No surprise here. I warned many of the leftist activists that Obama would be straight jacketed in the role of President.

He will be able to accomplish much to progress progressive agendas. But the job of president is like a robot in a slot moving forward - no matter who is in the job they are limited to how much they can move the status quo.

Give him time my activist friends. He is trying to make great changes to a great nation and that takes little steps and some amount of time to achieve.

A ship without a rudder.

Not a fair assesment of Obamas agenda.

His rudder runs deep as is demonstrated by his continued high levels of popularity.

The Executive is more popular with the citizenry than any other branch of government right now.

You will see his leadership in the next few weeks as he forces congress to give him what he wants on Health Care reform legislation.

"If this was September, I would hit the panic button."

Keep that thought Donna. It looks like Pelosi was told about allegations regarding Massa back in October. The dem strategists are already out this morning blaming repubs and calling it a deflection to passing the HC reform. You got to love politics.

'Nancy Pelosi's office was told of concerns about Eric Massa'
Joe Racalto, Massa's chief of staff, was uneasy that Massa, 50, was living with several young, unmarried male staffers and using sexually explicit language with them, one source said. But what finally prompted him to call Pelosi's director of member services, the source said, was a lunch date that Massa made with a congressional aide in his 20s who worked in the office of Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

"Continued high levels of popularity."

Delusional.

It was a lot more than his 'base' that got him elected. He lost the independents a long time ago.

But what finally prompted him to call Pelosi's director of member services, the source said, was a lunch date that Massa made with a congressional aide in his 20s who worked in the office of Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

* * * *

Interesting. So the Dem leadership were willing to let Massa go merrily along, until he tried to get it on with one of the studs in Bawney Fwank's stable.

This gets more interesting every day. I remember when the Republican majority was destroyed by that Mark Foley scumbag. Can we hope for the same here?

Obama's efforts have been flaccid at best. He compromises too much, and likes to just barely change things when he could make more drastic changes (like with detainees, Patriot Act, wiretapping). On those things he seems like he just pays lip service to keep his liberal base appeased. I understand he can't just change the status quo on healthcare, but he limped into it with a bunch of compromise right off the bat.

Although on energy I gotta give him high marks for investing in nuclear. Guns in national parks makes perfect sense too.

"continued high levels of popularity" ??

That's one hell of a rock you're living under. The only people polling worse than Obama is Congress, which has been in a steady decline since the Dems took over.

January 9, 2009 - Bush "strong disapproval" = 43%
March 11, 2010 - Obama "strong disapproval" = 42%

Continuing to push Health Scare will allow Obama to shatter Bush's disapproval numbers. A new low to strive for!

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs routinely brushes off questions about whether Obama and the Democrats are losing key constituencies, but he says the notion that the president is taking liberals for granted is "silly"....

....Brazile says there's time to repair the damage and re-energize liberal activists. "Will it be a tough spin? You betcha," she says. "But I do think President Obama and the party will be up to the task."

Do these people think that they're doing anything to assuage the reservations of liberal democrats by talking about them this way?

Passing the health care bill and letting them move on to other issues will help some. Probably though the biggest help for Democrats will come with the exposure that the 2010 election will be for the right wing radicals that will being trying to get elected. I think many voters will take a look and react with horror at the thought of some of these wackos getting into office. Democrats need to keep in mind that the SC will have openings, certain members of the court should be stepping down right now.

Good, Danni. Good.

Obama was too timid, too tolerant, too compromising to, "dance with who brung him".

Mainly because he can read polls that have the majority of Americans still wanting bipartisanship.

But this was a case when should have ignored the polls and not let the ReThugs and the Baucheses of the world stop what is almost always a partisan effort, major change.

I remember during the Dem primary reading about him winning the Harvard Law post, only to reward conservatives that fought against him while stiffing liberals who helped him win.... in the name of bipartisanship.

That might have worked with young conservatives who were willing to compromise, but it was never going to work with these old ideologues who know where they get their money; from the industries they protect.

Although on energy I gotta give him high marks for investing in nuclear.

#8 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

Have you actualy seen any new action in the construction of new power plants or was that just another campaign promise made during the state of the union address?

I know a lot of liberals who were incredibly supportive of Obama. They made the same arguments made here, that you have to make the hard bargain in a world of imperfect choices. Still, they believed that they were going to get something out of it. what they never expected was that the Administration would treat them with the disdain they have demonstrated; liberals need to be "spun", their concerns are "silly" that they're a bunch of "retards". Many are starting to think that if their vote is going to get them nothing anyway, that they might as well vote their conscience and remind Democratic pols of what they could have had.

Have you actualy seen any new action in the construction of new power plants or was that just another campaign promise made during the state of the union address?

#14 | Posted by Sniper

No kidding. And how do I know he was lying? His lips were moving.

See #15. You don't keep up with news too much, eh?

#16...

So far the only dem libs being drowned out are people like Kucinich. He is one of the few telling it like it is regarding this legislation. His complaints echo the other side of the political aisle and he is hardly right leaning.

BUT... Obama is getting his mojo back....

"No kidding. And how do I know he was lying? His lips were moving."

Not sure if you can technically say he was lying. I would say he is not being forthcoming though. He knows his base would shoot this down like they have the last 30 years. This is more of a ploy that he is moving to the right.

#20...
Maybe that was a bit of a stretch saying he echos the other side. Most of his reasons for not voting for this legislation are the same complaints the right has brought up.

If Kucinich and the Repubes are both pissed, he's likely doing something right.
#20 | Posted by Corky

You act like that's some kind of truism. Woke tried that line all the time in an effort to peremptorily end the conversation.

And Peter Beinart? Come on, you can do better than that.

I thought Peter Beinart wrote a very good article on the subject. What's so wrong about that?

I did miss the loan guarentees article. That should drive the loonie left nuts.

and even this wont stop him...but we can...
nov 2, 2010...

I thought Peter Beinart wrote a very good article on the subject. What's so wrong about that?
#24 | Posted by Corky

Okay, I guess nothing. I thought it was a lame article though that exaggerated to try to make a point.

Go ahead, ignore that I compared you to Woke.
:p

"So far the only dem libs being drowned out are people like Kucinich."

People hear him, in the Senate there are now 40 signers of the letter for the Public Option. I realize Kucinich wants single payer just like me but this is movement in that direction. Dennis is always going to be far ahead of the rest of the Dems.

Kucinich is one politician that I do have at least some respect for...

...at least I believe that he believes his own words.

Obama's liberal base deranged....

If Kucinich and the Repubes are both pissed, he's likely doing something right.

#20 | Posted by Corky

Sounds like a truism to me.

Politics IS the art of compromise. If a politician is doing more compromises isn't that a measure of increased success in politics?

You always play lip service to the base. Then do what is necessary to move your agenda forward.

On the economic front there is no difference between Bernanke, Geithner and Summers than Greenspan, Paulson and Rubin. Identical policies: beneficial to US Corporations (Wall street), China and India; destructive to our own labor force, which constitutes 70% of our economy.

-Okay, I guess nothing. I thought it was a lame article though that exaggerated to try to make a point.

Come over to the thread then and point out to me which parts were, "exaggerated to try to make a point."

I may have missed them.

"People hear him, in the Senate there are now 40 signers of the letter for the Public Option. I realize Kucinich wants single payer just like me but this is movement in that direction. Dennis is always going to be far ahead of the rest of the Dems."

Sadly, Kerry, Dodd, Sanders, Landrieu are not going to budge on the gift to their states. Given the fact more committees are going to have to sign off on the various adjustments from the House, there is no way this is going to be done before the so called deadline. If it is going to be done at all. Soon as the Houses go home for Easter recess, there is no way they can avoid the scorn they deservedly will get from voters. This is going to be the final nail in the coffin and for once, can't be blamed on the repubs for it's failure.

obama = bush

As the Marxist dream of the govt takeover of 1/6 the economy dies, a great vacuum is being created that will suck off all the democrats in November. This may be the greatest thing that has ever happened to our country...REAL change and REAL hope. I thank Barry, Harry and Nancy - rigid idealogs to the end - much thanks
Ciao

Major buyers' remorse has set in. With the administration's agenda and inept performance due to a lack of leadership (o.b. does not have that quality) , there is very little chance of a reversal .

One of my favorite lines from the health care issue
comes from Nancy Pelosi.
"Were just gonna have to pass this health care bill
so you can see whats in it".
What happened to the good old days when politicians
would just lie about whats in the bill. Now they will tell you straight to your face that your not gonna know whats in it until we pass it.
-Words no longer have meaning in the mouths of dems-

amen bro
did you hear the end of that speech when she said things like..
this bill is about diet, not dibetes...
translation...FOOD POLICE now being formed...and it will ALL BE LINKED to obamacare.

...a great vacuum is being created that will suck off all the democrats in November. This may be the greatest thing that has ever happened to our country...

#36 | Posted by RIGHTPOLICY

WOW talk about DELUSIONAL...

"As the Marxist dream of the govt takeover of 1/6 the economy dies,"

Has it ever occurred to you that that same 1/6 of the economy used to be only 1/7 and that the insurance company CEOs made millions turning that 1/7 into 1/6???
Leave them in charge and it will soon turn into 1/5, then 1/4.

I hope that isn't too much math for you.

Have you actualy seen any new action in the construction of new power plants or was that just another campaign promise made during the state of the union address?
#14 | Posted by Sniper

No kidding. And how do I know he was lying? His lips were moving.
#17 | Posted by wisgod at 2010-03-11 11:15 AM

Not sure if you can technically say he was lying. I would say he is not being forthcoming though. He knows his base would shoot this down like they have the last 30 years. This is more of a ploy that he is moving to the right.
#21 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-03-11 11:25 AM

Per AU's link...

Washington (CNN) -- President Obama announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees Tuesday for two nuclear reactors to be built in Burke County, Georgia.

A new nuclear power plant has not been built in the United States in three decades.

#41 | Posted by danni at 2010-03-11 02:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danni, you said they made millions to turn it from 1/7th to 1/6th?

Did you know they are set right now to make like 336 billion with the passage of healthcare?

Wouldn't that many billions take them to 1/1th of the economy if your original math is correct?

Or were you just making things up?

No EXPSREDEMPTION I think you are just a fucking retard.

Not a fair assesment of Obamas agenda.

His rudder runs deep as is demonstrated by his continued high levels of popularity.

The Executive is more popular with the citizenry than any other branch of government right now.

You will see his leadership in the next few weeks as he forces congress to give him what he wants on Health Care reform legislation.

#3 | Posted by Monstman at 2010-03-11 10:05 AM

#42...

There is a reason why no nuclear power plants have been built since the 70's. Hell it has always been a political staple for dems to use against the repubs. If Obama is able to convince his base, I would be the first to congratulate him. Until then, I stand by my statement. Every critical decison has political implications.

"Did you know they are set right now to make like 336 billion with the passage of healthcare?"

Where are you getting that figure?

Donna Brazile has little credibility for me. Starting in 1999. Without her we might have had Gore and no Bush. Imagine.

Donna Brazile also broke the attempt to unionize the maintenance personnel at the University of Miami in Florida.

Where are you getting that figure?

365 days in a normal year.

minus

29 days in February during a leap year

multiplied

by a billion for good measure.

It's really not that complicated, dumbass.

Where are you getting that figure?

It's really not that complicated, dumbass.

#50 | Posted by andyuhenet

IN OTHER WORDS he pulled the numbers out of his ass like most of the 'facts' he posts on Retort.

"Continued high levels of popularity."

Delusional.

#5 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-03-11 10:20 AM | Reply | Flag: Extremely Delusional

"IN OTHER WORDS he pulled the numbers out of his ass like most of the 'facts' he posts on Retort."

Pretty much what I thought.

rightiswrong,

The President is more popular than any other branch of government. If he can get Congress back to working for the People his numbers will go up even more.

He is showing his true leadership of Congress (and the People) by moving forward with reconciliation.

Sometimes your have to follow your conscience and if your convictions are reasonable others will follow you naturally.

GOBAMA!

Doesn't look like THE BASE is too disillusioned here on Retort!

"He is showing his true leadership of Congress..."

God only knows how pushing Congress to vote on a bill, when they don't have the votes, is leadership in your mind. Most people would think it is political suicide.

If Presidents always waited on public approval before they acted, we'd likely all be speaking German now.

Sometimes your have to follow your conscience.....

.....or, could follow the millions of dollars from insurance companies, big pharma etc....

in which manner did Howard Dean classify it?

"The President is more popular than any other branch of government."

Did you use that argument with Bush? Didn't think so. Regardless, not exactly a difficult problem to out poll Congress, at less than 20%.

"He is showing his true leadership of Congress (and the People) by moving forward with reconciliation."

"The People" overwhelmingly want this crap scrapped. Leadership does not include telling your bosses to go fuck themselves, you're going to do it anyway.

The President is more popular than any other branch of government.

* * * * *

Big deal. I wonder what the tallest building in Fargo, ND is?

And speaking of the other branch of government that has approval ratings, the legisltive: who runs that one?

His rudder runs deep as is demonstrated by his continued high levels of popularity.

I hear he has a very big rudder.

"The People" overwhelmingly want this crap scrapped.

The People want Health Care Reform. This bill is the result of letting Congress build it. The polls show that if you take the parts of the bill separately and ask the People if they want them then they say yes. The Party of No! as done an excellent hatchet and misinformation job on this bill.

Leadership does not include telling your bosses to go fuck themselves, you're going to do it anyway.

Never been a leader have you Jim?

Actually sometimes it does. With great risk comes great reward. A good leader follows his convictions and folks will respect that and follow naturally.

So Donner, "the bill is the result of letting Congress build it", but then you go on to extol the virtues of Obama's leadership.

Why didn't he write it? Why didn't he demand that it contain certain things, then when it did not, put his foot down at that point?

That's what leadership is, the way FDR and Reagan and Bush understood things. Bush--right or wrong--didn't sit back and tell Congress to do something with the Patriot Act, and he'll check in every few weeks or so. FDR told Congress what was going to happen. So did Reagan.

That's the difference between an executive (all former governors, they) and a legislator. We've got a legislator, not a leader. And in a Congress where "Democratic Leadership" is an oxymoron, that ain't good for the libbies.

"The polls show that if you take the parts of the bill separately and ask the People if they want them then they say yes."

Wouldn't that mean if one were to combine the good and bad parts of the bill that the bad outwieghs the good?

i think america is still right of center. if he moves to satisfy the liberal base, he won't be reelected. riding this middle wave, though, won't get him reelected anyway.

"The People" overwhelmingly want this crap scrapped. Leadership does not include telling your bosses to go fuck themselves, you're going to do it anyway.

#59 | Posted by SpokaneJim

Perhaps leadership is doing what is right for the country whether or not THE PEOPLE think it is a good idea or not.

THE PEOPLE let themselves be confused by the GOPhers as to what Health Care reform is and what is can do for America.

THE PEOPLE let themselves be confused by the GOPhers as to what Attacking the Germans in WW2 was all about and what is would do for America.

The president was able to do what was right for the country. WW2 was a righteous war and do we really need to explain how it helped America? Once again the Republicans violently opposed the Presidents CORRECT political position on the matter.

That is leadership.

THE PEOPLE let themselves become complacent to the evils of slavery. The president had to push the country into a civil war. THE PEOPLE did not want to go to war but the president had the politically correct position.

We let that problem of Slavery fester for too many years. It finally took a civil war to right the wrong.

That is leadership. Lincoln - the only good Republican. They sure went downhill after him.

THE PEOPLE did not want to succeed from England. Most inhabitants of North America did not support the revolutionary war.

The president had to push the vast majority into supporting the rebellion and the new country of the United States. That is leadership - doing what is correct for the nation regardless of public opinion.

Every other decent country has affordable health care for their citizens. It is a right the government makes certain you have access to health care. And by affordable I mean they pay LESS per capita and get better health care for ALL citizens.

The right seems to think that the government has no responsibility to make sure citizens have access to affordable health care. They DO and it is a problem we have avoided taking care of for too long.

Obama has already stated he does not care if health care reform makes him a one term president. He WILL lead us forward and take care of this problem that is LONG overdue to be addressed.

That is leadership. Just because he didn't force it down the throat of the congress like Reagan and Bush did does not make him any less of a leader.

He will work in congress with the DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP to make sure the party of no does not defeat what is good for the country.

GET ON THE BANDWAGON OR GET OUT OF THE WAY. This train has left the station, it is gaining steam and they is NOTHING you can do to stop it!

monstman.... the people don't want it... what part of that con't you understand?

GET ON THE BANDWAGON OR GET OUT OF THE WAY. This train has left the station, it is gaining steam and they is NOTHING you can do to stop it!

#65 | POSTED BY MONSTMAN AT 2010-03-11 07:43 PM | REPLY | FLAG say it don't spray it

GET ON THE BANDWAGON OR GET OUT OF THE WAY..... hell hitler....

I can see the bipartisan from here....

the people don't want it

your right on one thing... "This train has left the station" and they are running out of track fast....

Why didn't he write it? Why didn't he demand that it contain certain things, then when it did not, put his foot down at that point?

hmmmm this could be dangerous but I agree. But, a good leader also recognizes when he makes a mistake and corrects it.

I could be wrong but it looks like that is what he is doing.

Remember the Bill was as good as dead just a few weeks ago.

Interesting how now the Glennbeckians (god I love that term!) are freaked out that it will pass. Someone gave it a 50 50 chance. I think it is a bit more than that right now and picking up steam.

Personally, I think it will pass. Am I completely happy with it?

No.

But, it is better than what the Party of No! is currently offering.

no the american people... you tard...

look it up... you will find the people don't want this shit... has nothing to do with dem or repub...

if you don't like America... why are u here?

your a fucking tard

wow you found photo shop pics..... your sooo smart...

Sines these "Peepole" agianst HCR shud nevar run anithang:

"Respect Are Country!! Power to the Pepole!!"

your a fucking tard

#81 | Posted by libslayer

No doubt you're among your own kind (see pics above)

this is a photo shop deal... u dumb ass....

I am middle of the road my friend.. but lib's are just so fucking dumb... you people take shit at face value and let other think for u. thats all.. I think the far right people are nuts too... just not as nuts as you lib's....

U have heard of photo shop... right??

Of course I've heard of it.

Those peepole dinnit here of dickshunairees

yeah the pic's are photo shop.... my point...

I can make them say what I want... With photo shop.

Not Photoshopped. Sorry.

but go ahead and think thats the people.... lol dumb ass... think that shit is real... lol

I can see the layering on it.

I know they're real pics. Your "people" ain't so edgamacaded.

my people??? Americans???

ok what ever you say... I deal with photo shop every day.....

Here's video. Tell me these 'peepole' ar edgumacaded about wat thier so mad at (6:20 on expeshully):

so what your saying is these are the only people who don't want healthcare???

funny how all the polls show more than half the people DON'T want it.... so your saying teaparty is more than half the country?

why would you want to bankrupt the health insurance industry?

How can a private insurance company compete with a company that can print there own money?

Answer they can't......

Why would I want them to bankrupt 60+% of bankruptcy filers who had health insurance,
but because of medical bills had to file for bankruptcy?

so are for running out the private health insurance industry?

How can a private insurance company compete with a company that can print there own money?

Didn't you get the memo about the 'public option'? Not in the bills.

What were you saying about Photoshop?

why would you want to bankrupt the health insurance industry?

#103 | Posted by libslayer at 2010-03-11 08:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'll answer that. The health insurance industry is simply a middle man between the consumer and provider of health care. They have no benefit to either the consumer or the provider. They are simply leeches on the system---boosting costs and offering nothing in return.

How about you answer a question.

Why do you want to give money to the health insurance industry when they do nothing to cure anyone?

Cee U later. Buy.

"Why would I want them to bankrupt 60+% of bankruptcy filers who had health insurance,
but because of medical bills had to file for bankruptcy?"

this will not drop cost or care. so you think we should take that debt on along with the 10% of people without health care?

It's not thier job to Cure...

so your fine with all the job loss it will cause?

The health insurance industry is simply a middle man between the consumer and provider of health care. They have no benefit to either the consumer or the provider. They are simply leeches on the system---boosting costs and offering nothing in return.

#109 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-11 09:02 PM

like my insurance. have no issues with it.

live right...

Bob what do u say we bankrupt who u work for....

Great. You don't have to change a thing. it's been all over the news for almost a year.

His rudder runs deep as is demonstrated by his continued high levels of popularity.

Yeah--46% approval is better than congress..

I hear he has a very big rudder.
#61 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-03-11 06:22 PM

Better than Reagan

65% want to HC bill to start over from scratch..

Obama is not very good as POTUS--he is awful on the domestic side, and about a D+ on the foregin policy side.

It's not thier job to Cure...

#112 | Posted by libslayer

OK. Spoof account. I get it. LOL Funny!

Economy going to shit and you people want to bankrupt industries.. wow AMERICANUNITY that makes "your people look sooo smart"... i can see why you think tea party people are dumb...

You've done a great job of patterning yourself after the Teabaggers, who can't spell either. Nicely done!

Look at the pics and see how spot on you are, LibSlayer:

#123. why is it the job of a PRIVATE insurance company to spend money on cures?

Better than Reagan

And David Berkowitz is better than Hitler. Doesn't mean he's good.

Honestly, if the libs want to impress us with how great Obama is, choose a better standard please. Would an Olympic runner be able to brag because he was better than a cripple?

wow can't answer me...
attack attack attack...

goat lol

BTW, reagan was a great president. No way Obama is even fit to lick his boots.

AMERICANUNITY

do u have a job?

The public didn't think Reagan was so in his 2nd year.

Patience, my good man. Patience.

AMERICANUNITY he has to do something first....... patience is not going to cut it here....

Patience, my good man. Patience. Give Obama a chance to continue Bush policies a bit longer.

#133 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-11 09:17 PM

you have a job? you didn't answer me...

The public didn't think Reagan was so in his 2nd year.

After four years they did if 49 of 50 states means anything. Probably would've been 50 if his opponent wasn't from Minnesota. It almost was, even so

(I won't even mention that he took the WH from the INCUMBENT with 44 states since I'm sure you already know)

I bet all those hick tea party foke have a job...

And he did it all with the dem's in power...

DEJA VU all over again:

"Reagan came into office on a fairly high note, with initial job approval ratings as high as 60% by mid-March 1981. Then, on March 30, Reagan was shot on the streets of Washington by John Hinckley Jr., and the resulting concern and sympathy helped lift his ratings to 68% by May. But even as Reagan personally recovered from his wounds, the public's concerns about the bad economy did not, and the president's ratings began to fall as each month went by.

By the end of 1981, Reagan's job approval rating had drifted down to 49%.

Things got worse for Reagan in 1982 (his 2nd year- my note). The public's view of the economy remained sour, and the president's ratings during 1982 stayed concomitantly low, in the 40% range, ending the year at 41%. The 1982 midterm elections were not good ones for Reagan and for the GOP. The Republicans lost about 25 seats in the House.

A clear cause for all of this was the economy. Still, Gallup analysts at the time presciently noted that there was some cause for optimism for Reagan:"

"Indeed, although 1983 began for Reagan with a 35% job approval rating -- the worst of his administration -- things started to look better..."

Three little words trump anything you may C&P

49 of 50

'Nuff said

job?

GOATMAN

Obama's polling better than Reagan did during our current, much worse recession. "It's the economy, stupid" was spot on. Unhappy electorate during a recession and a President's approval ratings fall. They lose seats in midterms, just like Reagan did.

LIBSLAYER, Reagan had a Republican Senate. Only the House was Democrat. FTFY

Why are we comparing Obama to Reagan anyway? The dynamics are very different in the age where the internet is the dominant source for independant news as opposed to network broadcasts and the paper. Whatever happens is going to be colored very differently by the very fact that average people have a wealth of information implicating every politician right at their fingertips.

I'm not going to answer AU's 'job' question, but I will say that I know for a fact that he is damn good at what he does. I know that because I heard it directly from one of the best in the same business.

no job?

I'll call your Reagan and raise you a Jimmy Carter.

A half black man beat the snot out of a well known GOP candidate more than 2-1,

365 EV's to 173

it's not hard to say yes or no.

he is also winning on out spending the gop...

GOAT

I'm just pointing out the uncanny parallels between Reagan and Obama's current poll numbers - which, in both cases, are related to the economy. It's all about the economy.

We weren't nearly as polarized politically in 1980 either. Today, Repubicans hate Obama just for not being one of them (among other less savory reasons).

I'll call your Reagan and raise you a Jimmy Carter.

#147 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2010-03-11 09:30 PM

he has done nothing in his first year... yet you still hang on.. lolol

jimmy was bad.....
you liked jimmy?

Jimmy = inflation

Grow wheat every one.....

Need to grow more than that..

Give him time my activist friends. He is trying to make great changes to a great nation and that takes little steps and some amount of time to achieve.

#1 | Posted by Monstman

And this is with a democratic controlled congress?--wait until after the Nov. elections---his little steps will turn into baby steps and the sands of time will obliterate them in no time and we'll be thankfull knowing the country has survived this incompetent.

Obama's liberal base "disengaged"---sounds to me like a clutch in neutral---the left has been "disengaged" for years---Clinton won because of them and then screwed them over and now Obummer is doing the same---when will these masochists figure out the democratic party nominee games?

That's like saying fire insurance is just a middle man between a homeowner and the contractors who would rebuild your house if it were to burn down.

#114 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2010-03-11 09:05 PM | Reply | Flag

The point still stands. Health insurance is simply a leech on health care. The money you give them does nothing to get you better. I would rather give the same money to the government, and not risk facing some insurance bureaucrat that turns down my treatment for some obscure reason or typo.

Bob what do u say we bankrupt who u work for....

#117 | Posted by libslayer at 2010-03-11 09:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

What do you say you answer the question. Or do you only ask questions like most right wingers. Look at the question again, and see if you can make a reasoned response.

Why do you want to give money to the health insurance industry when they do nothing to cure anyone?

Carter was better than Reagan. Carter inherited the inflation from the Viet Nam War, and the gas problems from Nixon. Reagan kept Carters recovery plan in place and took credit for it. Carter was ahead of the curve in putting solar power in the White House. Carter would have done more towards getting America off the reliance of foreign oil. Reagan took the solar out and sucked up to the oil complanies---before spending more money than all Presidents before him put together and building the deficit to all time highs.

Reagan had Alzheimers during his first term. He was noted for falling asleep during meetings, and Nancy and her astrologer made all the decision during his Presidency. Reagan was a great head of hair and a smile---nothing more.

"I would rather give the same money to the government, and not risk facing some insurance bureaucrat that turns down my treatment for some obscure reason or typo."

Medicare has the highest turn down rate of any insurer. It's OK for a government bureaucrat to turn down your treatment for some obscure reason or typo?

Medicare has the highest turn down rate of any insurer. It's OK for a government bureaucrat to turn down your treatment for some obscure reason or typo?

#163 | Posted by SpokaneJim at 2010-03-12 01:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

It depends on what they were turned down for. Meicare is typically for older people--over 65. It makes sense to deny an operation for someone who it 97, has terminal cancer, heart disease, kidney problems and probably won't survive the anesthesia. How many 40 year olds did medicare deny? You can make numbers do anything you want.

Still, under the dem plan---if you would rather face an insurance bureaucrat than a government bureaucrat, it's your choice.

#163 | Posted by SpokaneJim at 2010-03-12 01:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

In addition, the dem plan offers the same plan for citizens and members of congress have in place. Is your coverage better than your Senators or Obamas?

The point still stands.

#160 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-12 12:29 AM

Health insurance is simply a leech on health care. The money you give them does nothing to get you better.
#160 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-12 12:29 AM

I would rather give the same money to the government, and not risk facing some insurance bureaucrat that turns down my treatment for some obscure reason or typo.
#160 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-12 12:29 AM

The point still stands.

#160 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-12 12:29 AM

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does. See how that works?

Health insurance is simply a leech on health care. The money you give them does nothing to get you better.
#160 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-12 12:29 AM

The money they give your doctor does.

Which is my point. They do nothing except act as middlemen and boost health care costs. Do you htink those enormous beautiful buildings they have all over the country were free? Where do you think the millions upon millions of dollars to executive bonuses come from?

I would rather give the same money to the government, and not risk facing some insurance bureaucrat that turns down my treatment for some obscure reason or typo.
#160 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-12 12:29 AM

You'd be giving money toward government insurance. See that? Insurance. Insurance is important, and the government wouldn't be curing you either, just insuring you and paying your doctor in case you fell and broke your hip or something.

True, but the costs would be controlled much more easily, and there wouldn't be million dollar bonuses and retirement or separation golden parachutes for executives coming out of my pocket. No government employee would get a bonus or pay raise for denying coverage.

And you'd eventually have republicans running it, turning down your treatment because you're a tin foil hat wearing democrat.

You lose the debate by name calling. You've run out of logic--that means you lose. Ask anyone.

;-)

#166 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2010-03-12 02:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

Democrats have an unfortunate tendency to run to the left during election years and then back off towards the center afterwords in the mistaken belief that their base aint going anywhere.

As Obama was elected based largely on fervent articulation of liberal principles the idea that he has capitulated too much to the right and to conventional wisdom in DC has disaffected the traditional liberal base.

He needs to stop trying to please everyone with watered down centrist policies and start doing the things he was elected with a majority to do.

Be Well.

The thing that blows me away about this guy (our president), is the very evident fact that he simply doesn't give a shit about EVEN his own party ranks.

When the health care disaster is finally plowed through -- the wholesale dumping of dems at the polls will be astronomical!! He and the dems KNOW(!) this -- and he couldn't give a shit less.

What a guy.

JM

Democrats have an unfortunate tendency to run to the left during election years and then back off towards the center afterwords in the mistaken belief that their base aint going anywhere.

As Obama was elected based largely on fervent articulation of liberal principles the idea that he has capitulated too much to the right and to conventional wisdom in DC has disaffected the traditional liberal base.

He needs to stop trying to please everyone with watered down centrist policies and start doing the things he was elected with a majority to do.

Be Well.

#168 | Posted by dethspud

Agree---those posters who say there isn't much difference between the 2 party's POTUSs' are probably pretty accurate in their assessments---in both parties you have your fringe groups and ideologues and then the rest are your partisans who'll support the nominee no matter what their positions or decisions. Then you have the independents (a growing force) who swing the election one way or another. Then the nominee who wins is controlled by the same power structure in place that was in place when the last POTUS was in power.

"Did you know they are set right now to make like 336 billion with the passage of healthcare?"

Where are you getting that figure?

#47 | Posted by danni at 2010-03-11 03:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh yeah, and Danni, I'll be expecting an apology, since my numbers actually came from somewhere other than myself.

-make like 336 billion

The money is for subsidies for the poor to buy health care... the industry does not "make" that amount of money.

The money is for subsidies for the poor to buy health care... the industry does not "make" that amount of money.

are you sure? according to all of the insurance experts here on the DR, all insurance companies do is collect premiums, and NOT pay claims...and then cancel those who aren't perfect and raise the rates on everyone else.

LOL

Subsidies? If they are subsidizing the poor, doesn't that mean that they will be paying that money to the insurance companies on the behalf of the poor people?

Wouldn't that mean that the insurance companies are getting money? If they don't have claims from those same subsidized poor people, they are going to make money, so before they start getting claims, wont they have a 336 billion dollar profit?

I thought the article said that they money gets paid directly to the insurance companies and not to the individuals. Thus the insurance companies are gaining 336 billion dollars.

I will double check.

-gaining 336 billion dollars

lol, well that's closer than "making", which insinuates that 336 billion is somehow all profit.

In the end they will not be making 336 billion guaranteed, however based on what we know about the insurance industry and things that you have asserted yourself (I believe, I am not sure, you would be able to tell me better)They have abundant profits already that can cover everything they need, and they often do not render services necessary in order to gain more profit, so the government is basically handing them 336 billion dollars. Handing that to companies that do not use the money, is pretty close to given them a 336 billion dollar profit.

And if they invest it, it can be even more.

22%. The Obama supporters are reduced to minorities who will support him regardless, and the DocforthBuffalonni Unity's of the world. Pie-in-the-sky libbies are upset that the American republic doesn't just bow to their will just because they got their man elected, and everyone else is glad that it doesn't.

22.

-so the government is basically handing them 336 billion dollars

To cover 30 million people, duh.

True, but the costs would be controlled much more easily, and there wouldn't be million dollar bonuses and retirement or separation golden parachutes for executives coming out of my pocket. No government employee would get a bonus or pay raise for denying coverage.

#167 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-03-12 03:06 AM

And the name calling was pretty damn light hearted, unclench your butt cheeks a little, lol!

#179 | Posted by Corky at 2010-03-12 10:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

11,200 dollars a person that comes to (roughly).

alright, lets say that everyone uses half of that amount, (some will use less, others will use more based on emergencies)

That would mean that they would be given a 168 billion dollar profit from the pockets of those who are making and providing more money for health care.

The government is still prospering the insurance companies that they say are taking advantage of the American people.

Well, that's progress. We have you down from claiming that the government is allowing the insurers to "make' or profit 336 billion dollars.

-alright, lets say that everyone uses half of that amount

No, let's say that is the cost of the premiums, which is about right.

Of course, I would prefer a system where the insurer was not a monopoly more concerned about stockholders than client health, a single payer system.

Although it might be a cost of the premium, if the premium is not used, then it becomes profit does it not?

If not, how do insurance companies profit?

No one said they didn't profit on these premiums just like any others, only that this was not a direct payoff of over 300 billion as you inferred.

Coming from the original article, I did not say it was a direct pay off, but rather a subsidy I believe.

I think the headline was something like "Obama villanizes (sic) and subsidizes the insurance companies."

So the Liberal Left finally wised up to the fact that they supported and promoted a sleazy,corrupt "Right Wing/Zionist Arsehole" like Obama....well BOO-HOO-HOO!!!