Comments on: Obama to Congress: Stay and Work

By: bonkers

bonkers — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:56:52 +0000

It’s simply tiresome now. The comments here have been dominated by these exact same things you’ve said for months (and years when it comes to other issues about Obama). Complete ignoring of the positives and the debate about how to get legislation passed with a corrupt Congress, many of them self-proclaimed Dems, and instead just repeat the same boogeymen ad nauseum, as if Obama can snap his fingers and correct these massive, institutional ills that have existed for decades and perhaps centuries in some cases.

Again, any thoughts on how to get even more Liberal policies passed with Harry Reid and other Clinton Dems proving they’re willing to stand in the way? Can you offer any constructive suggestions? “Bully pulpit” arguments have proven to be false already, so anything else?

By: sporkovat

sporkovat — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:34:45 +0000

Too bad progressives weren’t advocating for the policy they know in their hearts and minds is best when there was still time.

(D) captured ‘progressives’ have in their hearts and minds what their Leaders tell them to have in there, and are able to revise as needed.

By: Prairie Sunshine

Prairie Sunshine — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:25:55 +0000

Illness never takes a vacation. Emergency rooms don’t get to take a vacation.

Don’t go to the beach house, Senators. Don’t fly away to the junkets. Don’t come home for dog and pony shows. Stay. Work Get the job done. With the public option.

By: reader

reader — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:56:40 +0000

Oh, and while I’m ranting, I forgot:

I burst into flames everytime I forget to forget that $1.3T was spent on Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy and there are 2 wars going on (one a VANITY WAR) and $2T? and counting on the bailouts.

And something for the peeps and the real economy has to cost ZERO????

Are you freaking kidding me????

By: reader

reader — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:50:17 +0000

Excuse my crudeness … BUT *FUCK* Harry Reid and the horse he rode in on. And while we are at it the same goes for the racist republics AND the blue dogs. I’ll be busy, I guess.

I am so fed up with this shit. Yeah, a $1,000 page bill will be full of crap BUT with the dysfunctional congress, if nothing gets passed it’s over. If something get’s passed with some public option, at least there’s hope.

You people have NO idea. I could not afford to move back to the states IF I could get coverage now. And you pay tens of thousands of dollars EVERY year to be gamed by insurance corporations, directly or in ”benefits” instead of wages. And it sounds like people think it’s unAmerican to NOT pay these fees.

I would have to go without insurance. I manage just fine in Canada NOT in servitude to health insurance. I have a *hope* of supporting myself in retirement.

I really hate to say it because I know people need their health care but I’m thinking this won’t change as long as people are willing to participate and pay this way.

I just hope Harry just got himself on Barry’s shit list.

And what the hell is with all the racism? Getting ugly, much?

By: lambertstrether

lambertstrether — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:47:39 +0000

Of course, with single payer, there wouldn’t be any issue with “rural areas” — “Everybody in, nobody out.” Too bad progressives weren’t advocating for the policy they know in their hearts and minds is best when there was still time.

By: lambertstrether

lambertstrether — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:44:51 +0000

Hey, friends are as friends do. (Who was it who said, more or less, “If you want a friend in politics, get a dog?”) Anyhow, if progressives want to be friends with single payer folks, they could do stuff like whipping to make sure that individual states can experiment with it (the Kucinich amendent — which IIRC several Republicans voted for, on … wait for it… States Rights grounds. Strange bedfellows, eh?)

By: lambertstrether

lambertstrether — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:42:10 +0000

It’s a sign of the degraded state of “progressive” discourse that advocating for a policy that’s been shown to save both money and lives, based on past experience, is called “purism,” and advocating for a policy that has not been shown to save either, is called “pragmatism.”

By: lambertstrether

lambertstrether — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:40:00 +0000

Tarheel dem writes:

The cost savings of the public plan are no more speculative than the expenditures.

Please read Ezra, at the original link. It’s not that the quantities are not known (although they are not). It’s that their efficacy is unknown. That’s because the Democrats haven’t chosen a plan that can be shown to work, based on past experience.

By: lambertstrether

lambertstrether — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:38:16 +0000

Alas that “well spoken” is not the same as “well reasoned”…