on this issue, I will give him that credit. But at what cost? He came in an overwhelmingly popular president and is now stuck in the mud. I would love Obama to prove me wrong and be the best president in modern times, but he is off to some start. -
What pisses me off is that there are no term limits.
Yeah politicians are going to do whatever it is to be reelected. It's a sorry state of affairs. But until there is an uprising in this country of the have-not's and that means the people who are just getting by and have enough not to really complain or want change then nothing is going to happen.
Let's start here: stop paying federal taxes!
And noting will change as long as this country's motto is FOIGM! -
Subject: Re: Healthcare
dakotas way wrote: And they can't run the post office which is nearly bankrupt
I'll see your post office and raise you DrexelBurnhamMCIWorldComEnronCountrywideFinancialWashingtonMutuaBearStearnsLehmanBrosMerrillLynchCitibanklAIGFordChryslerGM, just for starters.
Now see, I didn't even have to say Madoff Securities or Stanford Financial Group. Okay, I just did.
This is not at all to say that private industry in general results in tales like the above.
Far from it.
Just to debunk the logic of using the post office as a means to debunk a health care initiative that has a much better direct comparison with the [extremely successful, btw] Medicare system.dakotas way wrote: and made a mess of the paperwork in Cash for Clunkers.
Oh really? Last I heard that program utterly SAVED the auto industry from further collapse at a time when absolutely no one wanted to buy cars
But I dunno, maybe the auto biz and all the supply chain companies and all the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) that they employ, and the government that receives taxes from their income instead of having to pay unemployment for a growing fraction of those) thinks it was an utter failure.
To each his own, I guess.dakotas way wrote: Do you truly believe it will be better cause it concerns your health records and life or death needs??
Yes, thank God. And yes, thank God.
You know, Virginia, there really is a Santa Claus. -
Nixon tried to pass universal health care? is that true?
-
mr. met wrote: Nixon tried to pass universal health care? is that true?
Absolutely. If I recall, I read that at Truth Dig, but it could have been somewhere else. -
ha, that IS true about Nixon.
-
mr. met wrote: ha, that IS true about Nixon.
well why wouldn't it be? -
well why wouldn't it be?
i doubted it initially because Nixon was a piece of shit -
Nixon was an exceedingly practical and smart president, even with his severe moral lapses. I wish someone with Nixon's convictions and smarts was trying to pass health care reform now. Instead, we are left with an amateur.
-
pokersloper wrote: Nixon was an exceedingly practical and smart president, even with his severe moral lapses. I wish someone with Nixon's convictions and smarts was trying to pass health care reform now. Instead, we are left with an amateur.
I love how the same people who got themselves worked up into a tizzy over Clinton getting a blowjob are willing to excuse someone who undermined the entire foundation of our government (the free democratic process). -
Carnivore wrote: [quote=pokersloper]Nixon was an exceedingly practical and smart president, even with his severe moral lapses. I wish someone with Nixon's convictions and smarts was trying to pass health care reform now. Instead, we are left with an amateur.
I love how the same people who got themselves worked up into a tizzy over Clinton getting a blowjob are willing to excuse someone who undermined the entire foundation of our government (the free democratic process).
Who exactly are these same people? I voted for B. Clinton twice, Hillary for senator, Gore for president, Bush the second time around...I know this is hard for New Yorkers to understand, but many people vote on issues, not on the basis of political parties. Nixon was a very fine president in many ways, and very corrupt in others, but simply casting aside because of Watergate or the war is to ignore all the good he did. -
As far as Clinton goes, I voted for him twice but think he should have resigned for lying in court. I work in the schools where lying is huge - children do it, teachers do it, supervisors do it, parents do it, it is a universal problem. But when a president lies in court, it is time to resign and let Gore take over.
-
but simply casting aside because of Watergate or the war is to ignore all the good he did.
so how would this line of thought go, exactly?
"Aside from the Vietnam and Watergate stuff..."
sorry, but that's kind of funny -
a president should not resign over a piece of ass
-
mr. met wrote: a president should not resign over a piece of ass
no, but he should resign for lying in court.
and to each his own, but she wansn't exactly what I would call a piece of ass. -
mr. met wrote:
yup.but simply casting aside because of Watergate or the war is to ignore all the good he did.
so how would this line of thought go, exactly?
"Aside from the Vietnam and Watergate stuff..." -
pokersloper wrote: [quote=mr. met]a president should not resign over a piece of ass
no, but he should resign for lying in court.
and to each his own, but she wansn't exactly what I would call a piece of ass.
Lying in response to a bullshit question that should never have been asked. What did it have to do with Whitewater again?
The Repugs kept that bullshit witch hunt running for years, constantly changing the focus, and they still never found anything. If the Bush administration had been subjected to that kind of scrutiny, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others would all be in jail right now. -
Subject: Re: Healthcare
MOD NOTE: fixed your quotes, as those were things you said, not others...jeffrey wrote: [quote=dakotas way]And they can't run the post office which is nearly bankrupt
"Just to debunk the logic of using the post office as a means to debunk a health care initiative that has a much better direct comparison with the [extremely successful, btw] Medicare system."
Really, you see something that has 80 BILLION a year in fraud successful?jeffrey wrote: [quote=dakotas way]and made a mess of the paperwork in Cash for Clunkers.
"Oh really? Last I heard that program utterly SAVED the auto industry from further collapse at a time when absolutely no one wanted to buy cars"
Again, really? Taxpayers are unlikely to recoup billions on the Gov't Motors and Chrysler bailout. When do we bail out the Cash for Clunkers participants who didn't have a car loan before and now can't pay? Can't ya hear Senator Frank saying there's no problem with the Cash for Clunkers program like he did with Frannie and Freddie. Where do people go now when they need to buy a used car since they can't afford a new one? Oh, all those good used cars were scrapped and those left are now unaffordable.
Do you know how much we spend on the War on Poverty which was started in 1964? One Trillion a year and it hasn't worked.
Fannie Mae 1938, broke
Freddie Mac 1970, broke
Social Security 1935, broke
USPS, broke
Yeah, let's have more Gov't in out lives.
OT, how do I get the ads on the right ( when I read the page) and on the left when I reply, to keep from blocking over 1/4 of the page.. -
Carnivore wrote: The Repugs kept that bullshit witch hunt running for years, constantly changing the focus, and they still never found anything. If the Bush administration had been subjected to that kind of scrutiny, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others would all be in jail right now.
ding ding ding ding
lying before congress about cheating on your wife pales in comparison to sending american soldiers to die in a war under false pretenses. (aluminum tubes, yellowcake, etc, etc.) -
eggcream, are you admitting here that in chasing the headlines from your talking points sources you can't even tell the difference between the Cash for Clunkers program and the auto industry companies' individual bailouts?
Er, wow. Or was that just a convenient conflation of issues.
One by one here:
1) The Cash for Clunkers program (a new, ad hoc and merely temporary emergency experiment, not a new long-term planned entity like a health insurance branch of govt) experienced a huge amount of demand that overran their ability to process paperwork in the short term. Are you saying that the government is not going to pay? Where is this reported? Once demand was established and known, are you saying that they extended the program with no intention of paying? What proof do you offer?
Absent any proof to the contrary, the huge economic benefits stand.
2) Yes, breaking news out today, of course it sucks that the auto companies have slipped by getting away with a good amount of opaque waste of their bailout funds. Just like the financial bailout.
So are you claiming that neither should have happened?
Seriously?eggcream wrote: Yeah, let's have more Gov't in out lives.
Shall I go back and post the litany of cases where corporate America has acted in its own interest, and not in the interest of the public?
I posted what is merely a tip-o-the-iceberg summary above, which already outguns your examples.
Sadly, I have neither the time to hunt down nor does this site have the space to include an unabridged list.
So I guess you'd rather have Blackwater (or is it Xe now, since they were forced to changed their name in shame, due to all the scandals) handling defense for this country instead of some unit of the government?
And marketing-savvy corporations our nation's education?
And private industry to manage our Interior and Environment?
C'mon, I thought the last few years finally put the "gov't = bad", "private sector = good" caveman/Tarzan argument to rest.
Surely you can do better than that. -
Do you know how much we spend on the War on Poverty which was started in 1964? One Trillion a year and it hasn't worked.
how do YOU suggest we help the 50 million people that don't have insurance? do you think they need help?
Fannie Mae 1938, broke
Freddie Mac 1970, broke
Social Security 1935, broke
USPS, broke
Yeah, let's have more Gov't in out lives. -
Thanks for fixing the quotes. When I previewed it, it didn't look correct.
I didn't know Clinton was disbarred for a piece of ass. -
"eggcream, are you admitting here that in chasing the headlines from your talking points sources you can't even tell the difference between the Cash for Clunkers program and the auto industry companies' individual bailouts?"
Um no, and where did I say that? I simply pointed out the failure of the auto bailout and the future failure of the cash for clunker programs.
"Are you saying that the government is not going to pay? Where is this reported? Once demand was established and known, are you saying that they extended the program with no intention of paying? What proof do you offer?"
Good lord, where did I say this, where did I say the gov't is not going to pay? Are you seeing words that aren't there? GM and Chrysler should never have been bailed out. Ford sales were up over GM's and Chrysler's. GM had a 19.9% Decline in car and light truck sales. Ford's was up 17% over last year. Next was Hyundai who had big sales in August.The boom is expected to be short lived. So, the Gov't tried to help GM with the Clash for Clunkers and it failed for them.
Funny how you skip over my gov't examples of destruction and failure and provide none to back up gov't. -
mr. met wrote:
It's NOT 50 million.Do you know how much we spend on the War on Poverty which was started in 1964? One Trillion a year and it hasn't worked.
how do YOU suggest we help the 50 million people that don't have insurance? do you think they need help?
Fannie Mae 1938, broke
Freddie Mac 1970, broke
Social Security 1935, broke
USPS, broke
Yeah, let's have more Gov't in out lives.
Time to watch President Obama fire up the telepromter for yet this 112th speech on Obamacare. -
cash for clunkers failed?
-
sorry. 40 million? 45? why don't you answer the question?
-
pokersloper wrote: [quote=mr. met]Nixon tried to pass universal health care? is that true?
Absolutely. If I recall, I read that at Truth Dig, but it could have been somewhere else.
Nixon's plan, opposed by Ted Kennedy, does seem to have been preferable to and more comprehensive than Obama's:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/opinion/31krugman.html -
i like how no republicans would stand when obama said that the idea of death panels is a lie
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds