• -of the 16 Democrats who joined the GOP in voting against unemployment extensions in a suspension vote in July, all 16 either lost or are in serious danger of losing their recounts.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/04/dems-who-voted-against-un_n_778931.html

  • and more than 1/3 of the House Dems who voted against HCR got booted this election.

     

     

  • it was the conservative Blue Dogs that got slaughtered, not the liberals.

    % of House losses:
    Blue Dogs 45%, Progressives 5%

    % of members returning:
    Blue Dogs 46%, Progressives 95%

     

    For the first time ever, the Progressive Cacus is bigger than the Blue dogs and New Dems combined!

  • comment on a post Obama the neo-con over 3 years ago

    stuff like this is why the head of the ACLU said he's been "disgusted" by the Admin's actions re: civil rights

    One of the biggest dissapointments of Obama's time in office, for sure.

  • on a comment on [updated] "F-ing retards" over 3 years ago

    Ofcourse if there are better options for raising the money, then i'm all for it. But I havn't heard the alternatives.

    how about any of the ways they usually pay for things in Congress.

    yes, once again we have Vecy's patented "if the Administration did it, than that's all that could be done" thinking. of course, the out limits of the possible is defined by what they actually did.

  • on a comment on Obama the neo-con over 3 years ago

    well, he said that they are not torturing anymore.

    I realize that that's not a whole lot, but it is SOMETHING, since the previous administration actually seemed to embrace torture, while Obama either ended it (at best) or has just publically denounced it (at worst).

    Either way, that's something that is better than the previous admin.

     

  • comment on a post [updated] "F-ing retards" over 3 years ago

    My girlfriend (who works in a non-profit public interest law organization) has been upset that Michele Obama's new anti-obesity program might be taking money away from food stamps, even for children:

    WASHINGTON - In her campaign to reduce childhood obesity and improve school nutrition, Michelle Obama has become entangled in a fight with White House allies, including liberal Democrats and advocates for the poor.

    At issue is how to pay for additional spending on the school lunch program and other child nutrition projects eagerly sought by the White House. A bill that the House is expected to consider within days would come up with some of the money by cutting future food stamp benefits.

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=667836&f=77

    Michele Obama's program has been gettinga attacked by the likes of Glen Beck because of "socilism" or "fascism" or whatever fake outrage he usually comes up with.

    But those on the left who are paying attention don't like the way it is going because of what it may do to that crucial aid to impoverished children, amoung others.

    my grilfriend pointed out tonight that she doesn't like it for completely different reasons than the whack-jobs on the right hate it. But I told her, that's how it has seemed on EVERYTHING this administration has done. That's been the unifying theme of the Obama adminstration - the right comes up with false information and hates it, the left rightly dislikes it for it's timidity and incompetance.

    Moreover, my girlfriend pointed out that those pushing for this should know that it is endangering food stamps.

    Here's the thing, she's right, and we keep seeing "people who should know" (Dems) making these kinds of anti-progressive mistakes....at some point, one has to wonder if they want the same thing us progressives want.

     

     

  • further, the HCR bill that was signed into law depends on regulators holding the line against insurance rate increases (both with premium rates and the % that has to be spent on treatment).

    The bill provides power for regulators (in the case of the % spent on treatment, it's one regulator that has the power to change it). In other words, insurance companies can get those restrictions changed by telling regulators that they need them changed.

    Well, we are already seeing how that's working out:

    Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, the largest insurer in Connecticut, has already requested and received increases on individual market plans to cover the cost of new benefits mandated by the health care bill that start this year:

    • 4.8% increase related to the mandate about pre-existing conditions for children
    • up to 8.5% increases for mandated preventive care with no deductibles

    Aetna, one of the nation's largest health insurers, said the extra benefits forced it to seek rate increases for new individual plans of 5.4% to 7.4% in California and 5.5% to 6.8% in Nevada after Sept. 23. Similar steps are planned across the country, according to Aetna.

    Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon said the cost of providing additional benefits under the health law will account on average for 3.4 percentage points of a 17.1% premium rise for a small-employer health plan. It asked regulators last month to approve the increase.

    In Wisconsin and North Carolina, Celtic Insurance Co. says half of the 18% increase it is seeking comes from complying with health-law mandates.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLETopStories

     

  • 1) medicaid expansion is good, of course

    2) that doesn't make up for completely screwing the pooch when it comes to health care reform (giving for-profit insurance companies and even BIGGER role instead of a smaller one).

    Insurance companies are the problem (yes, there are a few other problems as well, but the insurance companies are the major one, imo) and HCR made the problem worse, not better, and squandered the chance to make it better.

  • *sigh*

    we've been through this many times before and it seems unlikely that we will agree about it now.

    but no, a law that enshrines a for-profit private industry as the centerpiece of our healthcare system, funneling vast amounts of taxpayer money to companies that routinely try to kill people for profit, is not progressive legislation.

  • he seems to be a lot bolder when it comes to mocking progressives though.

    did you see the newest rant by Obama where he mocks those of us who wanted a public option in the health care bill so we wouldn't be forced to give our money to the very industry who has been killing people for profit?

    http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/09/17/obama-mocks-public-option-supporters/

  • he seems to be a lot bolder when it comes to mocking progressives though.

    did you see the newest rant by Obama where he mocks those of us who wanted a public option in the health care bill so we wouldn't be forced to give our money to the very industry who has been killing people for profit?

    http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/09/17/obama-mocks-public-option-supporters/

  • I disagree.

    It's not the liberals who are giving it away. It's the centrists like Rahm-Summers-Geithner who have been pushing policies that make the Democrats look weak and inempt and who push for half-mesures that don't actually fix problems.

  • on a comment on Grasping over 3 years ago

    ehh, using Obama's approval numbers at the time he was sworn in seems a little silly to me.

    Surely there's a pretty large non-sustainable bump right at the beginning.

  • on a comment on GOP '12 hopefuls over 3 years ago

    uggg, "thing" not "think"

    I really need to start proofreading my comments before posting them.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads