Conyers Rips Obama, Emanuel For 'Bowing Down' To GOP On Health Care

[kpete]

Source: Huffington Post

Rep. John Conyers took a broad swipe at President Obama and his chief of staff on Thursday, accusing them of "bowing down" to "nutty right-wing" health care proposals in a principle-less effort to get legislation passed.

.....................

"I'm getting tired of saving Obama's can in the White House," said Conyers. "I mean, he only won by five votes in the House, and this bill wasn't anything to write home about. The public option is only available, which is the only way you manage cost and get some competition to 1,300 other health insurance companies, the only way he could have got that through is that progressives held their nose and voted for it anyway."

Asked if the president had shown enough leadership in the health care debate, Conyers facetiously wondered why Press would ask the question.

"Of course not, of course not," he said. "You know, holding hands out and beer on Friday nights in the White House and bowing down to every nutty right-wing proposal about health care, and saying on occasion that public options aren't all that important is doing a disservice to the Barack Obama that I first met who was an ardent single-payer enthusiast himself."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/19/conyers-rips-obama-emanue_n_363702.html

[FarPoint]

1. Excellent Kpete.......

Needs rec's for impact now. I tried....

[Zhade]

136. I, for one, am sick and tired of all the "change" from the Orahma administration.

NT!

[clixtox]

171. "Chains you can believe in"

I read that here on DU and it sure does resonate with me!

Face it DUers, we were bamboozled, as were most of BO's most ardent supporters during his campaign.

Personally, I don't believe that HRC as POTUS would have been any better, possibly even worse.

Who actually controls the USA? Anyone have any names?

There must be a lot more going on "behind the curtain" that we are unaware of.

I was suspicious of BO since his miraculous, meteoric ascension into the political firmament in 2006 at the Democratic Convention.

Who was behind this cynical manipulating of our hopes for a future with peace, liberty and the honoring of the US Constitution?

"Wall street" is the obvious answer now. The political party structure works only for maintaining the status quo, especially the shadow government.

The American Sheeple pretty much are clueless about what the USA was, is and continues to be.

Those willing to share the answers, the sad reality about why, who and what's happening, like Kucinich and Nader, are marginalized and demonized.

A terrorist scourge and dangerous criminal enterprise, that's the USA.

Watch out Venezuela! You are being set-up for another Iraq/Vietghanistan debacle and most "American" sheeple don't have a clue.

[grahamhgreen]

196. Nice quote. Time to pour the heat on once again for real reform. NOT this bill. nt

[Mark D.]

Good Question

Who really controls the USA behind the curtain? The real secret is that there IS NO SECRET. They're not behind the curtain. They MADE the curtain with slave labor in the far east. They have it laundered by undocumented workers. Faux Snooze covers their viewers eyes with it. They are hiding in plain sight. Follow the money, it's all there. I'll tell you who. JP Morgan Chase (Rockefeller), Exxon Mobil (Rockefeller), Monsanto, WalMart, Haliburton, Blackwater-XE (Knights of Malta), Rupert Murdoch (Knights of Malta), GE (big coal, big nuke energy, founded by JP Morgan), Aetna (the largest health insurer, leading the fight against real reform, founded by JP Morgan's grandfather), Aetna administers Medicare, who writes Medicare's checks? JP Morgan Chase. Who writes the checks for the 2nd largest insurer (United Health)? Chase (of J.P.M. Chase).

What was the biggest threat to our security in 2001? Not 9/11, but the acquisition of JP Morgan bank by Chase bank. They invented the Credit Default Swap. They were the biggest Hedge Fund. Morgan Stanley - the biggest energy speculator, causing the spike in gas prices we suffered through, helping speed up the collapse. What bank did Burn-He-Made-Off put all that loot he stole in (meaning, what bank made more off his scam than he did?) JP Morgan Chase. What building sits on Rockefeller Center? The GE Building. Who founded the Federal Reserve and Council on Foreign Relations? JP Morgan. Who owned the land the UN building was built on in NYC? Rockefeller. Who financed Standard Oil, to make Rockefeller so rich and powerful? JP Morgan. Who bailed out the US govt THREE TIMES after near failures, mostly caused by them? JP Morgan.

Who bought the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1900 (removing every reference to downsides of some vaccinations)? JP Morgan and JD Rockefeller. What bank was made out to be a hero for buying Bear Sterns (with taxpayer backing) which they helped collapse in the first place? JP Morgan Chase. What bank froze the asserts of Lehman Bros., causing its failure to kick off the crisis? JP Morgan Chase. What bank guided Goldman Sachs to be the power that it is, to control our treasury? JP Morgan Chase. What banker brokered all allied funds in WW1? JP Morgan Jr. What family had the biggest investment in IG Farben, the Nazi's top chemical company? Rockefeller. Every president assassinated or almost assassinated locked horns with bankers. Before their deaths, who did Julius Cesar and Jesus Christ stand up to? The money-changers (bankers) of their day.

[Mark D.]

237. Follow The Money

Forgot to mention, who took control of the Bank of England in WW1, and now controls the Bank of Baghdad? JP Morgan Chase. War is indeed a racket. Like the things listed above, which could just be coincidence, if you want them to be (that's a lot of coincidences) you really have to see who not only played the biggest role in the manufactured (which Dennis Kucinich called it) "collapse" of the market and our economy, you just have to follow the money. Who got hurt the worst by this collapse? The bottom 99%. The farther down you are in that, the worse you got hurt.

Who got hurt the least? Who got most of the so-called 'growth' over the last Bush decade? The top 1%, especially the top 1/10th of 1% (.01%) who saw their wealth triple while the bottom 90% got stagnant or falling wages, before even factoring in the so-called 'low' inflation (4-5% a year on average still adds up, that's half your buying power gone every 10-12 years). Put simply, because again, the root cause is neither hard to find, or figure out, follow the money. What bank was the 3rd largest BEFORE the crisis? What bank is now the largest? JP Morgan Chase.

"It's just a handful of people that run everything, and that's provable. I have this feeling about whoever's elected president, no matter what promises you make on the campaign trail - blah, blah, blah. When you win, you go into this smoky room with the twelve industrialist, capitalist shits that got you in there, and this little screen comes down... and it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before, which looks suspiciously off the grassy knoll. Then the screen comes up, the lights come on, and they say to the new president, 'Any questions?'" - The late, great, comedian Bill Hicks.

"You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own, and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought, and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls, they got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear." - The late, great, comedian George Carlin.

[Deja Q]

243. People remembered his 2003, impassioned speech about single payer...

It sounds like you, along with many, as adults, are not proud of our country.

[Connie_Corleone]

2. Shouldn't he be fussing at the conservative Democrats in the House and Senate?

It's not about the Republicans. Maybe Conyers should try getting conservative Democrats to vote for his favorite version of the bill and see how many votes he gets.

[yurbud]

4. Obama could twist those conservative arms if he wanted to

It would be a simple conversation like this:

''You will vote for a good health care bill with a strong public option, or you won't be getting my help or the DNC's money when election time comes around, but I will look fondly upon any primary challenger against you. You can go back to your corrupt ways after we get this bill through.''

[saracat]

8. As Allentown Jake wrote. "What if Emmanuel was on OUR side"?

Instead, we get a watered down weak PO that doesn't cover everyone while the WH nods.And watched while Reid even caves on anti trust as it may offend The GOP.And Hatch offers his own version of Stupak.

[yurbud]

40. they are lying when they say they are worried about offending the GOP

they are using them as an excuse to carry corporate water.

[diane in sf]

53. I agree, the Repugs make a really convenient excuse.

[yurbud]

62. relationship between Dems & Repubs explained in movie posters:

to see full sized:
http://fascart.blogspot.com/2009/10/democrats-vs-incredible-shrinking-gop.html

[clixtox]

172. Of course there are differences between the...

Democratic Party and the Republican Party, OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO FOOL ANYBODY!!!!

[dflprincess]

179. The Republicans make no secret of who they actually represent

many of the Democrats pretend to be our friends - until after their elected. And we keep falling for it. They're Lucy with the football and we're Charlie Brown.

[yurbud]

181. yep. The problem is, even though progressive appear to be the majority,

the corrupt faction is always in the driver's seat.

[fasttense]

208. Dflprincess that's not true. Republicons always pretend to be something they are not.

Look at how they hide the funding for the tea-parties, as if it's some kind of spontaneous populist uprising. All the while the insurance companies are paying for buses, providing signs and feeding the idiots they con donut and coffee.

Republicons always pretend to be something they are NOT. They try to turn everything they do into a deep dark secret. So, that blue collar working class Americans don't find out the party is only working for the 300 richest Americans.

What has happened is some of the Democratic party has been taken over by the corporations. It's like they sat Obama down and explained the facts of life to him. Corporations run the US government just like the East India Tea company controlled the English colonist before the revolutionary war.

The corporations are fighting the progressive and the majority of American citizens right now. That is what is happening. And so far, the corporations are winning.

I don't think Obama knew how badly dysfunctional the federal government had become from years of corporate, Republicon rule.

I don't think he was prepared for such a huge battle.

[dflprincess]

239. Look at the people Obama appointed to his staff - starting with Rahm

He's as a corportist and part of the problem. I wonder what the slogan for 2012 will be because, as of today, I don't see many of us falling the "hope and change" line again.

[sabrina 1]

234. Excellent portrayal of the way it really is.

I wondered why, all summer, there was silence from the WH as the phony 'grass roots teabagger movement' denounced health care reform. After a while, as it slowly began to dawn on people that the Democrats were working as hard as they could to save the Private Ins. industry, it began to make sense.

If Democrats had wanted a Single Payer system, or at least a real PO, they could easily have gotten it. All they had to do was to call it 'Medicarae for All' and then use their access to the media to explain why this was the most efficient, most fiscally responsible and most responsible thing to do. They had the people behind them and the momentum and the lack of credibility of Republicans.

I no longer think they blew it. It seemed incredible that people in elected office could be as inept as they apppeared to be.

The only they failed to do was to keep the PO completely off the table, as their bosses wanted.

[StreetKnowledge]

251. So they made that public option unattainable for most and expensive.

I'm not voting Dem in 2012. Forget it. I voted for Obama to see things actually change, and after my experiences with the insurance companies - the second primary reason, along with jobs, that I left the US for Canada - I hoped to see them at least get cut down to size, if not removed from the equation completely. But instead, they enshrined them. The GOP is just the loud nutcases. Both sides are hard-left corporatist. And in a decade, if that much, all Americans will pay the price. Our children will NOT live as well as we did. They will live far worse. The only way to save it, I'll say it again, is for the people of the United States to toss these bums out on their backsides. If they cannot, by 2020 the United States will be headed for real bankruptcy, and America will become something similar to Brazil or South Africa, a small, stupidly wealthy elite and the masses fighting to stay alive, with the controls in the hands of the masses. In Brazil, it's manifested itself in several coups. In South Africa, it came within a hair's breadth of a full-blown race war and manifests itself today in the world's highest violent crime rates.

Without major changes, we are writing the final chapter of the American Republic as we know it, and what will come after it is something that is not pleasant.

[Geek_Girl]

78. Yep

Very well put

[Knight Hawk]

144. Exactly

we have all been punked,Chicago style.

[Andronex]

183. you are correct !

"they are lying when they say they are worried about offending the GOP
they are using them as an excuse to carry corporate water."

both parties pretend to oppose each other, giving us the illusion of choice, while in reality they are pushing the same corporate agenda.

[robinlynne]

230. makes sense.

[AllentownJake]

180. I stayed out of this thread on purpose

I was smiling too much when I read this and didn't want to come off as gloating.

[truedelphi]

201. And so I add -

SHAME ON THE WH, FOR SUPPORTING THE INSURERS AND NOT THE PEOPLE

SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!

[DailyGrind51]

210. Who else is thinking that Hillary might have gotten the job done?

She had been down the road already and knows all the players and pitfalls.

[BigBearJohn]

217. Helluva HUGE A-men!

[dionysus]

222. no, not really. the GOP would fight her just as hard, and the blue dogs would still be douchebags..

[MessiahRp]

228. And she's in bed with the same people Rahm is..

The Clintons were horrible with their pro-corporate policies. What makes you think she would actually not give the health care industry anything they lobbied for?

Delusional.

Rp

[TankLV]

229. Hillary WOULD have "got it done" RIGHT!!! That I have no doubt...!

Obama can suck my dick - he's provided NO leadership on this and GAVE AWAY WOMEN'S ABORTION RIGHTS too boot!!!

Imagine - the REPUKES couldn't do it - but god damn - Obama and Our Democrat assholes sure did!!!

Now they are only arguing about how RESTRICTIVE the new abortion laws will be!!!

THIS IS NOT THE FUCKING "CHANGE" WE VOTED FOR!!!

I am so done with this...

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

231. Problem with the Clintons is...

...the more I learn about the misguided economic policies of Bill Clinton, the worse I feel about being a huge supporter of Bill Clinton and more outraged that Obama has brought Clintonians into his team of economic advisers. Do you think Hilary would have surrounded herself with a better team?

Full disclosure: I supported Edwards, simply because I believe he was better on HC than Hillary and far better than Obama. When he dropped out, I had a difficult time deciding between Hillary and Obama, but ultimately voted for "Change we can believe in." I liked Kucinich, and I liked Nader before him. I didn't like Perot, but he "got it"... TOO!

...said the big dummy.

[tblue]

238. I was for Edwards, too. He got it.

And I also wavered between BO and HRC, and ended up voting for BO. I never really, really thought Obama had enough liberal-cred, but I thought he was better than this. I think people have this "playing checkers" fantasy image of him that's based on his appearance? his speeches? what is it? It's not enough. Not nearly enough. My only hope is that he grows into this job out of necessity. But I have observed that Obama tends to serve up liberals like a turkey dinner.

Too bad Edwards committed political suicide.

Good on John Conyers for putting out some tough love to a president I know he wants desperately to succeed.

[dflprincess]

240. No.

I wasn't thrilled with either Clinton or Obama as choices and if I could back to the 2008 caucuses, I'd still caucus "uncommitted". Clinton is just as much a corportist as Obama, maybe even worse.

[pocoloco]

220. He needs to study a little bit about LBJ!

[treestar]

266. So could conyers, in fact isn't it more in his job?

Also, does Obama control the DNC money?

Everybody brags the Dems don't vote in lockstep, well here it is. Enjoy.

[bluethruandthru]

5. Strong leadership from Obama would go a long way.

Republicans are never going to vote for anything that hurts their corporate masters. They just don't care about their constituents. I think the Blue Dogs sense Obama's ambivalence about the issue and that makes it easier for them to lean toward the status quo.

[Delphinus]

37. "Democrats"

aren't going to go against those that buy them either (thinking Evan Bayh and Max Baucus, but there are more).

[defendandprotect]

186. We need a LIST, folks . . . . . for one, think Bachmann is up for relection next time around?

[pundaint]

203. Here's your list:

Congress .


In '10, let's vote based on performance. Has Congress kept us safe from Greedy Corporations? Has Congress maintained our world-class manufacturing capability? Has Congress done anything about 35 years of Big Oil extortion? Has Congress performed it's constitutionally mandated oversight role competently? Has congress provided for the general welfare of the American people? Has Congress earned it's renewal?

[DesertFlower]

82. i agree with you. nt

[yurbud]

157. You would think Dems would have learned during the Clinton admin. He gave them most of what they

wanted and they still tried to impeach him.

If Dems think there is some middle road that will make the GOP stop clobbering them with their media clubs they have severe amnesia--or they are angling to take the GOP's job of top corporate lackey.

[defendandprotect]

187. The Devil With The Blue Dress On . . . comin' after you . . . !!!

And you're so right about GOP . . . they don't stop, but we do!!

And, I think their aggressiveness is one of the things that wholly appears to the

middle class/poor who vote Repug!!!

[notadmblnd]

6. So what is it about then Connie?

this is a sincere question.

[Connie_Corleone]

10. What I just said. The Conservative Democrats.

We can talk about Obama should be doing this or doing that. But, the fact of the matter is that this is the closest we've come to health insurance reform ever.

No, the bill isn't perfect and there is a lot of room for improvement. Social Security and Medicare weren't perfect either. Both had to be made better over time.

[dflprincess]

17. The bill isn't anywhere close to reform of any kind

We need access to health care, this bill only guarantees that most of us will be forced to buy "coverage" from the insurance companies, it doesn't require that that coverage actually give us affordable access to care.

[JDPriestly]

83. Obama is supposed to be a lawyer.

Lawyers negotiate. Obama doesn't. Obama is a compromiser, not an advocate for the American people. We need a strong voice. Obama speaks strongly in public, but it appears, based on the compromises the enters into in secret, that he speaks weakly in private.

Obama is losing the confidence of his base. Even GWB never had to suffer that humiliation.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

130. wow, that sure was based in reality... not.

:eyes:
and you wonder how republicans make comebacks after losing power...

[DumbBassRepublicans]

174. Arnold, we need help...!!!

I too, wish President Obama would show a little more backbone,
particularly against the far-right, wing-nuts...!!!
I guess it's in his nature to try to get adversaries to see eye
to eye. Perhaps down the road, this characteristic of his will produce results,
but unfortunately, at present, it's obvious that republicans have no intention
of ever supporting any idea that Obama puts forth...
WE ALL KNOW THAT republicans WANT PRESIDENT OBAMA TO FAIL...
THEY TALK ABOUT IT, THEY LIVE IT, THEY EMPHASIZE IT, ALL THE TIME...!!!
They are the party of NO...!!!
The party of KNOW-NOTHING...!!!
Maybe Arnold Schwarzenegger could train with Barrack for a week or
so, to help him "bulk up," his intestinal fortitude....!!!
Come on, Arnold, help out the country that made you a millionaire..!!
LOL..!!!
P.S.- Don't blame me. While, of course, I voted for Obama in the
general election, I DID vote for Hillary in the primary...!!!
I wonder IF Hillary winning, would have been different...???
Well, that's a mute point now, isn't it..??!!
So....
President Obama, "YES YOU CAN...!!!"

Just put a little more FORCE behind your tone...!!!

:)

[bertman]

176. Actually, DBR, it's a MOOT point now, but I agree with the need for more intestinal fortitude.

[DumbBassRepublicans]

178. O-o-o-o-o-p-s...

You're right, bertman...!!!
Good eye..!!
I guess my brain was locked up for a second-
whenever I think about republicans, and how they treat
President Obama, I would like to, at minimum, "mute"
all the BS they they spout.
What I would REALLY like
to do to most republicans, I'm afraid I'm not
permitted to post on this website...!!!
LOL...!!!!
Thanks....
:)

[bertman]

182. You are certainly welcome, DBR.

[Garam_Masala]

188. Obama is playing 3 dimensional chess!

not!

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

12. A conservative by any other name is still destructive . .. especially DLC in White House!!

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JDPriestly]

79. It's Obama's job to manage the conservative Democrats.

The treachery on this was an inside job -- inside the Obama White House. Obama wants to be all things to all people. He is a people-pleaser. And the Republicans know where his weak spot is. He takes criticism all too seriously. He mouths certain ideals, but at the first inkling of controversy, Obama shrivels up and gives in.

Obama makes great speeches. He needs to believe in his own speeches even when others disagree with them. The Blue Dog Dems need to understand that they will not get some of the things they want for their constituents if they don't support Obama's program. There is no need to conform 100%, but the Blue Dogs are way out of line. It is as if they want to start their own party or take over the party of labor and reform and make it into so kind of corporate puppy.

[Better Believe It]

81. And not the conservative Democrat in the White House and his conservative aides?

[lsewpershad]

95. Can the respected gentleman

tell us what exactly he did to help the cause. He has been there long enough to have a lot of weight. What the hell did he do to influence those who seem to be dems in repukes clothing?

[grahamhgreen]

198. The bill is a give- away to big insurAnce. Buy insurance or get fined is not reform - it's a con.

[BigBearJohn]

218. You said it! I agree 100%

[jgraz]

204. He's fussing at the conservative Democrat in the White House

Once we turn that guy around, the conservatives in Congress won't be as much of a problem.

[Vincardog]

3. Who doesn't believe that Obama has Some responsibility to lead on this? I know the laws are passed

Congress BUT did JFK wait for Congress to propose the Moon Shot?
I do not believe that FDR waited on Congress to give him a plan to pull us out of the last great recession.

[defendandprotect]

13. Of course it's Obama's responsibility to lead -- and he should be aiming high rather than LOW -- !!

[Vincardog]

16. He would be; if he really gave a damn about the people.

[dionysus]

94. yeah, he hates the people. he ran to be president cause he was bribed by the banksters.

jesus on a pogo stick do people just to the most assinine conclusions.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

223. You are still outnumbered

But continue to apologize for Obama if you wish.

[saracat]

7. Uh, Oh. The apologists will now target Conyers. Public criticism of the.

President is not allowed.

[yurbud]

9. the apologies are getting harder and harder to believe.

[bjobotts]

189. SEnate dems can expand Medicare's 'budget' to cover all through reconciliation requiring 51 votes

[bjobotts]

190. Why? Because it is a 'budgetary' issue which is what reconciliation is set up for.

[TomCADem]

14. Could Conyers Bring Just One GOP or Conservadem Vote?

My issue with Conyers is what does he bring to the table? He is in Congress for goodness sakes. Rather than complaining, why doesn't he lobby his fellow members of Congress and bring some votes to the table. Its not like he is some anonymous blogger. I would like to here Conyers say, "Mr. President, I have produced three Republican votes on health care reform."

Instead, Conyers is just avoiding responsibility as a member of Congress.

[dflprincess]

18. My only problem with Conyers and the rest of the progressive caucus

is that they caved in and voted for the scam.

[Vidar]

19. Kucinich didn't!

[dflprincess]

21. That's true.

I should have said "most of" the caucus.

[Buzz Clik]

26. Who the HELL wrote the bill? Obama?

Give me a break.

Conyers is engaging in deflection of the first order.

Yes, there's been some caving, but it has been the Dems in Congress, not the Dems in the White House.

[dionysus]

28. don't bother, you're wasting your breath.

[sellitman]

31. It's an unhealthy combination of both

No spine in Congress or in the White House.

[Buzz Clik]

32. If Obama were presented a bill that contained the public option or single payer, would he veto it?

[mvd]

44. Hard to say. He doesn't believe single payer is the way to go..

right now at least. I think we should start the transition to single payer now, but I would take the current bill IF it is improved later.

[Buzz Clik]

65. You think there's a realistic chance he would veto health care reform that contained single payer?

No way.

He backed off single payer because it was a non-starter with Congress -- not just the GOP, but the Democrats.

[mvd]

67. With his statements, I can't know for sure

I wish I could.

[dionysus]

90. are you really seriosu? jesus christ, enough DUers call obama a republican ppl actually start to

believe it. sad.

[mvd]

125. Yes, I'm serious, and I'm certainly not acting like he's like the Repukes

It's based on his positions.

[dionysus]

126. fair enough.

[mvd]

128. I support passage of the health care bill and I'm not putting all the blame on Obama

He has my support. I hope he rewards it. :hi:

[dionysus]

132. peace my friend.

:hi:
it's just that i get pissed when horse shit like this is being said (above in this thread);

"Yep... I have zero confidence in him. He's a corporate whore and a liar.
This turd promised the country that he would get in there and try to change things, and as soon as he won the election, he did the opposite.

Screw him. What he did (and continues to do) is despicable and unforgivable. "


if that doesn't break several DU rules, i don't know what would.

[mvd]

135. Hi, dionysus

Please alert on things you think are rule violations. The mods read and consider all the alerts.

Peace. :hi:

[bjobotts]

191. No one elected Rahm Emanuel and he's already made deals to exclude the PO for campaign donations

[bjobotts]

192. It's why they went for the "trigger" option, which is no reform at all & scoffed at opt out

[bjobotts]

193. Emanuel was furious, called mtgs to threaten, he's already bargained away the PO, so no Obama demand

for it.

[bjobotts]

194. Just so millions aren't spent in support of repubs during the upcoming elections

[bjobotts]

195. But even Rahm can't promise it for sure...so Obama calls in his mentor-Joe Lieberman as backup

[bjobotts]

197. I don't like it anymore than you do and I pray progressive senators don't let 'em get away with it

[bjobotts]

199. What they all know is that only a PO will open the door for gov.involement in HC ins industry which

can be expanded later. Only a Public Option opens that door.

[bjobotts]

200. All I can say is for those who refuse to look..remember the FISA vote and telecom immunity?

[dflprincess]

241. bjobotts - you need to learn to type in the "big box".

It saves on posts.

Either hit the tab key or use your mouse to click in it after you create your subject.

[dflprincess]

167. He backed off single payer after cutting deals with pharma and the insurance companies

The man who claimed he'd listen to all sides wouldn't talk to single payer advocates.

Congress and the administration blew a golden opportunity to enact real reform and cement their majority. Instead, they decided to sell us out rather than risk their campaign donations because they think we have no where else to go.

The sad thing is, they'll expect us to be grateful for this scam and when their voters don't turn out they'll scratch their pin heads and wonder why.

[Buzz Clik]

213. Deals? What deals? Please be specific:

What "deal" did he make with "BIG PHARMA" prior to writing the bill he submitted to the Senate and the bill he wrote and submitted to the House?

Do you not understand the incredible nonsense you are spewing?

[StreetKnowledge]

253. Why did Obama host those meetings with the health industry guys, then?

I believe he did make that deal. And for the record, I think somebody needs to primary Obama from the left, as Ted Kennedy did to Jimmy Carter in 1980. Whoever that is, I'll support them. For the last year, what have the progressives who got Obama elected got in return? Nothing. We're still in Iraq, we're still in Afghanistan without a clue, we still have FISA and telecom immunity and the Patriot Act, we still haven't figured out who did what in the torture mess, we're still bailing out big business, we're still having to deal with the psuedo-Republican pigs like Ben Nelson who cut (and I'm not joking ONE BIT on this) food stamps, support for NOAA and NASA, food programs for school kids and school building and maitenance programs, in favor of more military spending. Oh, and removed legal protection for government whistleblowers.

It's long past time that progressives give up on the Democrats, unless the Democrats are willing to earn our support. And trust me, if we start ignoring them for a second en masse, they WILL start listening to us when they know we won't vote Democrat otherwise. That's what we have to do. Period. Nothing else will work. No negotiations. No third-party guy will ever get a fair shake from the media, so the rising has to be led by a brave soul willing to take on the President in a slugging match. And with what we've seen in the last year, at this rate Obama's approval will be in the shitter by then anyways. If we let this go on, at this rate, the 45th President will be Sarah Palin.

It's time to roll, folks, and nail the corporatist Dems to the wall. And the Obama fanboys might want to give their head a shake and see what electing him has earned us - diddly fucking squat.

[sellitman]

59. That's not the right question.

The right question is would he take it to the mat for the right option.

He hasn't sadly enough.

Single payer was left behind.

[Buzz Clik]

66. Take it to the mat? Interesting platitude.

The President has limited power to twist the arms of Congress, and the Constitution requires that to be the case.

Really, if you want a different health care bill, talk to those who draft bills.

[dionysus]

92. dining

room
table

you speak to it.

[hootinholler]

105. "talk to those who draft bills"

As soon as I buy an insurance company I will.

:rofl:

-Hoot

[Buzz Clik]

214. And there you go. Try making an appointment with John Conyers. Good luck!

[rpannier]

120. Actually he has a lot of power to do so

He chooses not to use it

If they're interested in saving money, the White House could refuse to sign any bill that provides subsidies to their states.
The President can move federal dollars, projects and contracts away from states where the Senators are opposing the reform the President wants.
Bases need to be closed??? Close them in states and districts where representatives are scuttling his reform.
The President can use the White House and the power of the purse over Senators and Congressmen in a variety of ways.
Truman did it.
Johnson did it.
Reagan did it.
Bush did it.

[Buzz Clik]

215. You're under the impression that Obama has plied no pressure to Congress?

How is it that we have, for the first time EVER, the opportunity for significant health care reform? It may not be the utopia you desire, but denying its existence is folly.

[dflprincess]

242. We HAD the opportunity for reform

the Democrats blew it by deciding to pass insurance company protection instead.

[dionysus]

91. i forgot he was still in the senate. thanks for reminding me.

:eyes:

[MissDeeds]

154. +1

:banghead:

[JDPriestly]

84. Baucus wrote the bill. And that is the problem.

Baucus, servant not of the people but of the insurance companies, wrote the bill.

[defendandprotect]

11. And Conyers is right -- !!!

[change_notfinetuning]

15. Obama went to Washington to change it, and it changed him. Anyone who

says Obama hasn't veered to the right is as full of shit as those who say they always knew he was moderate or those who call him a socialist.

This is, indeed, change. Just not the change we Democrats voted for.

When I voted for him for senator in 2004, he was for single payer, unequivocally. When he ran for president, he said he was going to listen to all sides on all issues. Then, after the election, single payer was off the table and single payer advocates were arrested.

Thanks Barack. That is the legacy you will be remembered for - how you stood between real health care reform and the American people. Alinsky is spinning in his grave.

[avaistheone1]

24. You are right.

Now Obama says single payer is a radical idea.
That is quite a flip-flop.

[dionysus]

29. why is it you guys can't understand this simple fact; single payer NEVER HAD ENOUGH

VOTES to even be seriously considered. i know, you'll blame obama for that, but that's congress' faul, pure and simple.

the people blaming barack for this either have no inkling of how bills get passed, or they are being intellectually dishonest.

[derby378]

38. Not enough votes for single payer? In that case...

...our line in the sand, as progressives, was a real public option that any American could take part in, with premiums pegged to Medicare + (insert reasonable percentage here), that covered men and women alike regardless of what their medical needs were. No triggers, no co-ops, no opt-out, no opt-in, no opt-sideways, and no "fine print" bullshit. That was the only way we could ever tolerate an individual insurance mandate. And that's what Americans are being told they're not going to get.

[dionysus]

45. i agree completely. why won't our democratically controlled congress do it?

if there aren't enough votes for that, the question is why?

[StreetKnowledge]

255. You Know Why.

Because the health insurance lobbyist jackasses pay off 9 out of 10 Congressmen, and Obama never went down there to get the idea into their heads. He caved. Period. And those that support him are indirectly supporting this piece of shit, retrograde health care "reform". And all of the people who will die as a result who didn't have to - from people who still die because they cannot afford coverage, to people denied coverage to save money on bullshit technicalities to women now dying because they cannot get abortions for life-threatening conditions - will be on your consciences, not mine.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

142. and when did he even try?

Jeez, the apologists here who think that Obama is still the face of change are scary. After close to a year, I think his modus operandi is clear. Cave in, negotiate to the center, if not the right, and refuse to demand anything from the centrists.

I am growing more disillusioned, worried and upset by this administration. Did we work so hard only to get BushLite? Where are the torture trials? Where are the Iraq investigations? Where are the Wall Street indictments? Where are the spines in the White House? Missing in action.

[jefferson_dem]

146. Who cares about those stupid technical issues!

Votes shmotes! Teh people want singel payah! :crazy:

[jgraz]

205. You know what? A lot of progressive legislation NEVER HAD ENOUGH VOTES

Until a LEADER stepped up and got them.

I thought I was voting for that kind of a leader. If I wanted another corporatist Defeatocrat, I would have supported Hillary.

[StreetKnowledge]

254. Did that stop Lyndon Johnson?

No, it didn't. He went down to Congress and got the votes. Did Barack even attempt that? Nope......

Conyers is right. He's gone way off to the right, and he's not representing us anymore. And with that in mind, if we want influence, we need to make him remember that his base is more important that Republipigs like Ben Nelson and Max Baucus.

[ChiciB1]

47. Thanks For Saying What I Wanted To Say "change_notfinetuning" This Is An

issue that I THOUGHT Obama was really sincere about! So much for thinking as my father used to say!!

Rolling right along with more promises that I felt would NEVER be broken! I really haven't seen REAL STRONG LEADERSHIP from Obama regarding HCR! I've heard some speeches, nice photo-ops and stuff like that, but even if his temperament is different from other Presidents, that doesn't count with me. What counts with me is to see ACTION and at the very least "some" loud talk and chastising of THIS Congress for NOT producing what I felt he believed in all along.

I went to his rallies and heard different words from his mouth about WHAT HE INTENDED TO DO! Did I think he was a Liberal as I? No I didn't, still he talked a good enough talk for me to get out and campaign for him in my very Ruby Red County! And it wasn't easy going either! He seems so much more DLC than I would ever have thought, especially coming from Illinois!

Do I want him to succeed? For sure, but bad bills are BAD BILLS and this isn't a HCR that I feel should be passed. To say it's a start doesn't hold water with me... I don't really think it's going to get re-visited, kind of like NAFTA didn't get re-visited!

[theHandpuppet]

50. "Obama went to Washington to change it, and it changed him."

That pretty much says it all.

[katandmoon]

107. THANK YOU.

[jefferson_dem]

145. "Alinsky is spinning in his grave."

Oh please. Can you be any more obvious?

[Vidar]

20. K&R

[placton]

22. if only the PRESIDENT

knew about this, I am sure he would act decisively to correct it.

[Divine Discontent]

23. well, it was at 28 recs when I clicked rec - big surprise it stayed there afterwards! Maybe post why

you unrec? I think this guy is in the know, quite a bit more than many of us, and sadly, there's a lot of luster coming off the shine at the White House - too much cavin' in!!!!

I love my president. But, I don't love him moving to the right just to appease rightwingers. He won solidly last year - not an up all night wait it out election - we want OUR goals pushed - not the GOP's!

[Buzz Clik]

25. Conyers insinuating that a fellow Dem is "bowing" to the GOP. He can bite my arse.

Who was the number one impediment to investigating Bush and Cheney?

What a weed.

[dionysus]

27. while this will cause the DU obama critics to orgasm, conyers is a paper tiger who

has the cajones to go after his fellow dems and doesn't do shit to the repukes.

it's news to me that obama wrote the house and senate bills...
:shrug:

[paulk]

153. under the bus with you, John Conyers!

[spiritual_gunfighter]

225. Are you keeping track

of all the Democrats you have thrown under the bus while defending Obama, from what I have read the list is very long.

[closeupready]

30. Amen. K&R

But they aren't listening. You know that saying about keep your friends close and your enemies closer? Well, in the translation, they thought that actually meant, "keep your friends close, but listen only to your enemies." Or something like that. Bipartisanship is a losing strategy.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[dana_b]

34. wow!

Conyers telling it like it is! :thumbsup:

[SpartanDem]

35. Save Obama's ass?

What the hell has he done to deliver votes?

[derby378]

42. We don't need Republican votes, anyway

Do we or do we not have a majority in the House and the Senate? I put some of the blame on Pelosi, Hoyer, and Reid for a lack of leadership on insurance reform.

[dionysus]

54. did we fill kennedy's seat yet? remember part of our 60 is leiberman.

so really in the senate it's very close.

[jefferson_dem]

71. The reality is there is no room for error.

Either the whiners and moaners

1. recommend we blow up the system with reconciliation

2. can't count

3. don't understand the policy-making process very well

...or a mixture of the above.

[rpannier]

121. Blow up the system with reconciliation???

That got blown up a long time ago -- Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.

They need to move it to budget reconciliation and basically say F-you to Lieberman.

Fact is, by not using it they are giving the republikkans and insurance lapdogs what they want.
When they return to power, they will use it again, regardless of what we do.

Edmund Burke once observed, "Politics is about winning. There are no moral victories."

[StreetKnowledge]

256. Nailed it.

We don't need 60 votes. We need fifty, plus the Vice-President. (Where does Biden stand on this, anyways?) Get this past, then get on the job of expelling Lieberman, Nelson, Landrieu, Conrad, Baucus and Pryor from the Democrats. None of those six corporatist slimeballs, especially the turncoat Lieberman and the Republican hiding behind a 'D' Nelson, have any business in our party. They wanna found their own party, go ahead. But the progressives are who get Democrats elected, in 80% of the offices held by them. This is our party, and the sooner these douchebags get that and either work with us or get the f--k you, the better.

[saracat]

112. Kennedy's seat is filled and yes it is close.

[freddie mertz]

212. How could anyone who claims to follow current events NOT know...

That Kennedy's seat had been filled?

[saracat]

221. I wondered that as well.It boggles the mind.

[freddie mertz]

224. Indeed. Not exactly a minor news story.

I know I'm originally from Boston and all that, but jeez, that was the 60, and a rather major vacancy that had to be filled...

[dionysus]

52. easier to throw stones then ask why his own branch of congress wasn't fully behind the PO.

[freddie mertz]

89. They were not behind it, in part, because the president had rhetorically dumped it

In numerous appearances over the summer and fall, he stressed that the PO was not "Essential," was a "sliver," we all heard him, we all know that his support for it was not strong.

The WH has, for all intents and purposes, handed this thing into the clutches of the most conservative Democrats AND their GOP allies (Stupak had GOP sponsorship, Stupak is a C-street wingnut)..

There is plenty of blame to pass around, to sure, but the ultimate responsibility for how this has played out has to rest in the Oval Office.

"The buck stops here," as another Dem president used to put it.

[dionysus]

100. the fact is single payer *never* had democratic support in number to get it passed. ignore that all

you want freddie, but it is the truth. not only did it not have enough support to pass, it did not have enough support to get out of committee. that has nothing to do with the president.

the supposedly mighty liberal caucus in the house had to water the public option to get the votes.

the president is in a totally seperate branch of government, in case you didn't realize.

[freddie mertz]

211. I was not even referring to "single-payer", of course...

That's a typical knee-jerk red-herring.

It was the Public Option that the President undermined with his less than supportive rhetoric.

And if you are trying to convince time that what goes on the DEMOCRATIC-CONTROLLED HOUSE is "totally separate" from what the President of the same party wants or does, you must think me very gullible indeed.

They had meetings, communication lines were open. What has happened and will happen in the end is as much the president's as the Houses' fault (or credit, depending on one's point of view).

[saracat]

74. Are you joking? Seriously? Are you intimating Conyers didn't deliver votes or do anything?

And do you remember ANY of the last 8 years and Conyers efforts? This nation owes a huge debt to Conyers. He repeatedly stood up to Bush and often almost alone. Mr. Conyers efforts made Obama possible.

[dionysus]

88. stood up to bush with his what, sternly delived letters? his empty threats to consider impeachment?

seriously you guys crack me up.
:rofl:

[saracat]

93. And exactly what did Obama do at that time? There was a minority and

Conyers did what could be done. Now with a majority in both houses and the WH, Obama refuses to investigate. Gimme a break. I guess youy don't remember that the Dems didn't even have a place to meet and carved out space in the basement.

[dionysus]

101. as much as you and i want to, as guilty as they were, the stark reality is that

the public is not behind trying the bush administration for treason and war crimes. they're not informed enough, and the vast majorty of citizens are not as partisan as DU is. even the most loyal dems i know outside of DU, who think bush was the worst president of all time, think his administration should be charged with treason, or high crimes. it's just the way it is.

it would be monumentally stupid, because that would not only paralyze the entire government, it would most certainly fail, and put the democrats out of power for a long, long time. i know that sucks, but it's the truth.

would you rather have the dem go down in flames over that issue, or do you want us to tackle issues we can pass bills on?

[saracat]

111. That doesn't answer my question as to what Sen. Obama did

while Conyers was at least writing letters and taking public stands.And Conyers couldn't act on impeachement for the same reasons you cite about trying BUSHCO . And so far, I haven't seen progress on any meaningful issues. Healthcare ,INMHO is a mess. Climate Change a disaster. We are talking about Pacific Rim treaties that would parrallell NAFTA. Abortion rights are sideelined as are gay rights. Education is being butchered by Duncan who wants to destroy the public Education system and reolace it with vouchers and charte schools.Exactly what ARE the issues we can pass bills on??????? I severything too hot to handle? And if we can't get anything, I really no longer care ikf they go down in flames. What is the difference between Stupak and a Repug? Rahm shoved all these faux dems down our throats and now we are paying the price. And yeah, I know, I am a "Debbie Downer". Sorry but I am not grateful to faux dems and the MNajority hasn't benefitedd many of us so far except banks, insurance companies and GM.

[valleywine]

252. yes, our eyes are off Duncan and his privitization of public schools. This

is WH approved. Next year when we wake up it will be too late and his has been working hard at it and has the money to do it.

[impik]

36. Conyers should run for president, maybe he can

do better trying to pass a bill no one managed to in decades. Single Payer? What SP? Single Payer wouldn't pass the second day of the debate. But why be realistic? Why be pragmatic? Much easier to go on Huff-Post and mock the president from your party.

Whatever, enjoy the Palin presidency.

[frylock]

48. 100110101101

[mvd]

43. I think he has a point

There should be more leadership from the President. The public option is not just "a way" to get reform - it is the only way to get any kind of reform.

But he didn't "bow down" on the Stupak amendment and any other RW amendment. And who knows what he is doing behind the scenes to get the bill passed in the Senate.

[dionysus]

56. it is interesting how the president get directly blamed fort he votes fo the blue dogs, as if he has

them on a string like a puppet.

some people act as if they want him to attack those guys in the press, which would blow up in his face.

[bvar22]

46. Obama IS leading.

Obama took the lead in stripping the Kucinich Amendment OUT of the House Bill.
This Amendment would have let states start their own Single Payer System.
See?
Obama KNOWS how to please those he works for.

[pundaint]

49. You are right sir.

There is nothing in his performance that indicates to me that he is anything other than a mid-century corporatist Republican who understands diplomacy. I have come to the realization that we are the people he manipulated into supporting the Republican agenda, rather than getting Republicans to support a Democratic agenda as we voted him in to do.

Who on our side wanted mandatory preservation of the status quo, with price increases, for those currently insured, and a 12% hit on adjusted gross earning for everyone else, with throw-in of a few tens of billions of tax dollars to drug and insurance companies just to sweeten the pot?

[impik]

55. Oh, so now Obama is a Republican?

Go get some help, seriously.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

143. hard to tell. He certainly is no liberal.

[BumRushDaShow]

51. This from the "Impeachment is off the table" Conyers. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

57. Conyers is correct.

[Baltoman991]

60. Tell me,

was Conyers also correct when he kissed Bush's ass and pulled any and all ivestigations off the table?

It amazes me that those who can't stand Obama will back an idiot like Conyers when he himself is the one guilty of kissing the asses of Republicans.

Conyers is right about nothing in this matter. Obama has had meeting after meeting with each caucus in Congress and it's gotten him no where so yeah, lets blame it all on Obama because the fools in Congress don't want to do their own work.

Sure, Obama can become an idiot himself and bypass Congress much the same way Bush did for 8 years but really, does that help? No, it doesn't.

So in reality, this is just one more thing the Obama haters can rally around for a few weeks and get their cheap "he's spineless" or "he's a corporate hack" slams in.

To you, Conyers and the rest of the so called "Progressive Democrats" I say good luck because in 2012, you won't have a damn chance of getting anything done when a Republican is sitting in the White House.

[Drunken Irishman]

58. lol

I love Conyers.

He's saving Obama's can. God bless him! Obama is a blind man walking into the walls and Conyers is there to help him find his way. It's really the Conyers presidency, folks. Not the Obama one.

GOD BLESS JOHN CONYERS!

[earth mom]

61. Conyers is right but did he fight the bill like Kucinich did? I don't remember him doing so.

So at this point, it's all just wasted words and energy.

[berni_mccoy]

72. Conyers knows better than to marginalize himself like Kucinich did. There is this thing

called Politics. Conyers knows how to play it. Kucinich doesn't.

[green917]

133. Kucinich understands politics just fine

He, unlike most of his colleagues though, is a man of principle so he stands up and fights for what he believes in regardless of whether or not he thinks he has the votes or can win in the court of Congressional public opinion.

The simple fact here is that, Rep. Conyers is absolutely correct. President Obama has NOT shown leadership on this issue! Although it is the job of the Democrats in Congress to actually write the Legislation, when we have the White House, it's the President and his Chief of Staff who set the agenda for the party. Flat out, even if we didn't have the votes to get it out of Committee, had the President come out and very vocally said that he still supports a strong single payer system (like he did when he was running for Senator) and that's where he feels the debate should begin, this entire process would have been VERY different and guys like Max Baucus and Bart Stupak would have had far less importance to this debate. Were that the case, we just might have real health care reform instead of this bailout for the insurance industry that we're going to get.

[slipslidingaway]

164. And Conyers backed down when asked by Clinton in the 90's...

playing politics has not helped the people, we need more people to stand up to the for profit companies ...... not play politics.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/slipslidingaway/98

"...As a matter of fact, the single-payer concept is one of the oldest serious major notions that has been around. That is to say, for those of us who were here when the President was Bill Clinton and he assigned his wife the task of taking on the reform of health care, we were summoned, we who were supporting single-payer, were summoned to the White House collectively.

I remember very well that Jerry Nadler of New York was there, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee. And what happened was that we were urged to step back from our initiative which had been going on for years before the Clintons assumed their responsibilities on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and after some brief discussion, we agreed that that was the appropriate thing to do. We did it. We did step back..."

[yurbud]

63. the sad part of this is it means Obama wasn't running some complicated scam on corporate toadies

he ran it on us.

[Drunken Irishman]

68. Poor you!

[yurbud]

156. so you're already wealthy enough to live in a gated community and shit on the rest of us?

[Zorra]

64. Yeah, it's totally painful and embarrassing for me as a Democrat to watch Obama

grovel and kiss republican ass while they are stealing his lunch money in the schoolyard.

Republicans are ignorant bullies - sniveling, obstructionist, corporatist losers that have absolutely nothing of value to contribute to anything. Less than zero. To pretend that they are anything else is an extreme disservice to democracy and our nation. Republicans are wasting our valuable time. Their only interest is in serving their corporate masters so that they can retain their power.

Please, Mr. President, stop appeasing republicans. You are hurting everyone, republicans included, by doing so.

[Drunken Irishman]

70. What's painful and embarrassing is watching the left not get it.

It's sad and ridiculous, especially when they use stupid hyperboles that make them no better than the Republicans.

Pay attention, Zorra. Open your fucking eyes. If you think Obama is graveling to the Republicans, you're as dense as Conyers. It isn't about the Republicans. It's about the moderate and conservative members of his own party.

That is what you people don't seem to grasp. You saw how a more moderate healthcare bill BARELY fucking passed the house and you still don't get it? Jesus Christ! It's right in front of your face! If you honestly think Obama could have pushed through a more progressive healthcare bill and received the same amount of votes, you're more lost than any Republican.

If you want to blame people - blame those who voted for the moderate/conservative Democrats. It's their votes that kept a more progressive healthcare bill off the table.

Obama should be damned for trying. That's the only thing you have on him. He realized the only way this bill had a prayer is if it was acceptable to most Democrats. Hate to tell you people, but a single payer wouldn't even be acceptable to half of the Democratic members of Congress.

But we're good at cutting off our noses to spite our face! Obama should have gone ahead and FAILED in this debate by demanding a single payer bill and nothing less. Then when it crashed and burned, we could all dance around Obama's failure.

Because isn't that what it's all about? Sure seems like it. Better to fail passing any healthcare than passing something that is somewhat more moderate.

Again, cutting off your nose to spite your face. That's why Dennis Kucinich has no accomplishments to his name. It's all or nothing for him. Well I don't want a president who has that mindset because if we did - we'd fail as a country. We'd fail because congress is too decisive to support an all or nothing policy.

But you probably don't get that, do you?

[jefferson_dem]

73. This thread is proof...

There are loons on the left just as there are wackos on the right. Both suck equally.

[fascisthunter]

80. nah, what's worse are the sychophantic who kiss corporate ass

and pretend it's supposed to be a good thing for average Americans... you folks in the middle practically GAVE the right wing power, while never listening to the left, due to lack of principle and corruption.

I think you are the delluded ones who have screwed this country along with the GOP... pointing your finger at the left is a fucking joke only an idiot could agree with.

[Drunken Irishman]

87. Aww...

And the left has been so damn effective haven't they?

They're just good at bitching. That's all the left is good for now.

[dionysus]

98. please don't broadbrush these clowns as "the left". there are plenty of

liberals who understand how things work and they're not all dennis kucinich fans who think he could get elected president, if not for the DLC bogeyman and some huge conspiracy to keep him down.

[Drunken Irishman]

99. You're right. That is my bad.

I meant the whining left. The left everyone laughs at and no one takes seriously.

[dionysus]

96. it's cheap cop-out to call liberals who have an understanding of how things work

and disagree with you "moderates". blaming Obama because the democrats don't have anything close to the support in congress to put up a single payer bill is intellectually dishonest to the extreme.

and i'm sure you're intelligent enough to know this. single payer woulddie in committee, there would be no bill whatsoever, and you'd actually prefer that to incremental progress. because you're stubborn.

really, you're pissed because dennis kucinich can't be president. well, he never will be, because he's a joke. outside of DU, the vast majority of the country doesn't even know who that little gnome IS.

and you're just going to blame obama for everything anyway. not even close to enough support even in the house for the public option? why, gotta be the president's fault, even though he's in a totally different branch of government.

senate blue dogs are bought off? why, certainly obama's fault. he should do a bush and perhaps blackmail them into doing his bidding.

economy didn't magically recover? why, it's obama's fault, he ran for president because he was bribed to screw over his country.

do you even know how ridiculous that is? do you?

seriously, you guys are a one string guitar, and even that one string is out of tune.

[Mithreal]

124. Become the Straw Man, right? It was inevitable, really.

Must be very satisfying to excel at diversion.

[dionysus]

129. really? funny me, all along i thought it was the people constantly crying how much the

president is a corporate sellout republican who became president so he could screw over his own country were the ones dividing the party. wow, i understand it all now.

[Mithreal]

137. You constructed another straw man.

Misplaced response?

[jefferson_dem]

148. Anyone who even uses the word "corporatist" may as well pin a note to their chest that says...

"I'm a clueless ideologue."

Anyone who suggests Barack Obama is one -- a "corporatist" -- is revealing they have totally lost touch with all semblances of political reality.

[dionysus]

160. well, that's what i think too. "corporatist" and "bankster" got played out long ago

i have yet to decide if the people saying that actually mean it, because it's so cartoony it's ridiculous.

[Mithreal]

249. Not reality, but "political reality"?

I guess that is why Goldman Sachs wasn't allowed anywhere near the treasury department. I suppose that is also why no lobbyists were allowed in the Obama admin.

Sometimes I think moderates are playing in another reality. At least now I know its name.

[jefferson_dem]

150. That's ok.

I hope you (and Kooch) enjoy saddling up with some of the sleaziest right wing wackos this nation has ever seen...in an order to defeat the best opportunity to reform our health care system in a generation. Good luck. Rest well. :hi:

[JDPriestly]

85. Johnson managed to pass the Civil Rights bill in spite of the Southern Democrats.

Obama should be able to get a senator like Landrieu on his side. He is certainly doing enough for her state -- especially compared to GWB.

[Drunken Irishman]

86. Johnson also had the death of a president to help him along.

Not even comparable.

[JDPriestly]

104. Johnson had a drive for justice to help him along. Kennedy's death

was not a help to him at all.

[Drunken Irishman]

108. Sure it wasn't.

You keep telling yourself that. lol

[JDPriestly]

118. Were you there? I remember that time.

[madrchsod]

139. he sure did..

and that`s why he was the best politician during the last century.

[madrchsod]

138. johnson had this guy on his side during the civil rights fight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_Dirksen

obama does`t have enough favors built up nor does he know where the bodies are buried like lbj did.

[Zorra]

109. "Dana Perino Nominated By Obama To Broadcasting Board Of Governors"

President Obama has nominated Dana Perino, George W. Bush's last press secretary and a frequent critic of the new administration, to a board overseeing government-sponsored international broadcasting.
snip--
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) reportedly urged the Obama administration to appoint Perino.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/19/dana-perino-nominated-by_n_363560.html

I'm sure that Dana Perino is the most progressive of possible conservative candidates for this position, and that she will do the most constructive job possible in her new position.
:sarcasm:

DI, it's not just the healthcare issue that has Rep. Conyers and many progressives upset with the President. He's been playing footsies with republicans pretty much across the board, and even my blind dog can see that this is a complete waste of time and energy. Even if it is just "protocol". Obama is needlessly compromising with republicans. FDR didn't get all those great things done for our country by kissing republican ass. As far as republicans were concerned, it was either his way or the highway, and he knew how to strongarm members of his own party into getting behind him in order to get things done. And that's what I don't see much evidence of Obama doing. He can inform conservative Dems that they either need to get with the program, or they will feel the full wrath of the President of the United States. The President of the United States has the power to seriously kick their ass, politically speaking, if he has the desire and will to do it. So yes, I really do believe that Obama could have pushed through a more progressive health care bill if he wanted to.

And honestly, I don't much care for your loser philosophy of compromise at any cost. This philosophy is why things continue to get worse and worse in this country. If you always settle for eating shit rather than decent food, shit is all you're ever gonna have to eat.

By eliminating the possibility of getting single payer healthcare early on, Obama set the bar low - and he didn't need to do that. We have a huge majority in the House, and a large one in the Senate.

It's like an Olympic athlete going for the Bronze Medal and then being happy with taking fifth place.

Personally, I wouldn't really satisfied with anything but the Gold Medal. But if I get the Bronze, at least I know I went for the best, and tried my best.

And if I get the Bronze, well, at least that's something. It's much better than going for the Bronze and taking fifth place, which, in reality, is nothing at all.

(And BTW, it's not we "on the left" that got us into this mess - it was the right)

[Major Hogwash]

115. So, when will Obama appoint Liz Cheney to a national security position in his admin?

Since she is related to Dick, surely they think she is qualified.

[lildreamer316]

122. "..we'd fail as a country.". We've ALREADY failed as a country!

Do you really think it would be THAT much worse than it is now, or than the direction we are surely headed in?? Are you saying that an all-or-nothing mindset is an inevitable cause of something like complete anarchy?

[yurbud]

161. you're right about ''moderate'' dems being problem but since they are in the minority...

wouldn't it make more sense to strong arm them instead of the progressive majority.

[jefferson_dem]

69. "I'm getting tired of saving Obama's can in the White House"

:spray:

Somebody needs to take a little break and get some rest. The distinguished gentleman is getting a bit punchy...

[dionysus]

102. he does have a rather large sense of self-importance, mr conyers does...

:rofl: maybe he's jealous or something.

[graywarrior]

75. Conyers? A guy who backed down on promises himself.

[KoKo]

116. Noooooooo! Conyers Backs Down? Waxman Backs Down, Leahy Backs Down?

No WAY! These folks are HERO/Idols for all of us Progressive Dems who lived for eight or more years in a wildnerness...fighting off the Repugs for our Party.

Noooooo....... These are our heroes. Glad to see them standing up and FIGHTING FOR TRUTH, JUSTICE and the AMERICAN WAY!

:sarcasm:

[pleah]

76. Bravo to Conyers! It is well past the time that people should be speaking out.

I am so fucking sick of the dems caving to the thugs.

[swilton]

77. It Sure Took Conyers Long Enough to Come to This Conclusion

The time to have aired the dirty laundry was when this bill was going through the house - both Obama, the DLC, and the invertebrate members of the house and senate have sold us out.:nuke:

[RBInMaine]

97. Conyers needs to realize that it is about advances and compromise or nothing happens. GET REAL !

[saracat]

114. Conyers has a lifetime of experience in the house. He knows what he is speaking about.

[KoKo]

119. Funny thing is that Conyers held "basement hearings" on Kerry Stolen Election...

Remember that? All DU'ers watched and had a "Running thread on here." Even Barbara Boxer showed up in support.

REMEMBER THAT? And, remember when Conyers supported subpeonas for the Bushies for torture and Karl Rove and all the other travesties of the Bush Years. REMEMBER HOW WE SUPPORTED HIM? It was "always coming....always coming from Conyers and Waxman.

DID IT EVER COME?

Tell me why I think Conyers is a "bleating sheep." :shrug: TELL ME!

[femrap]

106. Conyers is funny....

isn't he the one who didn't go impeachment? They're all alike. Progressives, working people, the poor...we just get screwed.

We don't have a democracy anymore.

[yurbud]

159. I think he went along with House leadership thinking they'd get some work on things like

health care done.

They got something done, but it's looking less and less like health care and more like insurance care.

[theFrankFactor]

110. Humph... How 'bout that! Can ya believe it? Probably should wait a while though.

Let's give Barack seven more years. We don't wanna pile on unfairly now do we? I mean let's wait 'till we can gun up a majority in at least one of the chambers, and as we know, the public voted for this President because they wanted to send a message... "don't upset your corporate donors". I think that was it wasn't it?

NOT A PUSSY-ASS DEMOCRAT?
http://TheFrankFactor.com

[katty]

113. stop pandering to these f***ers, Obama!

[Azathoth]

117. Then why didn't you write a better bill John?

And why didn't you round up more votes to keep us from having to compromise with the Stupak crowd? Why the fuck is it Obama's fault that you and your friends couldn't do better?

[Mithreal]

131. He did write a bill for every American.

http://www.johnconyers.com/healthcare

Obama is the head of the party and he twisted arms to keep Progressive elements out of the bill and did back room meetings a la Cheney with Pharma and Insurers. When Progressive organizations decided to target Blue Dogs, they were called in to speak with Rahm and were told to go fuck themselves, sound familiar?

The Democratic leadership held American lives hostage and caused the Progressive Caucus to cave. They shouldn't have, but they did. The vote count was engineered to remain close. The blue dogs were allowed to vote against.

President Obama has not been a Progressive's friend with regard to health care reform. I am not saying he is an enemy but he is no Progressive.

[Azathoth]

141. Really? Obama "twisted arms" to prevent a Progressive bill?

So it's not that he wasn't "showing leadership", it's that he was actively playing for the other team? I suppose Nancy Pelosi could easily have passed a more Progressive bill, if only Obama hadn't prevented her from doing so.

When Progressive organizations decided to target Blue Dogs, they were called in to speak with Rahm and were told to go fuck themselves, sound familiar?

Yeah, and the political rationale here is simple: blue dogs usually come from conservative districts. Targeting them with liberal political advertising is counterproductive as it just drives them further to the right, making them vulnerable to Republican challengers while sowing discord within the party. This is an age-old Washington calculation.

The vote count was engineered to remain close.

Sure dude. And if Kucinich had written the bill, we could have "engineered" a 100-vote margin of victory, right?

The blue dogs were allowed to vote against.

They weren't "allowed" to do anything. Most of them did so because of home-district political reasons. Nothing the leadership says to a congressman is going to force him to vote in a way that he knows will cost him his job -- just ask Joe Cao. The only way you can get these guys on board is to threaten them, compromise with them, or buy them off.

I am not saying he is an enemy but he is no Progressive.

He never really campaigned as one. He campaigned as a moderately liberal pragmatist, and that is how he is governing.

[Mithreal]

149. How many legislators have you sat down with?

I was told at the kitchen table how being a blue dog works. This with regard two two legislators while we were interviewing for a third position. Whether a legislator casts a yes or no vote is dependent on whether a bill will pass if you are a blue dog. I have learned not to trust the numbers when a bill passes. You can never know how a blue dog would have voted unless there was some danger in a bill passing or not.

And by other team, do you mean Republican? No, I mean the team of the corporation.

Nancy Pelosi laughed at the Progressive Caucus's resolve. She often speaks in a way that makes it clear she empathizes with people who are wealthy and not the average person. She is on the Obama team. Why would she have any reason to challenge his direction?

And I am respecting your response by addressing your points and the Kucinich comment just makes you seem an asshole. What does he have to do with it? One of the things I hate about smug moderates is when they whip out Kucinich to make some asshat point of theirs.

And Obama did call himself a pragmatic progressive and to say any different is a lie.

It seems that you believe that Obama has very little influence over Democrats. That is not an idea I accept.

And no shit to some of your other points, like threaten, coerce or buy off.

[Azathoth]

202. "You can never know how a blue dog would have voted"

That's true. But given the fact that we ended up with the fucking Stupak amendment, I think it's pretty clear how Pelosi thought they were going to vote. Whatever you say about her (and some of it is justified), I don't think she would have agreed to Stupak's demands if she thought she could get the votes otherwise. So your charge that the vote was "engineered to be close" -- which logically implies that Pelosi had more than enough support and staged a performance to make it appear like she didn't -- is bullshit. It was a legitimately close vote; maybe two or three blue dogs in vulnerable districts might have switched their votes if push came to shove, but by and large, we got the bill passed by the skin of our teeth, and we had to compromise significantly to do it.

My Kucinich reference was justified, as your post drips with the kind of idealogical naivete that is exemplified by the Kucinich crowd:

• Kucinich supporter: "If only we had made the bill more Progressive, then everyone would have voted for it!"
  
• Rational person: "But the bill was extremely moderate and it barely passed, even though every Progressive (sans Kucinich) voted for it."
  
• Kucinich supporter: "That's just because it was engineered to appear that way!"
  

If you don't see what's wrong with this line of reasoning, then I can't help you.

It seems that you believe that Obama has very little influence over Democrats.

I believe he has influence over real Democrats. Blue Dogs not so much. They get elected by trying to prove to their constituents that Obama doesn't have influence over them.

Your original post seems to imply that if only Pelosi and Obama were "real Progressives", they could have forced the Blue Dogs to vote for something more Progressive, either through sheer force of will or (as Kucinich would have us believe) because the Blue Dogs all secretly want universal single-payer insurance and they refuse to vote for anything less. Now you concede that the only way Pelosi and Obama could have gotten the support of Blue Dogs was to compromise with them and/or buy them off, which is exactly what happened. So what the hell are you complaining about?

[Mithreal]

245. Any person who brings up Kucinich as a way to insult Progressives

is not a fellow DU'er of mine.

I have seen too many cases where Blue Dogs play games with the close votes.

Rahm recruits Blue Dogs and many lost in recent elections. What makes you think the leadership is anything but Blue Dog friendly?

I wasn't talking about single payer or Kucinich.

Stop putting words in other people's mouths as it were. This is where I think you fail logic. You embrace logical fallacies and seem to hope no one notices.

[firedupdem]

123. What did Conyers do to make the bill better? Obama didn't write

it. Easy to sit back and write letters and talk shit when he's gotten nothing accomplished. Fuck him.

[Fire1]

127. He should be tired of saving his wife's "can," if anything. n/t

[Mithreal]

134. Looks like Straw Man, ad Hominem and Red Herring season

as all the apologists come out to play.

[fascisthunter]

147. yee-up

[spiritual_gunfighter]

226. Dont forget the Kucinich bashing and throwing all liberals under the bus n/t

[Mithreal]

244. I won't

[chill_wind]

140. "...the Barack Obama I first met."

He's talking about Rahm, the Republicans' Best Friend. "..his buddy".

Conyers is sounding very, very tired and angry. The candor was so startling, I had to click the actual link to make sure this wasn't a hoax. I like candor.

[KoKo]

151. A Lot of us remember: "The Barack Obama, I First Met." but

Conyers for us who signed all his petitions and sent money to him...wonder......

Who is it that "Conyers first met..." that we should believe a word out of his mouth. He's running in 2010.

I know you get my angry rant...but rant ...I had to do.

Peace!

[ProSense]

152. Conyers: House Health Care Bill Will Save Lives While Fight for Single Payer Continues

Nov. 07, 2009

Conyers: House Health Care Bill Will Save Lives While Fight for Single Payer Continues

WASHINGTON D.C. — Congressman John Conyers, Jr (D-MI) issued the following statement today applauding the passage of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

“Today, I joined my Democratic colleagues in support of the Affordable Healthcare for America Act. While the bill is far from perfect, I supported it because it will expand access to health insurance to 96 percent of Americans, end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, help our seniors by closing the prescription drug benefit donut hole, and increase competition and choice with a public insurance option.”

In the near term, these reforms will improve and save American lives while we continue to fight for single payer health care at the state and national levels. I will vote for this bill because the cost of inaction is too high. Each year, 44,000 people die because they do not have access to insurance. Without reform, this number will rise, Americans will be at greater risk of losing their coverage, and our business community will continue to fall behind international competitors as their future profits are drained by burdensome health care costs.

This is good statement.

[KoKo]

155. Kkpete, don't we wonder why Conyers is so worked up...He's always worked up...Johnny Come Lately ...

but where is all he promised to do for us? "Election Reform"...DEAD...Torture Investigations against Rove and the Rest...DEAD! Too much with Conyers...promises...promises.

Now he bloviates, once again.

Who does he think will believe him? These "elected folks" are beyond comprehension that they think we out here have NO MEMORIES and that the time and money we spent on these Congress Critters went down the "Rat Hole" and they give shit about US...wears on us and makes us turn sour..and turn against those in our Party who sold us RAINBOWS and delivered us SHIT!

[kpete]

232. KoKo

I met him once, he actually said "we will get these guys" meaning Bushco.
It was one of the highlights of my life.
That was a couple of years ago, of course.
Yep, he bloviates.

So, it is hard to believe anything - but that does not stop me from listening, checking, rechecking and yes, believing. The CHANGE I want to see is an unattainable IDEAL. But, the IDEAL as a goal, still works for me.
kp

[muntrv]

158. I say ditch the current plan and go with Anthony Weiner's Medicare Part E

for EVERYONE.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

162. LET'S WRITE THE WHITE HOUSE AND TELL HIM TO GROW A PAIR nt

[jgraz]

207. He already has a pair. The problem is he keeps them in his Goldman Sach.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

246. He doesn't have a pair. He needs to grow a set. nt

[edogawa]

163. I am a new poster, having lurked for some time, but ...

It seems to me that many of you are frustrated by the lack of immediate results. You are very American. You should understand that your state-run health care will come. It is inevitable. But it will take time, perhaps many years. But I believe your president understands that you must begin somewhere. It seems obvious to me that plan will be to get Americans used to the idea of government health care first. Under the proposed plans, private health car will not be able to survive and gradually everyone will be absorbed into the government system. If my understanding is correct, the proposed plan will raise costs causing the American people to demand a new system soon.

Here in Japan we have had government health care for years and we pay very little for it. Only a few hundred yen per month per person. We do not have access to all of technologies you have and our hospitals are badly overcrowded, but everyone can receive the treatments to save their lives. When you adopt your new system, whatever it is, you may have to give up some of the things you have had up til now, but without a system that is free to all people, you can't really claim to be a free and just nation. But you must be patient.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

165. Japan and the U.S. are not comparable

In the U.S., showing patience results in the right wing destroying any possibility of a true health care system.

[Mithreal]

168. Edogawa, will patience comfort or cure the sick and dying?

What about the underinsured? Should we ask them to be patient as well? The hungry, jobless, houseless have been patient.

Ok, let me see if I understand you. When things get much worse, the American people will demand such a system is what you suggest, right? Why not now? Over 40,000 Americans are dying every year from lack of HC and the majority of bankruptcies are due to medical costs. Bankruptcies and foreclosures are at epidemic levels. Will 100,000 deaths a year through lack of health care be enough? 200,000? 1,000,000? Will you be there to urge patience then?

The American system is supposed to be representative. The majority of people from all sides want national HC. The middle men in HC make billions and serve no purpose other than to line their pockets. Japan does not have the obscenity the US has in terms of executive versus average worker rewards. I don't think you can appreciate the effect and power of greed here. Billions removed from actual health care are used to lobby the people's representatives and otherwise influence the debate. The talk is that there are 6 HC lobbyists for every legislator.

The United States is in some serious trouble from a variety of problems and urging patience could make things worse. There are already talks about eliminating other social programs they call "entitlements" and it seems far more likely the US will become a much greater nightmare than go in a Progressive direction as you suggest may occur with patience.

What movement in this country benefited from patience? All took enormous pressure and often bloodshed.

This country does not respect human life and someone from Japan should understand that better than most. The same disrespect we treat civilians in war time is what has come home to every American. People are of value based upon their wealth and influence not innately for being human, someone who we are in this together with.

The way Americans are taught and entertained is subtly controlled and it often seems few protest the worst of it.

Japan benefits from status quo in the US.

President Obama talked about the "fierce urgency of now". It is not so urgent anymore?

For those who cannot influence the future, I do think patience is valuable advice, but for those of us who can, patience is personal and should not be allowed to become complacency. I am nearly certain talking about patience is not something which is acceptable to me right now. So I have very mixed feelings about your comment.

Hi

[edogawa]

173. Perhaps you misunderstand me.

I realize the needs for some are urgent. But according to your own press, over 80% of Americans are satisfied with their own health care, so changing to a government controlled system is not possible now without angering most people. This MUST be done incrementally. There is no other way short of guns and bloodshed. And there will be tradeoffs.

As someone who has been treated in both U.S. and Japanese hospitals, I can tell you that there are big differences, not all of which can be explained by culture. You may not be able to retain all of the high-cost, high technology treatments you have today, but by providing access to all your citizens, you will be a fairer nation.

But, surely you must realize that making such revolutionary changes to your health care system is going to be something that will take many years and require great changes in attitudes and expectations.

[Mithreal]

184. I don't agree with no other way and the 80%?

A big part of the debate is about costs and they are expected to double again within 9 years.




There is more than one statistic, not just deaths.






And CEO pay in the next does not include billion dollar packages for single individuals like Dollar Bill Mcguire.




The revolutionary steps are already in place for 65+ year olds and the military. And medicare is no longer so new as to call it revolutionary.

Looks like we have a problem and patience doesn't cut it anymore. What percentage of Japanese have access to health care? How many declared bankruptcy due to medical costs?

[dflprincess]

170. Of course your Constitution does lay the ground work for a government health plan

Article 25:
All people shall have the right to maintain the minimum standards of wholesome and cultured living. In all spheres of life, the State shall use its endeavors for the promotion and extension of social welfare and security, and of public health.

The irony being that the U.S. was still occupying Japan when that was written and did have some veto power over what was in the Constitution.

I agree that Americans are impatient - one of the failings of American business is that it rarely looks past the next quarter. But, it's been 100 years since Teddy Roosevelt first brought up health care - it's past time for real reform here.

[earcandle]

166. True, dat.

[SandWalker1984]

169. It's now official -- the corporate Democrats have sold us out on health care reform!

It is now official -- the Democrats have screwed us over. We will not get access to affordable health care. We will not get an overhaul of the current, corporate for huge profit system.

We will get mandates to buy private, overpriced and under delivering insurance (insurance, not health CARE). It will be play or pay -- you don't want to give the private insurance corporations up to 8% of your hard earned income for high deductible, low coverage, i.e. practically useless insurance plan -- tough! Pay the fines or go to jail. Don't count on the promised subsidies -- when the Repubs get back in again, in 2010 or 2012 (especially if the corporate Dems pass a monstrosity of a bill like this), they will reduce or eliminate most of the subsidies. After all, they had no problems cutting the CHIPS health care insurance for children.

The public option, according to the CBO as announced by Rachel Maddow on her show November 19th, will only cover an estimated ONE percent of the public. It is also estimated that approximately 1/3 of the states will 'opt out' of a public option altogether. If you are in one of those states, tough luck.

Taxes and fines begin in 2010, but coverage won't until 2013. Where is the reporting on that?


Summary of House version of the bill:
Includes mandate.

Penalty: Tax equal to 2.5 percent of adjusted gross income over certain thresholds ($9,350 for individuals, $18,700 for couples).

Exemptions: American Indians, people with religious objections and people who can show financial

hardship.



Summary of Senate version of the bill:

Includes mandate.

Penalty: Starts at $95 a year per person in 2014 and rises to $350 in 2015 and $750 in 2016, with a maximum of $2,250 for a family. No penalty if the cost of cheapest available plan exceeds 8 percent of household income.

Exemptions: American Indians, people with religious objections and people who can show financial hardship.



Per TaxProf Blog at http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/11/17-tax-increases.html

17 TAX INCREASES are included in the Senate health care bill, for a total of $370.2 BILLION IN NEW TAXES. They are:

40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $8,500/$23,000 ($149.1 billion)
Employer W-2 reporting of value of health (negligible revenue effect)
Conform definition of medical expenses ($5.0 billion)
Increase penalty for non-qualified health savings account distributions to 20% ($1.3 billion)
Limit health flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans to $2,500 ($14.6 billion)
Require information reporting on payments to corporations ($17.1 billion)
Additional requirements for section 501(c)(3) hospitals (negligible revenue effects)
Impose annual fee on manufacturers & importers of branded drugs ($22.2 billion)
Impose annual fee on manufacturers & importers of medical devices ($19.3 billion)
Impose annual fee on health insurance providers ($60.4 billion)
Study and report of effect on veterans health care (no revenue effect)
Eliminate deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D subsidy ($5.4 billion)
Raise 7.5% AGI floor on medical expenses deduction to 10% ($15.2 billion)
$500,000 deduction limitation on taxable year remuneration to health insurance officials ($0.6 billion)
Additional 0.5% hospital insurance tax on wages > $200,000 ($250,000 joint) ($53.8 billion)
Modification of section 833 treatment of certain health organizations ($0.4 billion)
Impose 5% excise tax on cosmetic surgery ($5.8 billion)




Some of these people on here, if they are not paid hacks for the insurance corporations, they are acting like anxious mistresses in that they say the bill needs to be passed first and fixed later. They believe, like mistresses, that even though they are the 3rd affair of the adulterer for the year, they are somehow special and the adulterer will treat them better and end up marrying them. Yeah, right.

Remember that when we were sold NAFTA by Clinton, Gore & corporate media, we were told it could be renegotiated and fixed in 6 months if it wasn't working out. It's now 15 years later and NAFTA wasn't fixed or renegotiated and it has devastated Detroit. In just the past few weeks Whirlpool and Electrolux have moved almost 2000 jobs to Mexico. Never mind that NAFTA has destroyed the value of our dollar.

Let's talk about Bill Clinton's capital gains tax cut to 15% that rewarded the rich for moving those jobs out of the US. That hasn't been fixed either, in fact, they now want to eliminate the capital gains tax altogether for their rich friends.

Then there's the Telecommunications bill from 1996. Newt told us all after passing the bill with Clinton, that our cable bills would drop to $15 a month. I don't know about yours, but my cable bill is $60 a month for BASIC cable. Another lie.


You can't fix legislation later that is being controlled by monopolies like the health care industry. Obama ran as an anti-current establishment, reform progressive but apparently, behind the scenes, he acts like a sleazy Chicago politician making deals in secret with the criminal corporations. He promised us open debate and transparency.

What Obama has given us in the past 10 months is a new level of corruption and secrecy. He is going behind our backs and cutting bad deals with the industry he is supposed to be protecting us from in the health care debate, the industry that he ran against during the campaign.

Recently on MSNBC, it was reported Clinton told the Senate Dems that they should pass whatever they can so they can declare a victory even though Bill was against the Republican MANDATES in 1994 and opposed them at that time in his health care boondoggle.

We are being sold out for "whatever." Whatever is more important than REAL health care reform - it's all about their self-serving agendas and the rich they represent. The rest is just lies and rhetoric.

Obama-Orwell, more corporate "chains" you can believe in.


This bill cannot be fixed -- the "fix" is already in the bill -- the corrupt CORPORATE FIX.

[Dinger]

175. 211 Recs (So Far) I Like It

:) :patriot: :hide:

[bertman]

177. Earlier this week, Obey. Then DeFazio. Now Conyers. I am glad to hear them speak out.

Recommending but not very optimistic that anything is going to change.

[jgraz]

206. Obama is clearly not interested in leading. We need the Progressive Caucus to step up.

Those of us with progressive Reps need to start calling for a party rebellion. This is NOT what we voted for.

[MisterK]

185. agreed wholeheartedly nt

[democracy1st]

209. K & R

[Buzz Clik]

216. The popularity of this thread is a total laugh riot! How quickly we forget...

... that John Conyers was labeled a traitor to the Party and the country for standing in the way of prosecuting Bush and Cheney.

Now, that same man who is actually in a position to push legislation of the kind we want -- but HAS NOT -- is taking a big dump on Obama, and he's a fucking hero.

Bullshit.

He's the same deflecting, two-faced politician he's always been.

He's the problem, people.

[theFrankFactor]

219. Bingo!

It's a fucking scam!

Washington Generals I tell ya!

[Mithreal]

248. Mock the players, but is the message here any different than

the one you are selling?

[change_notfinetuning]

227. It's not about Conyers being a "fucking hero". I don't remember many posts

extolling the virtues and heroism of Conyers. Or any, for that matter.

This thread is, or has become, about our agreement with this particular statement he made concerning the failure of the Obama administration to give real health care reform a grade school try, let alone the "ol' college try". This is becoming a pattern of failure that we've seen early, often, and continues to baffle those who still want the change they voted for - or, at least, some change.

What we have seen is another example of the "pass anything and say we did something" philosophy of Rahm Emanuel. It is similar to the credit card bill that was a huge win for the corporate credit card issuers. Loan sharks would have broken their OWN legs to get that kind of deal. And insurance companies would, happily, cover the injuries for those loan sharks if it meant getting this insurance bill passed.

[ooglymoogly]

236. you beat me to it....nt

[ooglymoogly]

235. Conyers is not the important piece of the argument here. He is just saying what

many of us have come to know and he has the megaphone to say it in; We do not. Has he dropped the ball or turncoated before, sure he has and given time and money he may turncoat on this one as well, if the past is any indication. But that does not untemper the truth one iota. I therefore respectfully submit your post is a red herring.

[Mithreal]

247. A logical fallacy. Shoot messenger = ad hominem

[Buzz Clik]

250. LOL! Try to pick just one.

Anyway, it's not ad hominem -- it's reality: Conyers is in a far better position to impact the writing of the health care legislation than Obama.

[Mithreal]

257. Conyers did write a bill, Buzz, and why not educate yourself

on the logical fallacies? Is it really too much to ask people to be smart when trying to make a point? The fallacies just make one ineffective and impotent.

[Buzz Clik]

258. Exactly. Bingo. So, why are we listening to Conyers blame the Prez for the content of the bill?

Conyers helped write the God damned thing!!!!

Jesus.

[Mithreal]

260. Buzz, H.R.3962 - Affordable Health Care for America Act

I don't see his name in the list of sponsors or co-sponsors.

Do you?

[Buzz Clik]

262. Quoting you: "Conyers did write a bill. Educate yourself." "He didn't write the bill."

Do you ever have trouble deciding what to wear in the morning?

"Brown shoes with navy pants. Are you insane?" "Why not? Brown is the only color shoe to wear with navy pants."

Never a dull moment.

[Mithreal]

263. Buzz, Conyers wrote H.R. 676. You are obfuscating.

[Buzz Clik]

264. You've hit for the cycle, my friend, but I'm breaking out of the loop.

Somehow, I suspect that the conversation will continue without me.

[Mithreal]

265. Buzz, I see little difference between your capacity and a moran,

no offense, I am sure you are more than the character you play on DU.

[ooglymoogly]

233. Ah done told ya and ah done told ya kr nt

[No Elephants]

259. Are you posting from a minstrel show?

[ooglymoogly]

261. It is a line from Gone With The Wind. nt