Obama Mocks Public Option Supporters

[t0dd]

Obama took the opportunity to mock supporters of the public option last night at a DNC event in Greenwich, Connecticut (per Mike Allen):

OBAMA: Democrats, just congenitally, tend to get — to see the glass as half empty. (Laughter.) If we get an historic health care bill passed — oh, well, the public option wasn’t there. If you get the financial reform bill passed — then, well, I don’t know about this particularly derivatives rule, I’m not sure that I’m satisfied with that. And gosh, we haven’t yet brought about world peace and — (laughter.) I thought that was going to happen quicker. (Laughter.) You know who you are. (Laughter.) We have had the most productive, progressive legislative session in at least a generation.

Yeah, we know who we are. We’re the people who supported Bill Halter’s primary challenge of Blanche Lincoln, the woman Obama campaigned for. Who only included that derivatives rule in the financial reform bill because she was afraid of losing to Halter.

We’re the people who fought for a year and a half to pass Audit the Fed, which Obama, the Fed, the Treasury and the banks all lobbied against and worked hard to weaken. It passed the Senate 94-0, and Chris Hayes called it “the single greatest act of bipartisanship since Obama took office” on MSNBC. It was part of the financial reg bill, which is the “only popular Democratic act” since the 2008 election, per Gallup.

Obama himself used to be one of us, when he said that “the choice of a public insurance option” was one of his “three bedrock requirements for real health care reform” — when he wanted people to sign up for OFA:



So Obama promises people a public plan, they go out and campaign for him in record numbers, and then when the Senate decides to drop the public option from the health care bill, he says “I didn’t campaign on the public option.”

Glenn Greenwald, from February 2010:

As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama — while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary — finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don’t have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that there’s a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.

Russ Feingold says that the reason there was no public option in the final bill was because of “lack of support from the administration.”

Joe Lieberman, whose vote was used as an excuse for ditching the public option when it was assumed that the health care bill would need 60 votes to get through the Senate, said that he he “didn’t really have direct input from the White House” on the public option and was never specifically asked to support it.

When the Senate decided to go the reconciliation route and only needed 50 votes to pass the bill, and nobody needed Lieberman’s vote any more, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs threw cold water on any attempt to do so, saying it wasn’t a “consensus idea.”

So it’s awfully glib for Obama to now belittle the people who worked hard to get him elected for always seeing the glass “half empty” if they’re disappointed about the public option. Then again, he apparently doesn’t even remember the promises he made to them.

...

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/09/17/obama-mocks-public-option-supporters/

[babylonsister]

1. WHAAAA! And the goblins will get

you if you don't watch out! :hi:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9153772#9154553

[Pirate Smile]

2. Elizabeth Warren??? Who's that? On to the next manufactured outrage.

:eyes:

Ignore everything that is good and blow up/create anything bad to keep up the Obama bashing.

[CreekDog]

105. Wow, only 2 messages into the thread before calling a thoughful post Obama-bashing

i guess no matter how thoughtfully or thoroughly someone creates a post expressing disappointment, you and others, will call it 'bashing' as if you didn't even read it.

for a long time, i was one of Obama's biggest fans and even now, it's not that i'm not a fan, i just want him to use all the vigor and consistency he used in getting elected to stand up now for the issues he championed as a candidate.

[DailyGrind51]

3. Especially since what we got is not controlling premium increases, making insurance even less

affordable!

[Scurrilous]

4. Pffffffft. n/t

[Captain Rock]

5. I think Obama should have also mentioned drug re-importation

Which was a promise that, according to the Pulitzer winning, independent Politi-fact website, he broke: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/71/allow-imported-prescription-drugs/

By mentioning the public option alone, he pretends the P.O. was the only gripe progressives had.

It is worth mentioning that according to the Huffington Post and the NY Times, Mr. Obama reached a deal to excluded the public option. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

[ProSense]

6. Glenn Greenwald,

whining since March 2009

Feingold was right, and it's not just teabaggers.

Q. What explains the difficult political climate for Democrats, considering that President Obama has implemented many policies he campaigned on?

A.“There are two primary reasons. One is the economy. Human nature is such that people are going to say, ‘I’m frustrated.’ That creates an environment that whoever is in office, whoever is doing anything, is potentially vulnerable to people being unhappy. There’s a second factor that’s more cynical. A conscious decision was made by certain groups to destroy this presidency the minute it started. People say it was the health care bill – no, it wasn’t. I go to every county every year and hold a town meeting. Within days of the president being sworn in, I had people showing up at my town meeting with hats on, with tea bags coming out, saying this is going to be socialism.”

<...>

Q.Has the president squandered any opportunities?

A.“I don’t look at it that way. What I look at is there are so many challenges at once, there are so many things you can do. The most important things –- we’re getting at the job situation and the recovery. There’s a lot of blood given on that. This health care thing was a courageous and important thing to do, but it was one of the hardest things I’ve ever seen a president do. The one thing I think he did squander an opportunity was the mistake of what he did with Afghanistan. It was a very bad decision. He should not have doubled down on Afghanistan. That is going to hurt him more than these other things.”

<...>

[SoxFan]

7. OFFS

He did nothing of the sort.

He was talking about the sorts of people who find fault with the administration for every little thing, who let the perfect be the mortal enemy of the good.

If the public option had survived, these people would be complaining that the bill wasn't single payer. If it was single-payer, there'd be someone griping that it didn't include federal subsidies for fat-free frozen yogurt.

[MineralMan]

8. Wasn't this posted just a short time earlier? I'm pretty sure it was.

That thread is also being justifiably unrecommended for being unfactual and a distortion. This one fails on the same grounds. Unrecommended!

[babylonsister]

10. It was locked. So, IBTL!

:popcorn:

[MineralMan]

17. Yes, I imagine so. Some folks can't pass on any opportunity

to attack the Obama administration, it seems. Feh!

[blondeatlast]

39. And the good doctor relieved of his practice. nt

[babylonsister]

42. It was only a matter of time.

How are you? :hi:

[blondeatlast]

55. Swell! Looking for work, volunteering in the meantime,

and trying to get in better shape.

And you?

I'm not spending much time on Facebook, though.

[babylonsister]

96. I'm okay, volunteering also, p/t job, hanging in there. nt

[Stinky The Clown]

9. I know you didn't intend it, but this has become a comedy thread

Reading some of the replies is hilarious.

[Dr.Phool]

100. All the usual comedians have shown up.

[LoZoccolo]

11. Glenn Greenwald: automatic unrecommend. n/t

[sabrina 1]

48. Rec. for Glenn Greenwald and everyone else who stands up for the American

people.

:kick:

[inna]

103. +100 and thank you

frankly, i was getting seriously creeped out by this thread (comments, not the OP).

is it just me, or has DU gotten a lot worse recently?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

107. Honey, it is turning into --

a regular freak show here. Between those liberals targeted for tombstoning, those chased away, and those who can't be bothered with DU anymore it is getting creepy as hell.

There is some very serious "shut up and get the hell in line" action taking place -- expect more of it the closer we get to the election.

[sabrina 1]

119. No, it's not just you. Glenn Greenwals eg, was always a respected

blogger on Democratic boards. The only place I ever saw an 'automatic unrec' for him was on FR.

[gateley]

12. In all fairness to Obama, I think they feel like they DID work their asses off for

what they did and so many of us criticized and complained and didn't appreciate what he DID accomplish.

I can see why they get frustrated with US every once in a while. I'll give Obama a pass on this. Gibbs, meh. Don't care what he says.

[kratos12]

13. This kind of attack reminds me of how Fox news parses and

manufactures psuedo issues to attack Democrats on.

Obama was at a fundraiser, he was in essence defending the HCR bill that the Democratic congress had to tie itself into knots to pass and he was speaking to unrealistic criticism that has been levied against it by some.

And this gets "reported" as an attack on public option and single payer supporters?

The original poster must have gone to the "Fox News School for Overstating Manufactured Political Attacks".

This line of attack is reminiscent of how the right went after Obama on Ayres, ACORN, etc... take a sliver of fact and turn it into an outrage.

Bravo, if all else fails you could end up on Cavuto selling goldline.

[Pirate Smile]

15. Nice post. I like "Fox News School for Overstating Manufactured Political Attacks".

:toast:

edit - my favorite manufactured outrage - "Lipstick on a Pig" - OMG!!! Obama called Palin a pig! Arrgghhhh!

[Champion Jack]

20. +

[Pirate Smile]

23. LOL

:D

I'm not quite sure what that means but, damn, it's entertaining. :)

[MrModerate]

14. What he said doesn't, IMO, rise to the level of mocking . . .

(Unlike some of the wacky statements attributed to Immanuel). He was legitimately lamenting his ability to please everyone. I'm in the category of people he was referring to and I don't feel mocked.

[Hello_Kitty]

26. I wasn't peeved about it until I learned he said it at a $30K a plate fundraiser.

That's what elevated what would have been a relatively innocuous joke to a dick move.

[golddigger]

59. Oh come on. It wasn't like he was showing a video

of himself in the Oval Office, looking under every piece of furniture saying, I know that public option is here somewhere.

:sarcasm:

[Hello_Kitty]

66. LOL

:rofl:

[RandomThoughts]

16. Unfortunetly and fortunetly.

Supporting President Obama is not about President Obama, their is good that will occur from his presidency even with some mistakes.


Although there are some issues I agree he could do better with he does ok. I do agree that when he is finished with his needed contributions to society, personally I would be quite pleased with some other effects for some of his ideas on who deserves and who does not.

Plenty of time for that, and it is important that his Presidency does more good then bad.

[BzaDem]

18. Good for Obama. He is not mocking them for supporting the public option: he is mocking them for

pretending that HCR isn't a landmark achievement because it didn't have a public option.

Obama didn't really campaign on the public option during the election. Sure, it was listed in some policy whitepaper on his website that no one looks at, but that doesn't mean he emphasized it at all. Tens of millions of people voted for him without having the slightest clue what the public option was. In fact, tens of millions of people voted for John Kerry and Al Gore, despite the public option not even existing as an idea before 2006.

Obama is right on target here from an accuracy perspective. The fact that the best you could do is cite the perpetual conspiracy-peddling Glenn Greenwald only serves to prove my point.

[Hello_Kitty]

29. Right. Why are we arguing over WHY President Obama was mocking the left

When the important thing is that the dirty fucking hippies got yet another gratuitous punching.

Yay team!

:sarcasm:

[BzaDem]

32. He isn't mocking "the left." He is mocking a small subset of the left that will never be pleased

no matter what passes. (The subset is indeed small: upwards of 80% of Democrats approve the healthcare plan, and Obama's approval among liberal Democrats has consistently been in the mid to high 80s.)

There was was a similarly aggrieved small subset on the left during the administration of FDR who just as vigorously complained that he wasn't being transformative enough. This is really nothing new.

[t0dd]

34. If it's just the fringe left that is unhappy, why are Dems poised to lose their majorities this Nov?

nt

[BzaDem]

43. Because independents are voting for Republicans 2-1, perhaps? n/t

[sabrina 1]

51. What is he going to do about Social Security? Is he going to come out strong

against making the American People pay for the corrupt Wall St. gang who used the American's people's money to pay for their wars and bail-outs? All I've heard so far is that he will not support privatization. Well, that should go without saying for any Democratic President. But what about the deal that people believe has been made much like the Phara deal, which won't be announced until AFTER the election?

Has he signed on to the Progressive Caucus' letter to promise there will be no cuts or raising of the retirement age re SS?

That will determine whether Dems win or lose in Novmenber. It's simple, all they have to do is what Democrats are expected to do. Slap down the Republicans, like Alan Simpson and Ryan from the Commission and make a definitive statement. The AMerican people are fully behind no cuts in SS. So, what is the problem? What are they waiting for?

[Hello_Kitty]

58. If we're that insignificant then why bother mocking us?

Oh wait...I remember. Because we're being set up to take the blame in November.

[BzaDem]

62. Only those that choose not to vote (or vote 3rd party) in close districts would take the blame.

In most cases, independents going 2-1 for Republicans won't even make it close, so you have little to worry about blame-wise. It depends on the district/state.

It is also true that most unenthusiastic Democrats are not unenthusiastic because they disapprove of Obama or his policies. (As I have said, 80-90% do approve.) They are simply unenthusiastic because they do not ordinarily follow politics and are often not enthusiastic absent results of Republican power to make them unhappy. The party in power almost always loses seats, and the party out of power almost always gains them in elections like this.

[Hello_Kitty]

65. So I guess you'd better get busy raising the enthusiasm level of those voters hadn't you?

Better and more productive use of your time than slamming the dirty hippies here for being insufficiently enthused, don't you think?

[BzaDem]

68. You are assuming it is possible or easy to raise an electorate's enthusiasm in the aggregate.

In general, the party in power is less enthusiastic than the opposition party. One way to fix this enthusiasm gap is to make the party in power the opposition party (which seems to be the preference of some here).

Beyond that, it is unclear that it is possible to raise the enthusiasm of Democrats as a whole. Looking at history, the opposition party almost always gains seats after a new President is elected, and oftentimes many.

My post is criticizing the reason/logic/accuracy of the OP -- not trying to get him to become "enthusiastic."

[Hello_Kitty]

97. Wow. Guess we should give up and go home then!

I suppose it's as good an excuse as any for you to do nothing.

[BzaDem]

98. Not really. There are many options to help sway elections.

One of them is trying to persuade independents who are enthusiastic.

Another is to TRY to raise the enthusiasm of the electorate. That may help in cases where a very small margin separates the two candidates.

All I am saying is that TRYING to raise the enthusiasm of an electorate in an off-year election is USUALLY not THAT effective. I never said we should not try, or that it wouldn't help in close races.

[sabrina 1]

72. A majority of the American people supported a PO. So I guess you're right

he wasn't mocking 'the left' he was mocking a majority of the American people.

[BzaDem]

78. No, he wasn't mocking people who supported a PO. He was mocking people who thought a public option

was NECESSARY for HCR to be worth passing (and that it shouldn't have passed at at all because it didn't have one).

And the number of people in that group is quite tiny, given the high proportion of Democrats who support the bill as is.

[sabrina 1]

84. It WAS necessary for HCR to be worth passing. It was NOT necessary

for a bailout of the Insurance Industry, iow, for Health INSURANCE Reform. He said one thing in the campaign, and another after the election. This cannot be disputed. What can be argued is 'what happened between the campaign and the inauguration' to make him change his mind? Sorry, people are not fools. So stop with the nonsense. If there was a good reason for the back-peddling on the PO, we're still waiting to hear it.

[BzaDem]

87. Actually, it was not necessary at all, your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

To underscore the point about it being not necessary, the public option as an idea was first formed in 2006. It didn't even EXIST prior to 2006.

Your complaint about the campaign is really besides the point. He rarely (if ever) talked about the public option at all before he was inaugurated. When people say "he campaigned for a public option," they are primarily looking at a whitepaper on his website. Most people who voted for him didn't have a clue that his official position was in favor of a public option.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

108. Without a PO --

the Health Insurance Reform bill we got has no way to keep the insurance companies honest. Don't take my word for it, candidate Obama made that clear repeatedly during the campaign. In fact, he felt so strongly about it he said he would veto any HIR bill that did NOT contain a public option. So, who is the one who truly deserves mocking. :eyes:

[derby378]

121. To take a page from the late Molly Ivins...

The teabaggers were railing on and on about socialized health care. Thanks to Congress and Obama, we now have corporatized health care - and boy oh boy, are we having big fun now!

[eridani]

111. He is mocking the 80% of the public who wanted a public option n/t

[NorthCarolina]

116. You mean that small subset that represented over 70% of the population

that wanted single payer or, at a minimum, a public option? That small subset? :shrug:

[janx]

19. The zombie thread wasn't enough?

We have to go through this again? :rofl:

[boppers]

21. Oh, look, FDL?

IBTL.

[AlinPA]

22. Unrecc'd. IMO it is divisive.

[Tarheel_Dem]

24. No matter how many times this crap article is spammed here, it still does not lend itself...

one ounce more of credibility. And from Jane Hamsher's poison rag, no less? The professional left strikes again. :rofl:

[janx]

28. Greenwald links to Hamsher, and Hamsher links

to Greenwald.

It's symbiosis! :rofl:

[Tarheel_Dem]

36. I have a feeling the Koch Brothers might be slipping a couple of dollars to those two.

I think we all knew where FDL was headed the moment the teabaggers claimed her as one of their own. Pathetic. "Symbiosis", indeed. :rofl:

[babylonsister]

44. Oooh, ouch!

:rofl:

[Tarheel_Dem]

46. Bipartisanship, in Jane, is admirable. In President Obama...not so much.

Well, at least that's what I've been lead to believe, by the most ardent Hamsher-ites. :rofl:

:edited for missing word:

[sabrina 1]

56. ACtually it's the other way around. Bi-partisanship is Obama's idea

but when a blogger follows his lead, you know, like Grover Norquist being invited to speak to Obama's Deficit Commission, it's a different story.

Why was Grover Norquist invited to speak to a Democratic President's Commission?

Who cares about bloggers. The President has power, Hamsher does not. Why are you trying to distract from the fact that this President has spent a lot of wasted time talking to Republicans?

[Tarheel_Dem]

67. Well, we know he's not a card carrying teabagger. Fact of the matter is,

this president governs us all, and guess what "all" includes Republicans...fancy that. However, Ms. HampSter and her band of followers have held themselves out as ideologically pure partisans, who saw no need in involving Republicans in the governing of the country. "Don't talk to Republicans"; "we hate bipartisanship", blah...blah..blah. So, yes, it was quite shocking to find Ms. HampSter in bed with baggers. But I have no doubt she's been paid quite handsomely for services rendered.

Follow your own advice Jane! F***n hypocrite. And stay off the Fox News Channel. There's a name for what you're doing, but it's not used in polite society. :hi:

[sabrina 1]

70. You didn't answer my question. Why was Grover Norquist invited to speak

to a Commission appointed by a Democratic PResident? Do you remember what Norquist had to say about Democrats when they lost their majority? Something about learning, the way dogs do, what their place is?

Yet, here he was, as if Republicans did not lose the last election, given a position of power denied to REAL Democrats, addressing a Commission about Government debt? Do we not already know what Norquist thinks of the Government?

And why does this president need the advice of people like Judd Gregg and Lindsey Graham? Are there no Democrats he could get advice from on SS? Did we elect Democrats, kick out Republicans only to have Democrats reinstate them to positions of power?

Try to focus on the important stuff this time and see if you can explain these things. I know you would like to derail the discussion to focus on unimportant bloggers. But these are the real issues, if we vote for Democrats do we get Republicans back in power, that people are going to be thinking about in November. I don't think anyone is going into the voting booth thinking about bloggers.

I don't expect you to address these questions, I expect you to try to avoid them. That won't matter. The questions require answers and they will continue to be asked regardless of how many avoidance tactics a few people attempt to use.

[janx]

91. Tarheel Dem did indeed answer your question.

You chose to ignore the answer.

[sabrina 1]

118. No, s/he did not. I asked for an explanation of why Republicans

like Grover Norquist, Alan Simpson, Ryan, Lindsey Graham et al are being positions of power in a Democratic administration. This is not what Democrats voted for. They kicked these people out. Tarheel Dem responded with rhetoric, no substance other than 'it's okay if Hansher does it'. Hamsher is a blogger. I'm not interested in bloggers.

Contrary to what s/he says, it appears to be okay if the President fraternizes with Republicans to some people here, but NOT okay if a blogger does it. Bloggers have no power so I fail to understand the obsession with them, while at the same time giving those who DO have power a free pass on a far more serious collaberation with Republicans. If I wanted to vote for Grover Norquist to take care of this country's fiscal problems, that's who I would vote for. A majority of Americans felt the same way and kicked him and his ilk out of office.

The question still remains unanswered by those so angry at a blogger, 'what are these Republicans doing in a Democratic Administration?'

[Tarheel_Dem]

95. All ideas on the table? Perhaps you should phone the WH?

Don't Jane and Grover share a committee membership of some sort? President Obama didn't run as a strict partisan, so why was he expected to govern that way? Remember Obamacans? I just don't like the hypocrisy. Jane's fans think she's above reproach, they've even managed to justify her affiliation with the teabaggers, and all the zealots contained therein.

If you're really interested in why Norquist was chosen, perhaps you could check out whitehouse.gov, or write a letter? The problem with the hyperpartisanship, displayed by people like yourself, and your counterparts on the right, is that sensible moderates are being forced out of government, so absolutely nothing will get done.

Your histrionics aside, I don't feel I owe you any explanation for anything I write on these boards. :hi:

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[Tarheel_Dem]

102. Hi there. Your atrocious grammar aside, I can't stand either of them.

:rofl: I'm just doing what Hamsher & Greenwald are famous for...drawing my own conclusions? :rofl:

[CBR]

25. I hope Jane Hamsher runs for President. She has all the answers nt

[phleshdef]

27. No one was "mocked" and what he is saying is 100% accurate.

[27inCali]

30. Posting dishonest, divisive bullshit like this....

....about two months out of an election.......

hmmmm..................

[USArmyParatrooper]

61. Yep, and somebody I know already posted the FULL TRANSCRIPTS on DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9154915

[Matariki]

31. I'm a Public Option supporter who disagrees with you

He was mocking the tendency of Democrats to be loudly dissatisfied with anything less than perfection. To piss and moan while ignoring whatever progress we *have* made.

[laughingliberal]

33. K & R nt

[jwirr]

35. When none of us show up to work for him both this year and in 2012

he will quit mocking us. My grandson has no health insurance and has an infection in his eyes. His little son needs meds for allergies and speech therapy & care for hearing lose. He can mock us all he wants but there are a lot of us who are learning that this wonderful historic healthcare bill is not working for our families.

[Tarheel_Dem]

38. He's already accepted the fact that he may very well be a one termer.

Doesn't seem to phase him. You do know that you won't be punishing him, personally, right? I'm not sure how "this wonderful historic healthcare bill" is supposed to work for your family, since most of the provisions don't kick in for another few years. :shrug:

[jwirr]

45. And that delay is one of the problems. Yes, I know we are not personally

punishing him. We are all going to pay for losing our enthusiasm. But we are also going to pay for my grandson and great grandson if their health does not get some attention. I am hoping that once we here in MN get rid of pawlenty we will actually do something about these things.

[BzaDem]

49. So because it wasn't feasible to pass one taking effect now, we should have not passed it taking

effect in 2014? Think about how silly that sounds.

[Tarheel_Dem]

52. Here's wishing the best for you & your family. However, you witnessed

how difficult it was to get what we got. Would you have preferred nothing? Would you have preferred we wait another 40 years to get any movement toward healthcare reform? I know some "true progressives" still contend, and even campaigned (Jane HamPster) to kill the bill. If you're in the predicament you claim, some of the provisions will kick in fairly soon. Perhaps you could pay a visit to whitehouse.gov, to see how you & your state will be impacted?

[jwirr]

99. I would not have killed the bill and I am glad it can help some but

what I am trying to say here is that a lot of people are going to be put off with the lack of help for a lot of people. I am very aware of the tough time we had getting this and most other things through having worked in a Congressman's office. This knowledge is not going to bring out the workers or the voters because all they are hearing from people is the negatives. I am trying to talk about reality for those of us out here. The real reason to vote is not how good we are doing but the fact that the alternative is much worse. I do not need lectures from anyone because I will support Obama and those Democrats I get to vote for but I do not have the feeling of hope that I had going into this.

[The Gunslinger]

76. And still waiting for all those "improvments" that were to follow.

[BzaDem]

88. The law is the most progressive piece of social legislation even WITHOUT improvements

though improvements are of course welcome.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

109. There isn't a damn thing "progressive" --

about forcing Americans to purchase (or risk a fine) a product from an industry known for being utterly corrupt and untrustworthy. Even worse, those same companies will additionally be getting tax payer dollars for subsidies -- lord knows companies that suck off the Taxpayer Tit never EVER scam to maximize their profits and milk us for everything we have. And what pathetic controls/protecions that were put in place with this monstrosity will as sure as shit be circumvented and manipulated in the Industry's favor.

[area51]

113. +1

Each day, 273 people die due to lack of health care in the U.S.; that's 100,000 deaths per year.

We need single-payer health care, not a welfare bailout for the serial-killer insurance agencies.

We don't need the GingrichCare of mandated, unregulated, for-profit insurance that is still too expensive, only pays parts of medical bills, denies claims, and bankrupts people. Republinazi '93 plan:

"Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005."

"We will never have real reform until people's health stops being treated as a financial opportunity for corporations."

[SidDithers]

37. Oh ffs...

Sid

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

40. There's this thing called the Senate. Perhaps you've heard of it?

He's mocking people on the left who give no credit and snipe 24x7. Sound familiar?

[t0dd]

41. Is meeting with pharmaceutical lobbyists to scrap drug-reimportation part of the process too?

Sound familiar?

[sabrina 1]

54. Has a deal been made on SS?

You ask a good question. I don't see any good answers yet.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[sabrina 1]

53. You didn't answer the question. This is a discussion board. And 'whining' is a

rightwing talking point word, just FYI. Do you care about issues at all? What about SS? That is what everyone I know wants to hear about before November. What do YOU think Democrats need to be saying it?

[BzaDem]

60. Whining is definatly not a rightwing talking point word. It is instead often an apt description. n/t

[sabrina 1]

71. So what do you think Democrats ought to be saying, that they have not yet said

except for the Progressive Caucus, before November?

[BzaDem]

73. I am not saying Democrats should be saying anything they haven't said.

I simply said that it is ludicrous for liberals to disapprove of Obama's performance based upon a "he hasn't done enough" argument. He has done more than any Democratic president in modern American history, and rivals Johnson and FDR for the magnitude and scope of his legislative accomplishments.

[sabrina 1]

80. What have they said? I know what the PRogressive Caucus has said

What is YOUR opinion on what should be done about SS? Is this so hard? SS is a cornerstone of the Democratic Party. No Democrat should have any problem knowing what to say about it.

AS for Obama being compared to FDR. What he does about SS will determine that. I'm waiting to hear from him but so far, he seems very timid on the issue. Do you know why? This will determine whether Dems win in NOvember or not. Congressional leaders seem to understand that and are trying to avoid answering the people on the issue waiting for the WH to lead the way. You seem to be afraid to state your opinion also. People don't vote for wimps. They vote for bold, determined representatives of their interests.

But maybe they've finally decided to stand up against Republicans on SS. I have not had much time the past two days, so I could have missed it. If you have information on what they have said recently, I would appreciate a link.

[BzaDem]

85. What happens in November actually has nothing to do with a petition by the progressive caucus that

no one has the slightest clue about. Sorry.

As for my position, I do not support cuts to Social Security.

"AS for Obama being compared to FDR. What he does about SS will determine that."

Not really. I guess it depends on what he does. If Obama repeals SS, that would likely be viewed negatively compared with FDR. If Obama cuts SS benefits for high wage earners (otherwise known as "means testing") in order to protect the solvency of the program in 2037 and beyond, it would not affect his reputation at all (let alone any comparison with FDR.

[sabrina 1]

90. No Democrat should cut benefits period. I hope he is not planning to do that

I'm sorry to disappoint you but just because YOU are not aware of the demands made, rightfully so, of the Progressive Caucus, do NOT think their views are not widely known and shared, not just by Democrats, but by a majority of Americans and that people are checking the signatories of that letter to see who they will be voting for in November. You may not be keeping up with things, but don't assume you are the norm, you are not. Anyone who paid into this program rich or poor, should have the promise made to them, honored. I sincerely hope it will not be a Democratic President who betrays that promise. That will ensure a Republican takeover in two years.

[BzaDem]

93. I am fully aware of the progressive caucus letter. A majority are not.

In fact, only a negligible portion of the American people even know what the progressive caucus is. (Heck, in 2008, fewer than half the people even knew the Democrats controlled Congress.)

[sabrina 1]

117. What a majority of the American people know is that there is talk of cutting SS

benefits under a Democratic Adminstration. There are literally dozens of organizations that represent SS recipients keeping them informed. Not to mention the huge organizations that deal with retirees who stopped Bush when he tried to get his hands on SS.

As a Democrat I am very happy that the SS watchdogs number in the millions and are keeping a sharp eye on this most successful of Democratic Programs.

What a strange position, though, you, as a Democrat, are taking. It sounds as if you would like to hide any threats to this program rather than help to protect it. Explain to me why any Democrat would not now be doing everything in their power to make sure that every Candidate is willing to promise that they will never, ever vote for any 'Package' coming from the Deficit Commission that has a hidden clause recommending touching this Fund.

Every Democrat I know is currently working very hard to get Democratic candidates on the record regarding this issue. And the Progressive Caucus is just one group doing so, they being in a good position to weed out those who may be trying to avoid it.

I definitely hope you are not representative of the Democratic Party on this issue. I will be calling everyone who has yet to sign that letter this week, along with millions of other Americans.

[Gman]

64. Whining is a RW talking point? Since when?

Just like you're either with us or against us? Both of those were around long before many here think the world began.

[sabrina 1]

74. Favorite word of rightwingers for 'lefties' since way back.

Oh, hilarious, so now we're making excuses for using Bushisms to 'rally the troops'. I spent years on rightwing boards, when they felt omnipotent during the Bush years. And I can assure you, 'whining' is a rightwing word, among others. In fact it was one way to recognize rightwingers when I was a moderator on a Democratic board in the early Bush years. Everyone knows this, where have you been?

[Fumesucker]

75. +1

[BzaDem]

79. "The" is also a favorite word of right wingers. So you should stop using it. n/t

[sabrina 1]

81. Would you like me to give you a list of their favorite words for liberals and

Democrats? I spent enough time with them to be very familiar with them. Every once in a while I see a commenter here using those words and I have to say, it is pretty shocking, especially since they too are using them against fellow Democrats.

I'm sure you would not want to be emulating rightwingers in their attacks on Democrats. Just providing information so you can avoid doing so in the future.

[BzaDem]

82. You better stop using the word "the," or you will be emulating rightwingers.

:rofl:

Glad to know the word police is on duty.

[sabrina 1]

86. As I said, and you now appear to be backing away from your original

claim, 'whining' is a favorite right wing word for Democrats. And anytime I see someone use right wing words to attack Democrats I will make note of it. Wherever it happens. I would think that as a Democrat you would agree.

[BzaDem]

89. "I would think that as a Democrat you would agree."

Ah, but you are wrong. I do not agree in the slightest. I literally cannot fathom how I could disagree more. I do not agree with the idea of identifying some commonly used English words as "right wing words" (such as the word "whining," or the word "the") and therefore putting on one's word-police uniform and squelching use of them.

In fact, such word suppression tactics are FAR more characteristic of right-wingers, not Democrats.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[doc03]

50. If that is true why is every Congressman distancing themselves

from all those accomplishments?

[Arkana]

63. He did no such thing. This is more "WE'RE BEING PERSECUTED!" from the usual suspects

and it's shameful crap.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[Better Believe It]

77. It's too bad that public option supporters are also being ridiculed here on DU in this string.

But, that's all some folks can do when they can't present intelligent arguments against a public option.

It's all they got.

If anyone dares to propose a single payer health care system they will get slam dunked by professional anti-leftists here!

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[unkachuck]

94. "...to see the glass as half empty. (Laughter.)"

"We have had the most productive, progressive legislative session in at least a generation."

....since there hasn't been a 'progressive legislative session' in a generation, it might be hard to evaluate 'productive'....

....we have real problems and needs out here....you, Washington and corporate America aren't giving us anything, aren't doing US any favors, because in the final analysis, all money is OUR money....from the corporate bottom line to the federal budget, the money comes from US....

....the problem is, there isn't enough of OUR money available for both economic and political corruption and doing the public 'needed' good....

....and when the 'needed' good gets chumped in favor of corruption, while people continue to die for lack of affordable healthcare, some of US find the 'half empty' glass upsetting....

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

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

[DemocraticPilgrim]

106. The public option will seem the least of anyones problems when GOP congress has to destroy the ...

future to regain the WH. So they can tar it on the President.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[Vinca]

112. Well . . . isn't that special? Our pain and suffering is now comedy material.

No, Mr. President, health INSURANCE reform is not good enough without a public option. If you'd pushed for it, Dems wouldn't have this election year lethargy. Even if you'd pushed for it and lost. But you didn't. You folded like a cheap tent because you figured your good buddies, the Republicans, would line up and support a "bipartisan" bill. BS.

[BrklynLiberal]

114. +1000. One does not start negotiating by giving in immediately. At least

PRETEND you want more than they are willing to give.

[Mass]

115. It would have been nice if he had noticed it did not pass thanks to the conservadems.

(Lieberman and Nelson come to mind).

If he wants to bash dems, it would be nice the bashing be somewhat balanced.

[Jakes Progress]

120. Stop picking on Obama. Sniffle, sniffle

He's so delicate. So dreamy. Who cares what he says or does? Just look at him.