Yes - I currently have no health care. It's a pretty shitty situation.
I can hardly wait until I'm forced by law to pay the insurance industry for some sky-high deductible BS policy. So, in 2014 I can look forward to still, effectively having no health care, but I will be paying the highly profitable insurance industry for this pleasure!
Healthcare reform FTW!
If you cannot find a policy that costs less than 8% of your income, you won't owe a penalty. The penalty for the first year is either $95 or 1% of your income, whichever is greater.
I'd be perfectly happy to pay a decent amount of money for decent healthcare (and have done so). And I'd be especially happy if my money was going to actual healthcare - not record insurance industry profit.
But here in the US - relative to most other 1st world countries, we spend much more money for significantly less care.
At my last job I had 'decent' care through a work group policy. Coulda been worse I guess - but with high copays and not much money for prescriptions. And that policy cost probably about $8,000 to $10,000 a year just for me as an individual. Not sure the exact details - bc it was part of my salary package of course. But that's about what the HR lady said.
Most working class people can afford nothing like that. And I believe family coverage thru a typical job is about $14,000 per year and rising fast. But buying on the private market as an individual - you're going to get even worse terms. Way less.
So, no. I'll not be satisfied asking people to spend hundreds of dollars a month on a policy. And then paying in entirety for for any care on top of that because they have a $7,000 deductible or so to meet. But that's all they can afford.
We'll see. Won't we? I'm hoping for the best, but pretty darn skeptical.
I do know I've seen friends and close loved ones - who are part of the insurance system (not pre-existing conditioned out, or whatever), have their lives and their families' lives financially and emotionally devastated (by ruined credit, mountains of bills, denied mortgages, etc. in addition to suffering grave illness, and in one close family-member's instance - death). So, I'm not just whining, or whatever.
But I'm glad you all are happy to trust the insurance industry to handle this!
Not sure where you are getting your figures but here is what my last pay stub says and I have about as good of an Insurance package as you can get, for a family of 4.
Here are my benefits and how much is taken out per bi-monthly paycheck followed by the annual cost.
Family Dental $19.00 $456.00
Family Vision $8.45 $202.80
Family Medical $213.00 $5112.00
Standard Life $8.96 $215.04
Additional Life $14.79 $354.96
Opt Life Spouse $5.04 $120.96
So that is Dental, Eye care and Medical care for a family of 4 plus life insurance for my wife and myself that cost me a total of $6,462 which is way below 8% of my annual salary.
I support the president no doubt! People (progressives and liberals) complain that he has started to suck up to the republicans. As Dan said he is trying to get things done. He has only been in office for two years!! Also he has accomplished a lot given the way the republicans have behaved. My one BIG problem I have with some liberals is that they complain about shit and don't go out and vote like the republicans do. The republicans ALWAYS are on the offensive! That is the reason why a majority of them have become president throughout our history as a country. Liberals are always fighting against each other and are like crabs in a barrel. Anyway, I think Obama is def between a rock and a hard place. However, we have two years left so who knows what he maybe able to accomplish. Hopefully, he can turn things around with the support of liberals and republicans.
Laser - so you were/are in a favor of a global financial meltdown?
Saving wall street has done nothing to help small (and large) businesses get loans or operate on credit.
While AIG, Goldman Sachs and BofA were all saved, none of them are helping the economies of individuals and communities.
Meanwhile the small banks that actually invest in communities have been closed at a fast clip (no bail out for them) their assets given to Wall Street giants, taken out of the communities where the money came from.
Where I am sitting there has been a global financial meltdown.
The fact that wall street "investors" are riding high does not soften the blow for me.
Phongone- so were/are you in favor of repossessing peoples homes, throwing them out on the street, spitting on them, while Wall Street continues to think up new schemes for derivatives and other "investment" instruments?
I, along with many economists, believe that the Wall Street bailout was an unnecessary evil. We were on the precipice of a monumental financial disaster and the bailout was needed to avert that. Obviously, lots of folks are suffering during the recession right now, but it would have been worse had nothing been done. And I agree with you that the flow of credit has been unbearably tight, and I think that primarily is a function of banks being risk adverse now.
The foreclosure issue is a complex one. I agree with your sentiment that these big banks and their agents preyed on folks and made a killing on mortgage fees then repackaged the loans and made a killing selling them as securities and credit default swaps. But a lot of these homeowners had no business buying then overpriced homes that were way beyond their income levels. F*ck I sound Republican.
I support the president no doubt! People (progressives and liberals) complain that he has started to suck up to the republicans. As Dan said he is trying to get things done. He has only been in office for two years!! Also he has accomplished a lot given the way the republicans have behaved. My one BIG problem I have with some liberals is that they complain about shit and don't go out and vote like the republicans do. The republicans ALWAYS are on the offensive! That is the reason why a majority of them have become president throughout our history as a country. Liberals are always fighting against each other and are like crabs in a barrel. Anyway, I think Obama is def between a rock and a hard place. However, we have two years left so who knows what he maybe able to accomplish. Hopefully, he can turn things around with the support of liberals and republicans.
I voted for Obama because I thought he would do what it took to get things done by compromising what might be his personal ideals for the good of the country.
What some call "sucking up" I'd call "working with".
Ideals don't get anything accomplished, actions do.
My biggest complaint about Obama would be that he seems unable to occasionally corner the moderates in his own party to make some tough calls, like on health care or the stimulus. I see Republicans are able to do this from time to time. Look at how they are taking on Dick Lugar right now over his support of START. I think he also screwed up when he kept claiming that economic picture was rosier than it was. It undermined his credibility with swing voters.
I think most people on here get it in terms of how difficult a task he faced when entering office. Anyone in their right mind would have to say that he has accomplished a great deal. It will be interesting to see if he can rally votes on Dont Ask, Dont Tell and START during the rest of the lame duck session, now that he has ended the tax debate. If he does, they would be major victories, especially overturning DADT. We'll see I guess.
I, along with many economists, believe that the Wall Street bailout was an unnecessarya necessary evil. We were on the precipice of a monumental financial disaster and the bailout was needed to avert that. Obviously, lots of folks are suffering during the recession right now, but it would have been worse had nothing been done. And I agree with you that the flow of credit has been unbearably tight, and I think that primarily is a function of banks being risk adverseaverse now.
Laser - so you were/are in a favor of a global financial meltdown?
Saving wall street has done nothing to help small (and large) businesses get loans or operate on credit.
While AIG, Goldman Sachs and BofA were all saved, none of them are helping the economies of individuals and communities.
Meanwhile the small banks that actually invest in communities have been closed at a fast clip (no bail out for them) their assets given to Wall Street giants, taken out of the communities where the money came from.
Where I am sitting there has been a global financial meltdown.
The fact that wall street "investors" are riding high does not soften the blow for me.
Phongone- so were/are you in favor of repossessing peoples homes, throwing them out on the street, spitting on them, while Wall Street continues to think up new schemes for derivatives and other "investment" instruments?
I, along with many economists, believe that the Wall Street bailout was an unnecessary evil. We were on the precipice of a monumental financial disaster and the bailout was needed to avert that. Obviously, lots of folks are suffering during the recession right now, but it would have been worse had nothing been done. And I agree with you that the flow of credit has been unbearably tight, and I think that primarily is a function of banks being risk adverse now.
The foreclosure issue is a complex one. I agree with your sentiment that these big banks and their agents preyed on folks and made a killing on mortgage fees then repackaged the loans and made a killing selling them as securities and credit default swaps. But a lot of these homeowners had no business buying then overpriced homes that were way beyond their income levels. F*ck I sound Republican.
I disagree with you that the options were saving Goldman Sachs or doing nothing.
I support the president no doubt! People (progressives and liberals) complain that he has started to suck up to the republicans. As Dan said he is trying to get things done. He has only been in office for two years!! Also he has accomplished a lot given the way the republicans have behaved. My one BIG problem I have with some liberals is that they complain about shit and don't go out and vote like the republicans do. The republicans ALWAYS are on the offensive! That is the reason why a majority of them have become president throughout our history as a country. Liberals are always fighting against each other and are like crabs in a barrel. Anyway, I think Obama is def between a rock and a hard place. However, we have two years left so who knows what he maybe able to accomplish. Hopefully, he can turn things around with the support of liberals and republicans.
I voted for Obama because I thought he would do what it took to get things done by compromising what might be his personal ideals for the good of the country.
What some call "sucking up" I'd call "working with".
Ideals don't get anything accomplished, actions do.
Thank you.
This is what I have been trying to say.
I, along with many economists, believe that the Wall Street bailout was an unnecessarya necessary evil. We were on the precipice of a monumental financial disaster and the bailout was needed to avert that. Obviously, lots of folks are suffering during the recession right now, but it would have been worse had nothing been done. And I agree with you that the flow of credit has been unbearably tight, and I think that primarily is a function of banks being risk adverseaverse now.
Liberals are always fighting against each other and are like crabs in a barrel
I've certainly been guilty of buying into this mindset but I think the last few years have been instructive. I mean, it's not that long ago, esp. after 2008, where people thought the GOP was on the ropes! And while they've certainly bounced back, I think it's the Right that currently has its internal problems that will have to be resolved if the party is going to make gains for the long-term (this isn't to suggest the left is all hunky-dory). If the Tea Party is going to prove that they have any clout (and I'm not yet convinced they do), they're going to add to fractures within the right that have been there for years and are just waiting to blow up.
[block]That is the reason why a majority of them have become president throughout our history as a country.[/block]
Two thoughts:
1) This may be numerically true but I'm not sure if these party affiliations have always meant the same things today as they did, say, 100 years ago. Don't forget: Lincoln was a Republican (albeit, first a Whig), Andrew Jackson was a Democrat. As was Andrew Johnson, arguably one of the worst presidents in history and someone who let Jim Crow happen on his watch.
2) It may be one reason that we've had more Republican presidents is that America, generally, is more conservative than it is liberal. I hate to have to acknowledge this and it's not like it's 80/20, more like 55/45 or something, but overall, as a nation, America is probably a lot more conservative than many of us (in the 45 camp) are willing to let ourselves admit. Given that, the moments where the nation shifts left-ward are rather astounding and go against the grain of our typical inclinations.
2) It may be one reason that we've had more Republican presidents is that America, generally, is more conservative than it is liberal. I hate to have to acknowledge this and it's not like it's 80/20, more like 55/45 or something, but overall, as a nation, America is probably a lot more conservative than many of us (in the 45 camp) are willing to let ourselves admit. Given that, the moments where the nation shifts left-ward are rather astounding and go against the grain of our typical inclinations.
I would add a further refinement to this and say that the conservative shift is largely due to age/generational differences in the US. I read a recent article which said that senior citizens are overwhelmingly against the health care overhaul -- even though it means that more people across the board will receive Medicare-like benefits. Seniors believe that Medicare is their right and that they paid for those benefits -- which is false because their payments into the Medicare system is vastly outweighed by the subsidies from our tax payments.
I have to say that I'm very bitter over baby-boomers and the like who have extracted the wealth of this nation and have left little for subsequent generations.
any person in obama's position is going to have to make compromises. he was always a middle of the road pragmatist, so i dont see why people are so disappointed.
maybe because we're used to republicans ramming legislation through and framing conversations to suit their agendas, forcing dems to play reactive politics and play in the right's arena all the time.
im all for pragmatism for the sake of getting things done and i understand that elected officials cant mirror my politics, which would fall much further left, but i just wish dems were more zealous in pushing what is supposed to be their platform.
two more years of tax cuts for the rich? Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
any person in obama's position is going to have to make compromises. he was always a middle of the road pragmatist, so i dont see why people are so disappointed.
1) Obama campaigned on a more liberal set of issues than he's delivered on. Plenty to be disappointed about there.
2) People are disappointed when they don't feel like their leadership represents their interests. It doesn't matter how someone portrays themselves. Bush disappointed the fuck out of me and it's not because I was unaware as his particular political leanings.
any person in obama's position is going to have to make compromises. he was always a middle of the road pragmatist, so i dont see why people are so disappointed.
1) Obama campaigned on a more liberal set of issues than he's delivered on. Plenty to be disappointed about there.
2) People are disappointed when they don't feel like their leadership represents their interests. It doesn't matter how someone portrays themselves. Bush disappointed the fuck out of me and it's not because I was unaware as his particular political leanings.
What liberal set of issues did he campaign on that he has not delivered, or is not trying to deliver?
any person in obama's position is going to have to make compromises. he was always a middle of the road pragmatist, so i dont see why people are so disappointed.
1) Obama campaigned on a more liberal set of issues than he's delivered on. Plenty to be disappointed about there.
2) People are disappointed when they don't feel like their leadership represents their interests. It doesn't matter how someone portrays themselves. Bush disappointed the fuck out of me and it's not because I was unaware as his particular political leanings.
What liberal set of issues did he campaign on that he has not delivered, or is not trying to deliver?
I, along with many economists, believe that the Wall Street bailout was an unnecessary evil. We were on the precipice of a monumental financial disaster and the bailout was needed to avert that. Obviously, lots of folks are suffering during the recession right now, but it would have been worse had nothing been done. And I agree with you that the flow of credit has been unbearably tight, and I think that primarily is a function of banks being risk adverse now.
The foreclosure issue is a complex one. I agree with your sentiment that these big banks and their agents preyed on folks and made a killing on mortgage fees then repackaged the loans and made a killing selling them as securities and credit default swaps. But a lot of these homeowners had no business buying then overpriced homes that were way beyond their income levels. F*ck I sound Republican.
I disagree with you that the options were saving Goldman Sachs or doing nothing.
Exactly. We need their market-making activities, investment expertise, etc. Much of what these firms do, however, does nothing to increase GDP.
Trading, the largest department of many major banks, provides no social or economic good. It's common to put conditions on loans or grants. One condition should have been the elimination of these firms' trading departments.
any person in obama's position is going to have to make compromises. he was always a middle of the road pragmatist, so i dont see why people are so disappointed.
1) Obama campaigned on a more liberal set of issues than he's delivered on. Plenty to be disappointed about there.
2) People are disappointed when they don't feel like their leadership represents their interests. It doesn't matter how someone portrays themselves. Bush disappointed the fuck out of me and it's not because I was unaware as his particular political leanings.
i find this to be such bullshit, generally coming from people who are willfully uninformed about the political process and just have a warped idea of what matters. Obama hasn't willfully reneged on promises. He is doing what he can do. Without question, the biggest social/economic issue on the progressive agenda was healthcare reform. Obama didn't get us the public option, but he made healthcare the first major piece of proposed legislation after the emergency financial rescue.
Now that healthcare has passed, even Obama's biggest cheerleaders realize that financial reform/job creation should have come before healthcare. He campaigned on healthcare and did what he promised though, to the best that he could.
This is the problem. Obama has enough issues dealing with "blue dog" democrats, the GOP, and the tea party lunatics. Now instead of progressives supporting him, he's got liberals criticizing him for not immediately closing Gitmo, or failing to repeal DADT, or other issues that are just not on par with saving the country from economic ruin while managing two wars.
Do democrats on here really doubt Obama's good intentions? He's a liberal! Just back off and give the man some breathing room. Support him. Vote. Volunteer. Donate. Like it was '08.
From the 1860s to the 1940s blacks voted Republican because of Lincoln and the Democrats ran the south and were associated with segregation and the KKK. It wasn't until Roosevelt and the New Deal that blacks started to turn to the Democrats.
From the 1860s to the 1940s blacks voted Republican because of Lincoln and the Democrats ran the south and were associated with segregation and the KKK. It wasn't until Roosevelt and the New Deal that blacks started to turn to the Democrats.
Plus, Herbert Hoover was endorsed by the Chicago Defender, the largest African American newspaper.
He made promises to the publisher he did not keep.
After the election he snubbed the publisher.
The Defender reported this and waged an Anti-Hoover campaign.
Thus when Hoover ran for reelection the Defender threw it's support behind Roosevelt.
Can't find confirmation on the interwebs.
I remember reading this in Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How It Changed America.
A great book. It was years ago, but I think I have my facts right.
Obama apologists are playing into the right's hands. The health care bill was a joke, financial reform was a joke, energy policy is a joke, Iraq withdrawl is a joke, Guantanamo is a joke. Obama took power with a super majority in congress and gave us some token shit. You can call his policies "liberal" only if you're far to the right, which is where issue debates are moving. He's a corporate stooge, just like Clinton was, and most of the party behind him.
The health care bill will give 30 million people coverage who don't have it now. 100,000 people die every year because they don't have insurance (a Harvard study). That is one piece of the health care bill. How is this a joke?
Financial reform saved jobs and saved us from a depression. This is what economists say, not my own personal opinion.
Most us troops will be out of Iraq by August; all us troops will be gone before 2012.
There are only 200 detainees left at guantanomo and Obama's original plan was to have them gone by 2013. That may not happen because of issues beyond his control, such as how we release prisoners to countries that won't take them and/or to countries that have no intention of rehabilitating or prosecuting suspected terrorists. Guantanomo is more of a symbolic issue than a practical one.
Health care bill isn't "giving" anyone anything, it is requiring people to get health insurance or face stiff penalties. With no public option, there is no real competition, so its basically a gift to the health insurance industry. You can state as many feel good stats from the Bill you want, but follow the money.
Financial bailout saved us from a large scale economic collapse. But, there has been no real reform, none of the big banks have been broken up, Glass-Steagall wasn't reisntated, banks are still dealing in derivatives, which are not traded on open exhanges, etc. And in 2011 you know the House GOP is going to go after the Consumer Protection Bureau, and the Volcker Rule. Its going to be 2007 again before you know it.
Iraq is a total fucking disaster. I'm not blaming Obama for it all, but that country is essentially fucked for the forseable future.
And don't get me started on yesterday's "compromise" on the Bush tax cuts.
But yeah, lets keep pretending Obama's "liberal" policies are doing some good, and bringing us "change."
in case you didnt notice, obama isnt a king?? he doesnt decide these things -- congress does? and there were lots of representive elected politicians who diluted the bill. this is how politics WORKS>
I've almost given up on the guy. I don't think he's willing to fight for anything. The White House gave up on trying to pass another stimulus package or any other kind of legislation to deal with the recession months ago, and this was when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. They're going to just use fiscal policy and the Fed from now on, and that won't do shit to solve the recession. This is the greatest problem to face the country since the 1980 recession, and the White House has basically quit doing anything serious about it. Right now I would say that Obama is a one term president. The Democrats are a bunch of twats as usual who can only agree to disagree, which doesn't help things as well. Fuck them and the Republicans who are calling for austerity during a recession???
Democrats who support the further privatization of healthcare in America like it was part of their plan for "reform" all along are far more troubling than any Tea Party.
I've almost given up on the guy. I don't think he's willing to fight for anything. The White House gave up on trying to pass another stimulus package or any other kind of legislation to deal with the recession months ago, and this was when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. They're going to just use fiscal policy and the Fed from now on, and that won't do shit to solve the recession. This is the greatest problem to face the country since the 1980 recession, and the White House has basically quit doing anything serious about it. Right now I would say that Obama is a one term president. The Democrats are a bunch of twats as usual who can only agree to disagree, which doesn't help things as well. Fuck them and the Republicans who are calling for austerity during a recession???
Are you kidding? How serious is going against one of your major campaign promises in order to get extended unemployment benefits, extend tax cuts for the middle class and cut payrolls taxes? That's another stimulus and serious as a heart attack for the Obama Administration.
in case you didnt notice, obama isnt a king?? he doesnt decide these things -- congress does? and there were lots of representive elected politicians who diluted the bill. this is how politics WORKS>
No but he's the fucking President who came into office with a majority in the two houses of Congress. And if you can't get your party in line to pass your legislation as President in that situation, then you're basically a failure. The United States is turning into an oligarchy, there are more millionaires in Congress now than ever before. Our democracy is a sham, the people who are supposed to be serving the public and looking out for the middle- and under- classes, are just picking their pockets.
Comments
If you cannot find a policy that costs less than 8% of your income, you won't owe a penalty. The penalty for the first year is either $95 or 1% of your income, whichever is greater.
Not sure where you are getting your figures but here is what my last pay stub says and I have about as good of an Insurance package as you can get, for a family of 4.
Here are my benefits and how much is taken out per bi-monthly paycheck followed by the annual cost.
Family Dental $19.00 $456.00
Family Vision $8.45 $202.80
Family Medical $213.00 $5112.00
Standard Life $8.96 $215.04
Additional Life $14.79 $354.96
Opt Life Spouse $5.04 $120.96
So that is Dental, Eye care and Medical care for a family of 4 plus life insurance for my wife and myself that cost me a total of $6,462 which is way below 8% of my annual salary.
There is one man's real life cost for insurance.
I, along with many economists, believe that the Wall Street bailout was an unnecessary evil. We were on the precipice of a monumental financial disaster and the bailout was needed to avert that. Obviously, lots of folks are suffering during the recession right now, but it would have been worse had nothing been done. And I agree with you that the flow of credit has been unbearably tight, and I think that primarily is a function of banks being risk adverse now.
The foreclosure issue is a complex one. I agree with your sentiment that these big banks and their agents preyed on folks and made a killing on mortgage fees then repackaged the loans and made a killing selling them as securities and credit default swaps. But a lot of these homeowners had no business buying then overpriced homes that were way beyond their income levels. F*ck I sound Republican.
I voted for Obama because I thought he would do what it took to get things done by compromising what might be his personal ideals for the good of the country.
What some call "sucking up" I'd call "working with".
Ideals don't get anything accomplished, actions do.
I think most people on here get it in terms of how difficult a task he faced when entering office. Anyone in their right mind would have to say that he has accomplished a great deal. It will be interesting to see if he can rally votes on Dont Ask, Dont Tell and START during the rest of the lame duck session, now that he has ended the tax debate. If he does, they would be major victories, especially overturning DADT. We'll see I guess.
Fixed.
I disagree with you that the options were saving Goldman Sachs or doing nothing.
Thank you.
This is what I have been trying to say.
DB - you are a gentleman and a scholar. Thanks.
I've certainly been guilty of buying into this mindset but I think the last few years have been instructive. I mean, it's not that long ago, esp. after 2008, where people thought the GOP was on the ropes! And while they've certainly bounced back, I think it's the Right that currently has its internal problems that will have to be resolved if the party is going to make gains for the long-term (this isn't to suggest the left is all hunky-dory). If the Tea Party is going to prove that they have any clout (and I'm not yet convinced they do), they're going to add to fractures within the right that have been there for years and are just waiting to blow up.
[block]That is the reason why a majority of them have become president throughout our history as a country.[/block]
Two thoughts:
1) This may be numerically true but I'm not sure if these party affiliations have always meant the same things today as they did, say, 100 years ago. Don't forget: Lincoln was a Republican (albeit, first a Whig), Andrew Jackson was a Democrat. As was Andrew Johnson, arguably one of the worst presidents in history and someone who let Jim Crow happen on his watch.
2) It may be one reason that we've had more Republican presidents is that America, generally, is more conservative than it is liberal. I hate to have to acknowledge this and it's not like it's 80/20, more like 55/45 or something, but overall, as a nation, America is probably a lot more conservative than many of us (in the 45 camp) are willing to let ourselves admit. Given that, the moments where the nation shifts left-ward are rather astounding and go against the grain of our typical inclinations.
I would add a further refinement to this and say that the conservative shift is largely due to age/generational differences in the US. I read a recent article which said that senior citizens are overwhelmingly against the health care overhaul -- even though it means that more people across the board will receive Medicare-like benefits. Seniors believe that Medicare is their right and that they paid for those benefits -- which is false because their payments into the Medicare system is vastly outweighed by the subsidies from our tax payments.
I have to say that I'm very bitter over baby-boomers and the like who have extracted the wealth of this nation and have left little for subsequent generations.
maybe because we're used to republicans ramming legislation through and framing conversations to suit their agendas, forcing dems to play reactive politics and play in the right's arena all the time.
im all for pragmatism for the sake of getting things done and i understand that elected officials cant mirror my politics, which would fall much further left, but i just wish dems were more zealous in pushing what is supposed to be their platform.
two more years of tax cuts for the rich? Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
1) Obama campaigned on a more liberal set of issues than he's delivered on. Plenty to be disappointed about there.
2) People are disappointed when they don't feel like their leadership represents their interests. It doesn't matter how someone portrays themselves. Bush disappointed the fuck out of me and it's not because I was unaware as his particular political leanings.
What liberal set of issues did he campaign on that he has not delivered, or is not trying to deliver?
Thankfully, that Cap & Trade BS.
Exactly. We need their market-making activities, investment expertise, etc. Much of what these firms do, however, does nothing to increase GDP.
Trading, the largest department of many major banks, provides no social or economic good. It's common to put conditions on loans or grants. One condition should have been the elimination of these firms' trading departments.
i find this to be such bullshit, generally coming from people who are willfully uninformed about the political process and just have a warped idea of what matters. Obama hasn't willfully reneged on promises. He is doing what he can do. Without question, the biggest social/economic issue on the progressive agenda was healthcare reform. Obama didn't get us the public option, but he made healthcare the first major piece of proposed legislation after the emergency financial rescue.
Now that healthcare has passed, even Obama's biggest cheerleaders realize that financial reform/job creation should have come before healthcare. He campaigned on healthcare and did what he promised though, to the best that he could.
This is the problem. Obama has enough issues dealing with "blue dog" democrats, the GOP, and the tea party lunatics. Now instead of progressives supporting him, he's got liberals criticizing him for not immediately closing Gitmo, or failing to repeal DADT, or other issues that are just not on par with saving the country from economic ruin while managing two wars.
Do democrats on here really doubt Obama's good intentions? He's a liberal! Just back off and give the man some breathing room. Support him. Vote. Volunteer. Donate. Like it was '08.
Plus, Herbert Hoover was endorsed by the Chicago Defender, the largest African American newspaper.
He made promises to the publisher he did not keep.
After the election he snubbed the publisher.
The Defender reported this and waged an Anti-Hoover campaign.
Thus when Hoover ran for reelection the Defender threw it's support behind Roosevelt.
Can't find confirmation on the interwebs.
I remember reading this in Rising Tide: The Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and How It Changed America.
A great book. It was years ago, but I think I have my facts right.
We are fucked.
Are you kidding? How serious is going against one of your major campaign promises in order to get extended unemployment benefits, extend tax cuts for the middle class and cut payrolls taxes? That's another stimulus and serious as a heart attack for the Obama Administration.
No but he's the fucking President who came into office with a majority in the two houses of Congress. And if you can't get your party in line to pass your legislation as President in that situation, then you're basically a failure. The United States is turning into an oligarchy, there are more millionaires in Congress now than ever before. Our democracy is a sham, the people who are supposed to be serving the public and looking out for the middle- and under- classes, are just picking their pockets.