honestly, I know they don't want to go there, but there is probably going to have be some sort of jobs program- i.e., people, employed by a WPA type of program, that are involved in doing work that will last for a set period of time- and will be public investments in america's infrastructure and culture.
The private sector is probably not going to be able to deliver on the jobs front in a real way for the next 5 years.
...they are negotiating for that pre-conference agreement, that they will be agreeing to vote for the final bill if it doesn't contain a public option. I know this can't be the case. So, who cares about what they are requesting?
this just sounds like a bunch of grandstanding that will come to nothing.
...because a fair number of democrats in washington really would have preferred that they did not have to deal with health care at all- it is mostly just a big bother to them.
and many are just generally upset with Obama because he is making them deal with it anyway. He has sort of boxed them in.
Of course the big issue is whether they are more concerned about making our nation better or just about winning elections. Some times these goals coincide; some times they do not. Obama has boxed the fence-sitters in on this now. If the bill does not pass, they will lose the mid-term election due to poor democratic turnout; if it does pass and the bill is unpopular, they will lose anyway.
The fence-sitters have never even entertained the notion that getting a good bill to pass might be a winning strategy.
...i do not want to relive the clinton presidency.
Truthfully, I think he was a good Democratic president that was stuck governing during a conservative economic era and so his lasting legacy is that he kept the crazy people from destroying everything from the New Deal and the Great Society.
And I thank him wholeheartedly for that.
The man had such great talents, but he could not take the job seriously enough to control his personal behavior.
I do not want to relive the dismantling of "welfare as we know it".
I do not want to relive "monica" and her dress.
I do not want to relive the health care debacle or "don't ask don't tell.
I do not want to relive the republican revolution or newt gingrich.
and I do not want to relive "I did not have sex with that woman".
yes, I would prefer to relive the era of progressive economic policies with FDR, JFK, and LBJ.
Bill Clinton was president, but it has been over now for almost a decade.
..that a Democratic bill that puts Bush in the position of wanting to veto it would be best both politically and practically.
But, no matter how much the public may want to punish the companies that have screwed the country, it will be very hard to both punish them and shore up the financial industry at the same time.
Republicans are disadvantaged on this issue because the public will punish them at the voting box if they are seen to be catering to the powerful and the wealthy- and almost any bill that addresses financial institutions will probably appear as a "bailout" of some sort.
Any solution will have to be Democratic bill that relies almost solely on Democratic votes. The main issue is timing- there just is a limited amount of time to both craft legislation and campaign for the november election.
You are not seriously suggesting that our government should do nothing, are you?
I can't think of a more risky scenario than just letting all the chips fall like they did in 1929.
And I do disagree with your notion that whatever bill might be passed will prevent further progressive legislation. In fact, history indicates that this crisis will probably provide an impetus for major progressive legislation.