So we're stuck with a handful of facts, none of which are in dispute:
1. Congress was told that either $700 billion be handed out immediately or civil order would be lost. They were told this by Bernanke and Paulson and believed it.
2. Congress took the action Paulson and Bernanke demanded but then did not spend the money as they said they would, and yet the "or else" did not happen.
3. Yet neither Paulson or Geithner will take responsibility for the precise actions taken during what they, along with Bernanke, claimed was literally an "end of the world" event!
Paulson gets the cake though - he admitted (under oath!) that The Fed just blatantly printed the money to rescue AIG and the banks (!!!)
PROMISES, PROMISES: Many Obama pledges unkept Jan 14, 1:47 PM (ET) By PHILIP ELLIOTT
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama ends his first year in office with his to-do list still long and his unfulfilled campaign promises stacked high.
From winding down the war in Iraq to limiting lobbyists, Obama has made some progress. But the president has faced political reality and accepted - sometimes grudgingly - compromises that leave him exposed to criticism. Promises that have proven difficult include pledges not to raise taxes, to curb earmarks and to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba by the end of his first year.
"We are moving systematically to bring about change, but change is hard," Obama told a town hall crowd in California. "Change doesn't happen overnight."
That was in March.
During his two-year campaign, Obama thrilled massive crowds with soaring speeches, often railing against an Iraq war that now is seldom mentioned. His presidential comments now are often sober updates on issues like terrorism and the economy, a top priority now that emerged as a major issue only in the campaign's final weeks.
Obama's campaign ambition has been diluted with a pragmatism that has been the hallmark of Year One - without much of the progress he had hoped.
A look at some of the promises: --- THE ECONOMY, TAXES AND DEFICITS -snip- FOREIGN POLICY -snip- TERRORISM -snip- HEALTH CARE -snip- OTHER ISSUES -snip- White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs explained that by saying:
"Even the toughest rules require reasonable exceptions."
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow believes she has found the smoking gun proving Republicans' hypocrisy on health care and the budget deficit: an admission by Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch that, during the Bush administration, "it was standard practice not to pay for things."
Description: Clips from five hate rallies, set to the tune of "Beloved (I John 4 : 7-8 )" which tells us
7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
And, just in case that message is not clear, there is a clear example provided a little further down the page.
20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.
Some of my friends say it is best to ignore these clowns, but I disagree.
Q: I have been a customer since 1998. What have I done wrong? A: Nothing. Everyone's rates went up.
She said she has been getting calls like this all day. It's nothing personal. Everyone is getting the same notice.
Q: What could I have done differently? "Nothing" then the same answer.
Q: Are you trying to drive me away? Q: Do you still want me as a customer? "Of course." She made a case that the current economic climate forces them to do this.
I pointed out that the current interbank discount lending rate is near 0%. It doesn't get lower than that.
Q: In November 2008, my government lent your company $25billion. Where did the bailout money go? She had to consult the script for this one, and made it clear by saying "Let's see... it says here...." She said something about sustainable business, shareholders Clearly she was not prepared to debate, so I just said my peace and let her go.
I said it is not lost on me that my government lent them money dirt cheap to free up credit, and they are unwilling to lend to me at a reasonable rate. We were their lender of last resort, and they would be bankrupt now if it weren't for that. I said I have not made any bad decisions. This kind of rate (30%) is reserved as a threat for what happens when you default. I have not defaulted. I have done nothing wrong. On the other hand, Citi has made too many risky loans. Why should I be punished for your bad decisions? I said, from my perspective, I wish the government had just let them go bankrupt -- I'd be in the same place, unable to obtain credit at a reasonable rate.
There was dead air. So I just let her go. She said have a nice day.
I saw the recent WSJ article about how the stimulus is working. I have watched as the Republican's only unifying cause appears to be anything that can sabotage Obama, no matter what the cost to the country. An image came into my mind. I described it to my sister, and she drew it!
Is "public option" a bad name for the public option? Can you think of a better name? Post it here.
There needs to be a public option, it must cover 100%, and it must be available to all regardless of current employment, proof of hardship or lack thereof. Finally, this public option needs to be more than an option -- it needs to be enabled by default, or there must be a way to sign up for it instantly right there at the hospital or doctors office if it turns out your insurance has lapsed, or the isn't as much coverage as you need. It is difficult to manage paperwork when you are working day and night to keep it together.
Can someone please organize this? Just tell me when, and I'll be there. with friends.
On Sunday, September 25, 2005, a large number of protesters marched on Washington to protest the Iraq war. Media coverage was patchy, but some estimates ran around 250,000 marchers. We did not have the support of Congress. Only a few congresspeople in the Progressive Caucus even acknowledged that we were there. GWB decided to be out of town that weekend, so he did not have a Nixon moment as we shouted at the White House front gate. Still, we made as much impact as we could in a hostile climate. To this day, it is difficult to find MSM articles about the event. But, I was there. The crowd was a dense as it appears in this photo. All day. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...
Recent news stories have claimed that the town hall shouters had an influence on our elected leaders. Are we just going to let that go? These losers are going to end up influencing policy just by being loud? Screw that! There are more of us than there are of them!
If we were to have a similar march, this time for single-payer healthcare, even if it is not quite as large, would the media ignore us the same way as in 2005? Would Congress? Would the White House?
The media is in tune with this issue now. They are in gawker mode. Well let's give them something to gawk at.
I believe the Democrats are asking for a backlash from us. FDR famously said, "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it."
I sent this to the White House and to the DNC through the contact pages on their respective websites, yesterday. I have no idea if they will use this unsolicited advice.
TO The White House CC Democratic National Committee
This is a piece of strategy/messaging advice regarding the opposition to health care reform.
The radical right is fond of invoking the mythical and unassailable opinions of the "founding fathers". Since no one can possibly know what our late founding fathers would actually think of the current state of affairs in the United States of America, there is little hope of a reasoned debate. At a recent town hall gathering, an Arkansan cried, "I want my America back". Another held a copy of the Constitution, and stated, "It doesn't say anything in here about health care!". Shockingly, one of our elected officials himself, Sen Grassley, recently said at his own Iowa town hall gathering, "I see nowhere in the Constitution where health care is a right. ... I want to hear it from Obama, I want to hear it from Pelosi, about how this is about 'We the people.'"
Assuming that some segment of these disrupters at our elected leaders' recent local town hall gatherings is merely poorly-informed, as opposed to something more subversive and sinister which I will refrain from naming, I suggest the Democratic leadership remind the public (and Sen Grassley) of the following fact. This is the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America. There is no doubt that this statement was reviewed and signed by our founding fathers.
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The current health care reform proposal is in line with the fundamental founding objectives stated above. This is especially true when the proposed legislation is compared to the alternative, the status quo a decade from now. Here are some suggestions for how to make the connection apparent.
1. "Provide for the Common Defense" What does it mean, in terms of the common defense, aka national security, that by 2019 we will have 54 million uninsured non-elderly Americans? The common defense is a matter of preparing for the unexpected. What if we suffer another sneak attack such as Pearl Harbor, and need to quickly mobilize a fighting force to defend ourselves? It is against the interest of the common defense for our pool of working-age citizens to be largely unable to afford basic, preventative care on the eve of a mobilization. Furthermore, with a large number of Americans absolutely unable to afford to stay home from work and see a doctor when they feel sick, an otherwise containable microbe could get out of our control and weaken the general population, to a greater extent than other nations. In terms of the common defense, the weakened American population will be less industrially productive and more vulnerable to other forms of attack. In short, a healthier America is a stronger, sturdier America.
2. "Promote the General Welfare" Under the current system, only a fortunate segment of the public enjoys the benefits of health coverage. Many are denied benefits through no fault of their own. For example, some may lose their job, or a providing family member may lose his or her job. Most absurdly, some Americans are denied benefits other Americans enjoy simply because they are declared by insurance company bureaucrats to be too costly to insure. Worse yet, sometimes Americans lose their jobs when insurance corporations apply pressure to employers. Many share the blame, but mostly this unfair and unhealthy treatment of our fellow Americans is a consequence of inextricably linking health care to employment. The current system does not promote the interest of the general welfare. It promotes the interest of the fortunate few at fortunate times in their lives. It's not just about fairness, either. It's about the overall health of the country, and the associated costs. Strikingly, the proposed health care reform will elevate the health of the general population at a lower cost than the status quo. In other words, this proposal does a great deal to promote the general welfare.
3. "Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and Our Posterity" With the proposed health care reform enacted, we and our posterity will be free to migrate to more attractive jobs or careers, and will be free to engage in entrepreneurial pursuits, without the fear of innovation-crippling health care costs. On the other hand, under the current system, every American young person who is denied health care due to their parents lack of health coverage suffers a horrible denial of liberty before they even have a chance to claim it. Lastly, access to health care is often a matter of life and death. In 2006, 22,000 Americans died due to lack of insurance. A more profound denial of liberty, I cannot imagine.
Today is Day 163 in Obama's presidency. What was going on at the same point (day 163) in Bush's presidency?
Day 163 is yet another boring day for Bush. He faces continuing decline in his poll numbers, and continues to be his own worst enemy. Only 5 months in, and it seems that the president is losing enthusiasm. Without control of the congress and the legislative agenda, a discouraged Bush backs off some of his earlier ambitions. Proposed ideas regarding energy crisis solutions, social security reform, and the Middle East are quickly revealed by the press to overlook important details. His ideas are half baked
The last article, below, is a nice recap appearing in USA Today. I quoted the whole thing.
Ongoing stories: 1. Cheney's heart condition 2. Rove under suspicion regarding Intel 3. Bush met with Koizumi and this may have smoothed the Kyoto thing over somewhat
But then the White House seemed to go on vacation. "On the other stuff moving through the Congress" such as the patients bill of rights, energy measures, and key appropriations bills, "there has not been the day-to-day event planning and messaging," complains a senior House GOP aide. "They haven't been as good as in the past."
Court rebounds from Bush v. Gore: Watermark case of '01 term did not diminish justices in public's eyes. But legal analysts still stew. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-76113666.h...
The 40% Social Security Cut: Letting people invest retirement money in stocks may be all well and good, but it's no magic cure for our biggest social program.(National Affairs)(Brief Article) http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summa...
WASHINGTON — Although the first checks from the Bush tax cuts are due in taxpayers' pockets by summer's end, the president has seen other parts of his agenda trimmed or changed by a closely divided Congress. From health care to energy to education, Bush either has acquiesced to or been forced to confront significant changes in his policies. In some cases, the changes have been dramatic enough to send him back to his bully pulpit with a new message. And in others, the changes have elicited threats of a presidential veto. The latter is the case with the patients' bill of rights health care debate that has rumbled through the Senate this past week. Bush's desire to limit damage awards in lawsuits against health care providers has run up against a solid Democratic wall in the Senate and provoked hints of a veto. Other examples of Bush's agenda being trimmed or changed: • On energy, a series of votes in Congress over the past two weeks have made it clear that Bush's push to drill domestically for more oil and natural gas has serious opposition in Congress. In successive weeks, the House voted to delay offshore drilling leases off Florida in the Gulf of Mexico and prohibit drilling on federal monument lands and in the Great Lakes. In the Gulf of Mexico vote, 70 Republicans joined 167 Democrats and one independent to vote for the ban. The White House argued that Bush did not propose drilling in the Great Lakes, so it was not a rebuff of his energy policy. "There is nothing in the president's energy plan that deals with the Great Lakes," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. "That is a state matter." • Also on energy, the White House rewrote its message to focus more on conservation measures after criticism that Bush appeared eager to drill while ignoring conservation. The president went to the Department of Energy on Thursday to announce $108 million for new research to develop fuel cells, advanced engines and hydrogen power designed to save energy. But after being criticized initially for not responding rapidly enough to California's energy crisis, Bush is now facing the prospect that the crisis itself may be easing, thus taking away the impetus for his energy initiatives. Fleischer told reporters that falling gas prices and reports of adequate worldwide supplies of energy should not deter the United States from forming a comprehensive energy policy to reduce foreign energy dependence. "This nation still has fundamental energy imbalances that can only be addressed, in the president's opinion, through greater conservation and through increased exploration and through fixing America's infrastructure," he said. • In an Energy and Water Appropriations bill passed by the House, Bush's proposal to keep a lid on federal spending for beach projects was rejected. Under the bill, which still must pass the Senate, $150 million would be spent on beach improvements next year, $62 million more than Bush wanted. The House rejected Bush's request to reverse the current 65 percent federal, 35 percent local cost-sharing formula with state and local governments. • Bush is expected to win final congressional approval of a bipartisan education plan that demands greater accountability from educators and requires new reading and math tests for millions of students. But the White House made concessions on key Bush proposals to appease both conservatives and liberals. To win Democratic backing, Bush relented on a campaign pledge to allow use of taxpayer funds for private-school tuition, and he trimmed a plan to allow states to spend school subsidies free from Washington interference. The concession enraged some conservatives in his own party. But conservatives have left their mark on Bush's plan, too. Bowing to concerns about local control of education, the bills no longer require uniform statewide exams in reading and math. A conference committee to work out differences between House and Senate versions of the education reforms has yet to be named. • While Bush got high marks from economic conservatives for his $1.35 trillion tax cut over 10 years, social conservatives have become increasingly vocal about fears that Bush is trimming his social agenda. Gary Bauer, a social conservative who opposed Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries, chided the president Thursday for not deciding whether to fund medical research using human embryos. Bauer and other social conservatives oppose such research. The White House reportedly is divided between those who believe that such research could help find cures for deadly diseases and those who see it as an extension of the abortion debate. Bush opposed human embryo research in the 2000 presidential campaign. "We are just hearing a lot of agonizing going on, and there should not be, because the campaign promise was so clear," Bauer told GNS. Bauer said there was increased concern among conservatives about the ground Bush has yielded. "There are a lot of things that are beginning to trouble the folks that gave him the narrow win," Bauer said. "I think that one thing that every White House has to learn, and it is particularly true of Republican White Houses, is that it is better sometimes to lose on an issue, but in losing remind the public of your philosophy and the philosophy of your opponents."
Today is Day 162 in Obama's presidency. What was going on at the same point (day 162) in Bush's presidency?
Day 162 was yet another dull day for Bush. The world just won't let the whole backing out of Kyoto Protocol go, golly. Meanwhile, Bush's claim to be able to see a former KGB agent's soul still resonated in the press two weeks after he said it. News broke that American Airlines workers agreed to go back to work, narrowly but completely sparing Bush from having to make a tough decision in the matter. Articles in Time and the Washington Post formulated thorough explanations for Bush's sagging approval ratings and his party's loss of control of the agenda in Congress, in some ways poking fun at the country's initial enthusiasm.
Ongoing stories: 1. Cheney health concerns 2. Bush requests special defense spending, for the sake of the troops 3. Vieques bomb tests continue
Neither side released details. Reached after nearly 34 months of talks, the proposed pact headed off any action by President Bush. He had said he would prevent a strike at any major airline during the summer travel season.
EXCEEDING expectations: That was the first story line for the Bush administration. You remember -- this was an administration of adults. Competent, accomplished, leak-free and disciplined, they were political craftsmen, or maybe above politics altogether. But that was months ago. Now the polls are slipping and the story line has changed: Through arrogance and ineptitude, the Bush people have lost control of the Senate and the agenda. They're enduring bipartisan spankings on oil drilling in Florida and the Great Lakes. From here to 2004 will be one slow slide.
Today is Day 161 in Obama's presidency. What was going on at the same point (day 161) in Bush's presidency?
Day 161 was yet another tame day for Bush. He met with the leader of Japan at Camp David. When Muslims visited the White House, security got the wrong idea and kicked them out. No apology could reconcile the gaffe. Karl Rove got clean-as-a-whistle rating from White House Counsel Al Gonz as the public debate about Rove's ethics regarding INTC securities carried on. The Supreme Court closed its session with no retirements.
Ongoing stories:
1. Senate passed Patients Bill of Rights in face of veto threat. 2. Bush bars health insurers from considering customers' dna tests 3. Microsoft case
WASHINGTON _ The top White House attorney said Friday that presidential adviser Karl Rove did not breach ethics rules when he met with Intel executives at a time he owned more than $100,000 in company stock. In a letter to a Democratic congressman, White House counsel Al Gonzales also said that Rove's past ownership of Enron stocks did not create a conflict of interest with the Bush administration's energy policy. "Mr. Rove either had passing, inconsequential contacts or participated in broad policy discussions, neither of which presents an ethical...
