• Providing access is an important indicator of quality, surely you will agree. If you want additional cost savings you can pass another (more socialist!) bill in addition. Stuff like allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices and establishing a nation-wide pool come 2014 would seem to fit right in. But i'm not sure why the current law needs to be scrapped, indeed that will just make the situation worse.

  • Does that mean you support the waivers or oppose them? I mean the if the bill is a sham then the waivers are good, but the waivers were given by the administration, which is also a sham, so the waivers are no good. Your really confused here aren't you?

  • on a comment on Reapportionment Projections over 3 years ago

    What I'm saying is that FL, now with 29 EV's, is probably going to be the key state in 2012.

    Florida has been a key state in every election since 2000 and probably before that as well.

  • on a comment on Feingold: Incompetent campaign? over 3 years ago

    Umm, private sector unemployment has been falling for the past 8 months. It's the public sector which has been cutting back, maybe you mean Obama's hostility to the government?

    Nah, that would mean dealing in facts.

  • comment on a post TARP propaganda over 3 years ago

    Even Jerome, who was fairly active at the time, knows this is false:


    After a public outcry against bailing out the big banks, Congress voted down the bailout bill by a vote of 205-222 on September 29, 2008. It was later passed in the House and Senate the following January.

    TARP was passed by the Senate on Oct 1 and by the House on Oct 3 and was signed into law on the same day. Most of the TARP money was disbursed in October itself.

  • comment on a post TARP propaganda over 3 years ago

    Federal Reserve Loans are not tax-payer money. Rather they are the banks own monies which they deposit with the Fed, which is then lent out by the Fed. If the banks are unable to pay back these loans (for which they provide collateral anyway), it's no biggie for the tax-payer at any rate. Worst case scenario the Fed will make a smaller profit which they won't be able to pay to the treasury like they have been doing all these years.

    So what's the problem here?

  • on a comment on People vs Corporations over 3 years ago

    Sorry. I have to agree with Jerome. The real debate is not left/right, its corporate lobbyists vs. american voters.

    And the real situation is - who should have the power to vote on  issues? The American people stood up loud and strong on behalf of healthcare reform.  And the lobbyists mutated it into this thing...

    Your sort of missing the point. A good portion of the electorate happen to like corporations. Or atleast prefer it to the alternative.

    Tell your average person - we'll take away your Aetna Blue Cross/Shield employer provided coverage and enroll you in a government sponsored HMO - and they'll much rather stick with the former.

  • on a comment on People vs Corporations over 3 years ago

    How exactly do:

    "Progressive interventions such as environmental regulations, Agricultural Policy, Medicare, the push for homeownership, and the existence of a Federal Reserve"

    solidify the hold of large corporations? It's not like large corporate conglomerations didn't exist before these policies/agencies came into being.


  • on a comment on People vs Corporations over 3 years ago

    I don't see it being any different from 2004 or 1994 for that matter.

  • comment on a post People vs Corporations over 3 years ago

    What difference did the Left/Right dynamic make? Almost none whatsoever.

    I'll only respond to this one particular point. That statement is not true from any objective results oriented view. We can examine the facts as they played out.

    Both Obama and Bush proposed a budgetary stimulus to help the economy. Bush's failed - leading to or failing to prevent an even worse economic disaster. Obama's largely succeeded in halting the decline and beginning the reverse.

    Both Obama and Bush "bailed out" the auto manufacturers - The Bush plan failed and the companies teetered on the brink of insolvency, the Obama plan succeeded and tax payers are likely to recoup their investment in the companies in a short while.

    Obama inherited TARP from Bush, but while under Bush losses were expected to be over 1/2 of the program, under Obama it's all going to be pretty much repaid, other than those bits used for home-owner assistance.

    There are undoubtably numerous other cases in which "change" has been made. Would we have gotten student loan reform or Medicaid and CHIP expansion under Bush/McCain. Not on your life. So there are actual real world differences. I understand that as far as playing politics goes it may not be enough.

  • comment on a post People vs Corporations over 3 years ago

    Calling this theory a "new dynamic" or paradigm is false. These kinds of complaints - people vs the powerful is a very common complaint among populist causes. I'm pretty sure if we look back 15 or 30 or 50 years we will see similar articles been written.

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

    It existed, but was shut down in the early 90's, and verified as such by inspectors at the time (uptil '98). And was further documented by the Iraq Survey Group. If your saying Iraq still had a clandestine nuclear weapons program during the 90's - that's a lie, like many others.

    That's why the IAEA labelled it as a "question". Not fact. Bit silly to authorize a war over a question. Not to even mention the "clear and immediate danger" criteria that is supposed to be used.

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

    Your missing the forest for the trees. The manner is which decisions are taken are deliberate and deliberative with all sides (and everyone has differing opinions) well aware of the gravity of the decisions being made. 

    That's quite the contrast from before and is what I meant by saying "cautious". Caution is ofcourse not a pseudonym for timidity or inactions.

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

    What's the difference? Congressional support is needed for military action - it's in the constitution. Regime change in Iraq was the stated US policy since the 90's.

    Hillary ofcourse would later label her vote a mistake, after first insisting it wasn't. Bit hard to stand by something and call it a mistake and she wouldn't have done it again at the same time.


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

    btw, Hussein was not developing nukes during the Clinton admin either. That claim, like many others, turned out to be false.


Advertise Blogads