dagblog - Comments for "Sometimes the voice of truth makes you want to vomit"

Reposting response here:Who

Obey — Fri, 20 May 2011 23:35:05 +0000

In reply to The President abandoned the

Reposting response here:

Who wouldn't pass a more robust stimulus? Yes the Senate, and who is responsible for no public option? Right the Senate,

Are people still trying to rewrite this history? A refresher here:

Several hospital lobbyists involved in the White House deals said it was understood as a condition of their support that the final legislation would not include a government-run health plan paying Medicare rates — generally 80 percent of private sector rates — or controlled by the secretary of health and human services.

“We have an agreement with the White House that I’m very confident will be seen all the way through conference,” one of the industry lobbyists, Chip Kahn, director of the Federation of American Hospitals, told a Capitol Hill newsletter.

And that deal was confirmed by Messina

Not to worry, Jim Messina, the deputy White House chief of staff, told the hospital lobbyists, according to White House officials and lobbyists briefed on the call. The White House was standing behind the deal, Mr. Messina told them, capping the industry’s costs at a maximum of $155 billion over 10 years in exchange for its political support.

So that was way before the final vote, and before other versions of a public option cropped up, like the one involving Medicare buy-ins for the over 55 opposed only by Lieberman in the Dem caucus, one which hence could have passed the final reconciliation vote, where Obama inexplicably instead let it twist in the wind (see here and here for non-firebagger perspectives on what went on there).

As for the stimulus, the opposition from the moderates Collins and Snowe was not on the SIZE of the stimulus, but on what should be in the stimulus bill and what should be in a separate budget bill, and on stuff she didn't think was stimulative. it was not about size. In short Obama got the size he wanted. Look how deferential those GOPers sounded at the time:

“The house passed bill is much more like an omnibus bill than a stimulus bill," Collins said. "I believe we need to have a more targeted and affective bill for it to pass in the senate with bipartisan support.”

Snowe said that Obama was very receptive to her list and suggested that each provision within the bill should have a job creation number associated with it so its effectiveness can be scrutinized on an individual basis.

Snowe also indicated that Obama would not budge much on the overall size of the package in order to reach the proper goal.

“He thinks that it is important to have the right size stimulus plan to affect the economy,” Snowe said adding, “He understands there have been concerns…he was much aware of the discretionary expenditures that were in question.”

Again, see those 'concerns'? They're about specific discretionary expenditures. On size, they pretty much let Obama have his cake. If he had asked for what Roemer thought adequate he would have gotten a bill double the size of the one he ultimately opted for. I.e. if it failed, he owns that failure.

I can't believe we're still having this argument. This is pretty straightforward stuff. The senate rules do create all kinds of limitations, but the failures of the PPACA and ARRA are entirely the administration's.

The President abandoned the

tmccarthy0 — Fri, 20 May 2011 22:00:56 +0000

In reply to Stilli, your title just

The President abandoned the poor? Really? Seems to me that Congress abandoned the poor long ago and Americans themselves abandoned the poor. Remember the 90's when the Welfare system was dismantled, you know those welfare queens and their Cadillac.. remember that? Hmm, who abandoned the poor again? Oh and Americans by and large, you remember them, the middle class, they were 100% behind this action. But now that the middle class needs more services suddenly it's the President who has abandoned the poor, in fact they believe they are now poor and they need some services themselves. Well they should be pissed at themselves for targeting the poor for so long as the root of all evils. I certainly remember the 1990's very well and Ronald Reagan who helped to demonize the poor.

When will the American people hold congress accountable? When will they hold themselves accountable for some horrible decisions made in the past, and when will they force congress to rectify those terrible decisions. When will the American people quit bitching that they pay too much in taxes, but expect services at the same levels they've always received services, when are they going to take some responsibility for what has happened to the nation?

Who wouldn't pass a more robust stimulus? Yes the Senate, and who is responsible for no public option? Right the Senate, because the President did advocate for a public option, but the Senate said... nooooooo. Literally every issue has been impacted by the inaction or intransigence of the Senate.

So when are people going to demand reform in the Senate? Do they realize that the Senate holds a veto power over all legislation? How can it be that Americans and so many left leaning bloggers don't push the notion that the Senate reforms that took place in the early 70's have completely disabled the government and fostered the idea that we should legislate ideologically rather than legislate for the nation as a whole.

If there is no rules reform in the Senate, there will be no changes.

sigh..

okay

/rant over... for now

Sorry, I don't agree that

Ramona — Fri, 20 May 2011 21:22:59 +0000

In reply to Obama is just a corrupt as

Sorry, I don't agree that Obama is corrupt. But what world is it exactly that they all came from? Seems to me Barack's world is far different from theirs. . .or from anybody's, for that matter.

I'm not suggesting that we

stillidealistic — Fri, 20 May 2011 21:17:30 +0000

In reply to Oh, we don't have to choose

I'm not suggesting that we need to choose sides, Flav...my point is that I have a sick feeling there is some truth in what West is saying that needs to be paid attention to. I don't think there are many here that DON'T know the high regard I have for the President. This article has shaken my faith in him, and I know I need to do some more investigating.

I'm not even saying that should I determine West is completely correct I will not vote for him again. But if I do (and truly, I cannot see myself NOT voting for him, given the likely choices) I want to do it with my eyes open.

Sorta like reading

stillidealistic — Fri, 20 May 2011 21:10:41 +0000

In reply to Stilli, your title just

Sorta like reading "clearthinker" over at TPM! I could get through the arrogance to the gem. There's a gem in here. I'm just not sure how much of one.

I'd like to believe that Obama isn't corrupt. I'd like to believe he is a victim of circumstance...but I don't know, Ramona. My faith is shaken, and this is going to take some exploration.

I met Jason Miller for lunch a couple of days ago, and we tossed around the idea that once Obama was inaugurated, he was taken to an undisclosed location and given the big picture, by representatives of the people who are REALLY in charge. I know it's whacko sounding conspiracy theory stuff, but I think there is a LOT going on that we don't know about.

Star...I didn't know who

stillidealistic — Fri, 20 May 2011 21:03:17 +0000

In reply to I haven't read the Hedges

Star...I didn't know who Cornel West was, and I still don't know much about him, so I can't judge his veracity on any of that. It's just that as I read the peice, I had the sinking feeling I was reading something truthful, at least some part of it. I'm not ready to take it as a wholesale condemnation of Obama, but I know there is some truth there. And it hurts like hell.

Oh, we don't have to choose

artappraiser — Fri, 20 May 2011 20:20:48 +0000

In reply to Oh, we don't have to choose

Oh, we don't have to choose sides.

Bravo, Flav.

I really dislike the part about blogging where you hafta take sides with bloggers, reporters, writers and pundits, fur or agin, sorta like forming cliques in high school. Nor where one becomes a "fan" or "supporter" (and that includes politicians running for president. ) On the flip side, I like the part about blogging where one analyzes the work of bloggers, reporters, writers and pundits. Including analyzing when they are having snit fits about each other and not acting like grownups.

I accept the part of becoming a fan of someone's work, as an individual, not as part of some team. One is already giving them all the support they need or ask for by paying attention to their work, like it or loathe it.I.E., I like and enjoy a lot of Christopher Hitchens work, but have always loathed his opinions on the Clintons and everything related, I always suspect there is some blinding rage personal vendetta there as regards Blumenthal et. al.

Thinking on this makes me wonder, why so many are so interested in forming imaginary teams and cliques and being supporters or fans when some of the most ridiculed and berated things about standard white collar work is the staff meeting or the politics of working on teams or the fetishizing of a leader or the inspirational corporate pep rally ala Tony Robbins?

Breathe

Flavius — Fri, 20 May 2011 20:07:48 +0000

In reply to Oh, we don't have to choose

Breathe

Oh, we don't have to choose

Flavius — Fri, 20 May 2011 19:56:27 +0000

In reply to Sometimes the voice of truth makes you want to vomit

Oh, we don't have to choose sides. I think Chris Hedges, Cornell West and Barack Obama are good human beings with their own human frailities and with different roles which they are performing pretty well.

Obama is just a corrupt as

cmaukonen — Fri, 20 May 2011 19:53:28 +0000

In reply to Stilli, your title just

Obama is just a corrupt as Wall Street and the the rest of Washington because he and they came from exactly the same world.