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

    Not sure Dean is an administrator and a desk job guy, but he was an excellent head of the DNC and Rahm Emmanuel is on his way out. I vote Obama reach out to Dean in this election cycle and make another "elizabeth warren" class appointment.  It would be a huge step forward for him.

    Instantly energize everyone who got him there in 2008.

    What do you think?

     

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

    How much of this is manufactured consent.  I for one have a good business, I sold my home when the Obama homeowners credit went through. Made 75k.

     

    I've got a shot at my longtime un-insurable wife, who had a stroke - to be able to get coverage. Thanks to the only reform that has ever passed in 40 years thanks to the man.

    And the economy is in total recovery right now.  The CBER is the authoritative word on it. The recession is and has been officially over not according to some empty headed TV personality but rather a panel of economists.  The stock market has roared back to life, gaining almost 2,000 points. My portfolios look great.

     

    Sorry. I call bullshit on the people who just keep repeating the same old thing about how bad of a prez Obama is.

    Unless, of course, you factor in all those people who are going to get paid out of some shadow entity to post wherever they can the same messages over and over again. And hope they don't get caught rigging the game, just like their Bush Republican predecessors.

     

    Ok. It's Friday Night. I'm going to go party. Peace.

     

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

    No, the approval for Bush was the only other president that got as low as Hoover. Also, its important to note that Bush Republicans caused the toxic mess that Obama cleaned up.

    So. Just no.

     

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

    No. You're wrong.

  • comment on a post The Plastic Baby Effect over 3 years ago

    When you have taxes that have, basically since 1970 - risen about 20 percent over what it was we were paying then - thanks to progressive taxation - you have an enormous federal budget each year that is dedicated to alot of different things - and not alot of them benefit us.

     

    So, putting the speed of money into this equation, you have a justification on the outset that if we go down the road to National Health, we'll end up with our taxes raised.  But in fact, they've already been raised and alot of the money is just getting wasted.

    I want to be able to do Alan Grayson's bill - which said , we can buy in, cash, to medicare. Then, regardless of the size of the large insurance company oligopoly - I will have a fair alternative out there in price structure, and benefits.  Alot of doctors already accept it - the only thing that's going on with changing the law is to simply remove a provision that disallows people of a certain age , and to scale up the infrastructure already in place based on new and incoming receipts.

    And then it's highly conceivable we could have a tax situation where we are taxed less, and the economy is alot stronger.  The other companies who are raising our rates like this are practicing taxation without representation.

    Who wouldn't want to throw the democrats out? The big insurance companies are already raising their rates - and Americans see this as fixed expenses they can't afford to do without. They're tired of getting screwed.

     

    If you have any time at all, view this clip. It's Elizabeth Warren discussing the financial state of the middle class.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A&feature=player_embedded

    At 18, 21:00  and 31:00 she makes explicit reference to the healthcare problem and how it affects the state of the middle class.

    We have to make a decision as to whether or not we want a government that actually responds to us or just listens to guys like those insurance companies you were talking about.

     

  • comment on a post The Plastic Baby Effect over 3 years ago

    Do you think an HMO doctor would allow it to be covered?

     

    This battle means alot to me. The insurance companies are still ripping us off.

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

    Obama is and was a very good president, a huge upgrade from the Bush Administration and his presidency is on track to become historic.

    Step back for a second and gather in the magnitude of the global crash of 2008  - this was the worst financial crisis in 75 years, and it shocked the entire market with a toxin level unheard of in everyone's memory - huge banks collapsed and folded, and disappeared overnight. Not just big. Huge. Trillions of dollars evaporated.

     

    It's been 18 months. The housing market just ticked up 8 points, the economic recovery took hold and the financial markets are stable.

     

    Americans are taking way too much on - their fixed expenses are almost 75% of a two - income family take home, and they just don't have any safety net anymore. The GOP gets traction on the whole "obama sucks" riff simply because things are so bad for most families -

     

    Why? Unprecedented control of American institutions by corporation.  Healthcare, for me, was always the best example of how this goes so incredibly wrong.

     

    In the past, if someone got sick - there was a partner at home that could enter the work force. Families had, perhaps - half of their income freed from fixed expenses. Taxes were 20 percent less than they are today - all adjusted for inflation.

    Today, if a child gets sick, the wife or mother may lose her job - taking care of the child. The insurance won't cover it.  And they just can't afford the base expenses.

    But the banks have been cranking up their profit, and sucking new graduates from the universities into the cottage industry of creating new financial vehicles and stock market scams - and then leveraging all of that money through lobbyists to keep the American institution of governance on track to give them free , unaccounted for cash like TARP -

     

    Obama did alot right. He made a mistake when he appointed Emmanuel Rahm - and when he tried to appoint lobbyists into positions of power. Some of his appointments were just bizarre, in fact.

     

    But when he went after Elizabeth Warren, and overall -what he has accomplished - in 18 short months after eight years of the most corrupt republican administration ever - we're looking at a guy we want to keep around.

     

    Who is the leader of the Democratic party? I vote Alan Grayson.

     

  • on a comment on AMP summit panel I'm moderating over 3 years ago

    Thank you. :)

  • on a comment on Pew polls over 3 years ago

    It doesn't fit. The corrupt Democrats are the ones who pushed corporate healthcare reform guys like max baucus and joe lieberman. The progressives, that are hurting as a result of their obstructive tactics in committee -were NOT going for corporate healthcare reform.

    Its a misnomer to say that they were. The fact that it wound up being what it is, doesn't mean that's how it has to stay.

    One. Single. Four Page Bill. Passed by Alan Grayson and the entire project lights up as real reform.  Cash buy in to medicare.

    The house passes that, and the country has essentially - a national health service and the charge of corporate corruption and corporate reform, is lifted.

     

     

  • comment on a post AMP summit panel I'm moderating over 3 years ago

    The tools mean nothing if there is no energy. It's like starting a firewall in the desert against a blivon - you don't get any width on the band if there is no fuel or wind.

     

    Twitter is not a major technological innovation - neither is facebook.  I discount those two. IMHO its about the blogs -

     

    To light up the netroots, we need a list of the scumbags who gutted healthcare reform, and the people who ripped us off in the financial system deals - and we need to take guys like Alan Grayson to the top. Elizabeth Warren, also happens to be completely amazing.  There are others.

     

     

    But there is a leadership vaccuum - the president's job is not to do this - this is the legislature, not the executive.

     

    Once leadership and real connection is there -  the tech lights up. Palin does it on facebook because she gives them a reason to login.

     

    She's a hot chick on facebook that is your 'friend'.

     

  • comment on a post AMP summit panel I'm moderating over 3 years ago

    because Scott Brown ran against corporate healthcare and for real reform. The voters are voting the issues. They have the net, and they're using it and thats why the TEA party is so strong.

    The money that flowed into TEA party campaigns happened after the fact.  It's not about social media, that's just the latest buzz word. It's about real issues.

     

    So. Let's see. Panel discussion, talking about websites, why the dems are losing.... check... let's talk about twitter... check...

    Content. Zero.

     

     

  • comment on a post Pew polls over 3 years ago

    I find it interesting, one single, simple detail Jerome posted here tacitly - he used the term 'CORPORATE' healthcare reform.

    It was never supposed to be corporate healthcare reform, it was supposed to be healthcare reform with a national health service.

     

     

  • This person is just an individual donor, one of thousands. Barnes' campaign War Chest is deep. He's got alot of supporters from all over the state of Georgia. Long is not linked to Barnes in any meangingful way.

    The long answer is ,  that Barnes has not been aggressive in his campaign and in his approach in any way shape or form. He needs to embrace social media, the blogosphere, and he also needs to get out the vote - he needs to start hitting the demographics that line up with independents, and republicans.

    There's a secret to the southern strategy - that the GOP uses so well down in the south. Or I should say - has used - to completely demolish the democrats here. The democratic brand is tarnished here. And that is, that they like to identify their party as something cool -  it's identity politics. Which is why it's going to be so important to the GOP to try to identify all democrats in Georgia, as either black, or hippie. Or whatever. Anything they can do to brand the democrats. To identify them. Before the Democrats, identify themselves. That's huge on their priority list.

    The GOP can be seen as hatemongers in this area - they lied about Max Cleland's record - painted him and Osama Bin Laden as if they were friends. They've done outrageous things here.

    But in the end, as Otto Von Bismarck says - the art of the lawmaker is to listen for the footsteps of God, and swing himself up by the hem of his robe as he walks past.

    And the lessons of Otto Von Bismarck - whom history would rightly see as a Democrat, are apt for Barnes. He's doomed , right now. Dead in the water.

    Because he's not coming out with both fists flying. Here's a checklist.

     

    1. Does he really care about guys like Eddie Long. No.

    2. Is his opponent incapable of seeing a good deal? Yes.

    3. Does he have the support of his base. Yep.

    4. Can he energize them. Maybe. Key is +how+

    5. Will he hit harder than they've ever hit? No. But he has to.

     

    And where are all the flaggers?

    Hmm..

     

  • I agree.  At stake here, in this discussion is the implicit role of the President.

     

    Under Bush, the corrupt legislature ran under lock stop - of a unitary executive. The Bush Republicans were the most corrupt administration ever.

    And they got things done, by installing ever more control of our American political process into the hands of lobbyists.  Bush ran a dictatorship.

     

    Under Obama, the concept of the President as a diplomat, and administrator - returned. After Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize - he gave directed speeches, and established an agenda for healthcare reform.

     

    But then healthcare reform, written in committees overseen by corrupt Democrats (who were on the take since Bush) such as Joe Lieberman, Max Baucus, etc. - wrote a bill out of the Senate that was fundamentally flawed.

     

    And now we have the albatross. Throwing out those people, are a good idea. And party affiliation matters not. What matters more - is where the lobbyist money was spent and how to commutate it.

     

    This election, IMHO will have alot of surprises in store.  But perhaps the idea that a corrupt house of congress, needs a corrupt and all powerful president to whip it around. Is false.

     

    Obama's vision for healthcare reform was pretty clear.

    And he was the first president in 40 years to get anything done.

     

    The money is flooding into the hands of people who profit by us talking about other topics and parrot narrative.

     

    Except the blogosphere. :)

     

  • Both  Jerome, and Jack were opposed to Obama in the 2008 primaries. Jerome wanted establishment DLC to prevail. He was a big fan of Hillary.

     

Diaries

Advertise Blogads