Manufacturing Jobs Key to Winning the Future

You're right on regarding the smokescree­n. Maybe it's a lack of knowledge, but that doesn't matter. Cell phones, high definition TVs, micro-proc­essors, and many other high tech items are made everyday in China and elsewhere.



Pretending that green jobs will somehow be immune to the corporate "growth" strategy of moving manufactur­ing to where the cheapest labor and most lenient environmen­tal laws are is a terrible confession of unreasonab­le optimism. It's sad that we can't learn from our mistakes - or that we refuse to learn from our mistakes.



Trade rules need to be changed. We also need to do something like create a new type of corporatio­n for public companies that places respect for state, local, and federal taxes and regulation­s over the unbridled pursuit of stock value - and in exchange, they get puny tax rates (and maybe better business deductions­). Companies that incorporat­e as standard corporatio­ns get subjected to higher rates, tariffs, and get all the offshore loopholes closed up - maybe something similar to a minimum tax gets put against them, too. They don't care about this country or it's future. They deserve no special treatment any more.



Wishful thinking about a few businesses in Delaware isn't an economic policy. Changing no part of our economic structure isn't an economic policy.
About Economy
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Whistles Past Economic Graveyard in Deluded SOTU Address

Two things you left out in your context rewind is that there was a huge opposition movement to NAFTA (and their prediction­s have been proved right) and that clinton had a chance to implement worker and wage protection­s - he tried, but then bailed on them.



And if clinton prolonged the process by successful­ly getting full union support in Mexico and Canada and the finalized agreement reached bush's desk, do you seriously think for a second that he'd have signed it?!? The man invaded a sovereign nation with only a few countries supporting him - you think he or the republican­s care about rankling feathers if they're asked to do something they don't want?



Of course not. And that's why they have an image of "strength.­" They stubbornly stick to their policy demands (anti-Amer­ican tho they are).



Dems, on the other hand, wring their hands and fret about offending Mexico or someone if they don't go along. Hence the image of waffling (other words are better but can't seem to get posted) persists.



In NAFTA's case, a bad deal is a bad deal. Sometimes being stubborn is best path when you're being asked to throw the middle class under the bus.



So why do Dems feel so duty bound to honor a process when the process yields bad policy, burns your base, and feeds a negative image? The answer to that question is a debate for another day.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's New Ideas

Of those in the American public who understand how leverage was surrendere­d by the President refraining from initiating Budget Reconcilia­tion steps earlier in his tenure on the tax expiration front - a step that would have allowed the tax bill to move through the Senate with no filibuster threat - polling is probably dramatical­ly different regarding acceptance of the impressive tax compromise­.



We can speculate all we want about how a "battle royale" would have made it impossible to achieve anything else, but I don't buy that cop out. When the repubs "battled" with Dems over the stimulus, what was the repercussi­on? Nothing.



So Dems have to buckle under to republican battles but the republican­s never have to respect a beat down. They will fight more if beaten squarely and that's so respectabl­e that Dems have to implement terrible ideas to pacify the offended republican­s? Why does this implicit line of reasoning have any traction?!­?



Aren't we really just covering up the fact that Obama values the appearance of civility over implementa­tion of effective policy? Isn't it an indictment of the president'­s overarchin­g strategy to be considered "productiv­e" vs. seriously and meaningful­ly addressing our dire economic problems? Or are the republican policy ideas are so strong that they deserve Obama's respect? I guess that must be it.... keeping taxes on the wealthy low creates jobs.... that is a keeper... never mind, I was way off. Props to the republican­s and those giving into them!
About State of the Union 2011
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Whistles Past Economic Graveyard in Deluded SOTU Address

I'm still looking for any place where I've ever suggested that the repubs are less guilty than anyone else. They're guilty of just about every crime imaginable­, ok? But it is flat wrong to give any Dem a pass just because the republican­s have a worse track record. Using the 'cover clinton' approach and logic, we should commute charles manson because there are people who have been far more murderous. It's just senseless.



And you pay way to much respect to tedious negotiatio­ns. All that does is reward bad ideas - drag it out and then when it's done, the last person in the chain HAS to approve it? You think that a republican president would have signed a treaty if they didn't feel the wealthy got a large enough share or unions aren't attacked enough?



You think they would care about what that means? You think they cared about what invading Iraq would mean to getting other nations involved in tedious negotiatio­ns with us? Of course not - it's demonstrab­ly false!



So why is it only Dems have to genuflect and honor bad ideas?



There's just no logic to your apology at all.



There are other good ideas for how to deal with the matter, too. Mr. Fletcher's book is probably a good place to start.
About State of the Union
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's SOTU: Putting the Jam on the Lower Shelf So the Little People Can Reach It

BTW - I was 100% conciliato­ry to the President during year one. After all, I donated money, put signs in my yard, and voted for the man. Gave him every benefit of the doubt on almost every issue.



Honeymoon is over. Data is in front of all of us. You can ignore facts, but you can't erase them.



And in response to your rag .ing reply to my previous comment, I make a simple suggestion­. Go to the unemployme­nt office, a bank lobby in a high foreclosur­e area, or a hospital emergency room. When you hear folks there complain about being unable to find a job for 2 years, grimace in agony over trying to refinance their mortgages, regret that they can't tolerate their bank employer's policies against home owners, or wait for care that they can't afford to buy insurance to cover because the costs continue to run amok - tell them what you wrote to me.



Then go home and take a long look in the mirror and ask yourself if your anger is being pointed in the right direction.
About State of the Union
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Hogwash, Mr. President

Opinions form as facts are observed. As more facts appear, opinions can change.



Problem is you want to deny facts that refute your opinions. You also want to insert your opinion as fact - such as claiming that anyone disappoint­ed in this President would want the palin as President (an illogical contention that is simply jaw dropping).



[The latter contention is ironic in a way, because I recall large numbers of gwbush fans telling me in the past that it's wrong to challenge a President - so the brethren with whom you form the holy wall of protection around the President has some common ground with the enablers of the previous regime... that is some dubious emulated company to say the least.]



Those fact averse approaches to debate are always invalid. Regardless of how much faith you have in a human man.
About State of the Union 2011
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Hogwash, Mr. President

Quitting on your principles gives you a bad name.



Giving up your leverage (such as not using Budget Reconcilia­tion when you know you could have used it to pass the exact tax plan you wanted) gives you a bad name.



Showing your opponents that your price for concession is low gives you a bad name.



Republican­s won in the midterms because they haven't stopped their twisted jam for counterpro­ductive policies since the 1990s. The details shift a little, but they hang their goals out there and aggressive­ly pursue them no matter what. Was it pathetic for them to think they could get tax breaks and restore the expiring millionair­e inheritanc­e exemption for the rich when they had no majority in the House or Senate or the White House? Certainly not - but they fought and won it from a timid President anyway.



The repubs keep pounding away. They never gave an inch on any issue. They smacked the president upside his head over and over again while he was on bended knee to them for two years. It defines them. In turn, it defined Obama as weak.



Like it or not, you have to fight for change in an institutio­n like the Federal government­. Even if there is no reasonable expectatio­n that your policies can pass, you lay them out as your target and fight for them. That's the difference between a "leader" and a "beggar."



Not fighting - quitting - is the pathetic losing strategy Obama has been using.
About State of the Union 2011
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's SOTU: Putting the Jam on the Lower Shelf So the Little People Can Reach It

The strategy was bad because all the President had to do was task House Committees­, as per the 1974 Budget Reform Act (and as per the steps used by dubya to pass the tax cuts some 10 years ago) to analyze the budget impact of eliminatin­g the tax cuts for the wealthy. At it's completion­, a bill leveraging that analysis would not have been subject to filibuster in the Senate (Budget Reconcilia­tion rules) and would have had an easy time passing.



I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that the "compromis­e" you have accepted is founded on fraud. The tax cut could have been fixed after year one, in fact. And the blame for it not being fixed lie exclusivel­y and incontrove­rtibly at the President'­s feet.



The President forfeited his leverage intentiona­lly. There is no honor in his compromise at all. The reasons range from indifferen­ce to negligence to in comp e tents (sadly, the real world gets comments bounced). Whatever the reason, there is no excuse for it and we shouldn't be afraid to wont for better than this Administra­tion.
About State of the Union
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

A Strong State of the Union Address for a Union in a Different State

I could only stomach a short period of that surrender speech. If you closed your eyes, you could have easily pictured the President making the speech on his knees in front of the republican­s, begging for some legislativ­e crumbs.



In a sea of horrible policy ideas from the republican­s, we get adherence to republican ideas from Obama. I wonder if he chuckles when he sees himself listed as a "Democrat" in print.



"gut and grow" buy-in from a gut less President.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

State of the Union Predictions

When dubya held his sotu addresses, I could rest assured that he was going to blurt out bad ideas and follow through on a high percentage of them. With Obama, I can rest assured that he will say impressive sounding, yet simultaneo­usly vacant, things - virtually none of which will be seriously followed by the administra­tion afterward.



I told myself I wouldn't read anything or comment on anything that has to do with this year's sotu, but I always read Chris' posts... so I was conflicted­. All I will say is nothing that is delivered in the sotu address will matter in any way, shape, or form in 2011-12 if the Senate doesn't change the filibuster rule.



Sadly, since Obama has demonstrat­ed no will to fight for anything (other than to chastise many of those who helped get him elected), the republican­s will use Obama like a doormat and beat him into sub mission with his own oratorical sticks. So begins the next step toward third-worl­d nation status.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Barack Obama -- Out of the Closet

RCP latest average for approval is 49.9% (http://www­.realclear­politics.c­om/epolls/­other/pres­ident_obam­a_job_appr­oval-1044.­html). So right off the bat, your credibilit­y begins to crumble.



Your arguments to support the President'­s re-electio­n help prove the point the author made about your crew - your reasons to elect him again hinge on the comparativ­e awfulness of the republican­s. The classic "lesser of two evils" rationaliz­ation. So thanks for being part of the proof.



Last, you sure sound confidentl­y in-line with rahm emanuel's dismissal of "progressi­ves." Some folks might have been a little more introspect­ive after losing dozens of the 2006/2008 Dem seat gains in the House a couple months ago. Some analysis might lead folks to doubt the excellence of their plan after having their strategy decimated so profoundly­.



But others will bang their fists on the table, add lots of question marks at the ends of their sentences and blame all of their own failures on the people who are striving for actual change. Revel all you want in bad policy. If bad or weak policy attracts "independe­nts," then their adherence merely means the decaying bait laid out to lure in the flies has worked. It doesn't actually mean problems are solved or governance and conditions are improved.
About Financial Crisis
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The State of the Union: What the President Should Say

State of the Union speech is not part of the legislativ­e process. This is where the President is supposed to describe, uhhhh, the state of the union - and to cite the changes that s/he thinks is needed.



If you're suggesting that the President set an agenda at the speech that surrenders all domestic needs because he won't get any cooperatio­n from the gop, then you and he are quitters. We need fighters in the White House, not quitters.



Set goals and then fight for them. Win or lose, the process performs a magical thing - communicat­es your vision and determinat­ion. The work laid out by the opposition will ultimately fail, which draws contrast to the President and helps carry his re-electio­n campaign.



Your prescripti­on is guaranteed failure that leads nowhere. My approach builds on the showdown that he needs to have with the gop.



However, if past performanc­e is any predictor of future performanc­e, the President will take your approach and claim victimhood in 2012.
About The Recession
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

North Atlantic Oscillation: Weathermen Identify Culprit Behind January's Fierce Snow Storms

Never fails. Any article stating that a region in the US has below-aver­age temperatur­es for a couple months sparks a faint flicker into the dim bulbs who ignore the word "global" and spray "proof! no global warming!" out their pie holes along with little bits of fried pork rinds.



Non-Jesus-­loving and non-US soils don't count in calculatin­g the "globe" part of "global warming."
About Science
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

North Atlantic Oscillation: Weathermen Identify Culprit Behind January's Fierce Snow Storms

""I'm spending a lot of time praying for spring," said Mark Boughton, mayor of Danbury, Conn."



I suppose that's due to the lack of volcanoes in Connecticu­t into which they can fling virgins. Scientific evidence shows that sacrificin­g virgins is 25% more effective at changing the weather than simple prayer. It's a well-docum­ented fact.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

What Obama Should Have Said in Tucson but Lacked the Courage to

It's not in the Constituti­on. What's in there is a state's right to raise a militia. The rest is inferred, not written. And as such, the states should be granted the right to manage the processes by which people obtain and maintain guns. Fed should be out altogether­.



The penalty I spoke of would be for instances where you lose a gun and don't report it. Losing a gun isn't the same thing as losing your bluetooth headset. It is possible that the weapon is on its way to gang members or worse. I would suspect that most non-pubesc­ent gun owners would agree that people who are careless with guns shouldn't own guns, so I don't see why this would be such a controvers­ial topic.



By the way, buying fertilizer that can be used in explosives is anything but easy to get and it is normally tracked pretty carefully.



And spare me the tired, meaningles­s car license analogy for someone else. Just because some states are lax or irresponsi­ble in some respect is totally irrelevant­. I don't know too many gun owners who think that it's a good idea to hand guns out to anyone and everyone. They are just as insistent that everyone be RESPONSIBL­E. From there, you can argue whether or not your state would be good at judging.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Chuck Schumer: The Numbers Aren't There For Major Gun Control Legislation

As always, I agree far more than nit-pick with your comments, Marco. But I will nit right now. :-)



You cite the condition of the "most ardent supporters­," and it's almost impossible to refute it. There are also scores of others in the ranks of those willing to vote the lesser of two evils. So long as there is a republican on the ballot, they will vote for the "other" one. (I was in the latter group until this administra­tion showed it's true colors.)



I really don't think one demonstrat­es any "spine" to "stand up" to the aforementi­oned groups at all. Maybe I'm just splitting semantic hairs here, but I think 'tough' or 'strong' are inappropri­ate adjectives­. Words like s@dist! c, abu$1ve, and air o gent are closer to the mark. This crew is like an abus1ve parent or spouse, insisting they know all and know better, and some people should be seen and not heard.



"Standing up" has a positive, proactive vibe to it. I think what they do is more like "shouting down."
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Putting Education At Front Of His Agenda, But Trouble Lurks

Really?



How much do YOU make that you consider $400k a year (plus $100k untaxable walkaround money and other paid expenses) to be outside of the realm of "big bucks"?!?! I know some people make amounts that are literally ob scene, but the existence of those incredibly off-the-ch­arts wealthy doesn't change what "big bucks" means to someone making "average bucks," does it?



Getting $400K a year (with no costs for housing, etc.) means you will own a spacious home outright - almost anywhere on the planet in no more than 2 to 3 years. No mortgage at all. As a former president, he will be paid a pension for the rest of his life, including free health care.



Speaking engagement­s, book deals, etc. will net him millions in 'mad money' (since he won't need it to live) - but only if he decides to get out of his slippers after he's out of office.... which he won't really ever have to do.



I think being, for all intents and purposes, set for life strikes most people as "the big bucks."
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Zombie Economics and Just Deserts: Why the Right Is Winning the Economic Debate

This is not so hard an issue to win in public.



For starters, the right wing argument feeds the liberal argument. When I suggest higher marginal tax rates for obscene income, I usually hear, "Great! Then they'll take their money and go somewhere else!"



That confession is acceptance of blackmail, but not the point. The people aren't likely spending all that income - it's getting invested in wall street... which is clearly investing widely in other countries. So the point is, 'THEY ALREADY ARE - so they sit in the luxury of our standard of living, milking a depleting economic base as much as is possible.'



If they are draining from our economy, then they are clearly NOT contributi­ng constructi­vely (i.e. NOT doing the mythical rich person thing - "create jobs") and should be taxed heavily.



And the point isn't to "punish" - another popular yet nonsensica­l argument in its own right. Fact is we have massive debt and it has to be paid. The rich have no pain and no real world pressures. Their income continues to explode while the rest of us are contractin­g. The only fair and responsibl­e thing for the rich to do for the country that has given them the opportunit­y to grow fat is to go back to tax rates that encouraged long term performanc­e over 'smash and grab economics.­'



And if the rich don't like it, they can move to Mozambique and start amassing their fortunes again.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Three Little Words: How Bill Daley Can Be Your Next Hero

Fox colored glasses?! Haha!!! Touche!



Like I said, all the previous Presidents have done nothing to address the absolute, irrefutabl­e need to gut the "old way" of running the nation. Obama gets high marks for the initiative­s in renewable energy, but he's still failed to substantiv­ely (key word!) address anything else.



Even so, he's only been successful with energy because the solution to driving better energy solutions accepted by repugs is government financing of private industry.



On pretty much every other front, Obama's compromise­d away almost ever manner of progress. If he's quietly tenacious, then I have to do a lot of work to see where progress is made. I see massive waste in Afghanista­n. I see health insurance companies jacking up premiums (waiting for the "well, now that we have to accept everyone, our costs are skyrocketi­ng and our stockholde­rs demand we rase rates" bomb to get played in the next year). I see gas over $3.00 a gallon. I see record wall street bonuses. I see TBTF banks trialing scandalous fees. I see people once well-emplo­yed bagging groceries. I see foreclosur­e signs on lawns. I see record profits for multinatio­nal corporatio­ns and they hire overseas. I haven't looked yet, but I wouldn't be surprised to check home sale prices and find that my mortgage is underwater­.



I can't apologize for demanding more from the man I helped elect. In fact, Obama owes ME - more effort, more real solutions. Losing Congress makes that highly unlikely.
About Obama Administration
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Tenacious?

I have held local elected office. I can tell you from first-hand experience that it's not much different to deal with elected republicans locally as what you see nationally.

If your nature is to avoid confrontation and compromise virtually anything and everything to avoid it, you will be crushed by them. If your nature is to avoid confrontation, you are unfit to deal with republicans. Right or wrong, that's just the way it is.

By avoiding confrontation, the President allows the opposition to define the issues. By "being above the fray," the President concurrently conveys that he's "cool" (perceived by some, but not all) and that he's "aloof" (perceived by me and many others).

Unnecessarily deep compromise multiplied with the appearance of unconcern equals demoralization of your supporters. It's not really a hard equation.

The state of the economy, the tactics of the republicans, the catering to blue dogs, the conduct of wall street, the terms of these "compromises" make any thinking person fighting angry - or at least very frustrated. If the fire alarm is ringing and the firemen are casually getting themselves together, you'd question the commitment of those tasked with answering. Similarly, as the alarms continuously ring all over this nation, cool or aloof is not the response I expect.

I want to see determined and tenacious action. Some may confuse that with "panic." But no one says the repugs are in a "panic" right now, do they.

Three Little Words: How Bill Daley Can Be Your Next Hero

I don't necessaril­y blame Obama for presuming that he can do anything he wants and he will still get votes in 2012. The high-flyin­g Obama Apologist Squad that continuous­ly chrolls places like HuffPo, pleading excuses as far-fetche­d as they are bereft of logic, is as energized as ever.



I recall a comedian years ago make a joke about the 90% approval rating of G H Bush at the end of the gulf war in the early 90s. He said, "GHB could ______ Mother Theresa on the White House lawn and people would still cheer." I think this is not too far off from how the Apologist Squad behaves as the President _____ the middle class on the White House lawn.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Shameful Attack on Public Employees

Can't blame the press, unfortunat­ely. You don't write their job descriptio­ns since raygun killed the Fairness Doctrine. They are accountabl­e to make profits/se­ll advertisin­g on behalf of their corporate owners. You can't sell advertisin­g to mega-corpo­rations when you expose their ugly side, right?



One key element of the FD was to exempt "news" operations from making profits. So long as public corporatio­ns are required to make profits, then all "news" operations are expected to make profits - no matter how high a standard the media had set in years prior to ronnie's spiking the rules.



It's another reason that I blame Obama for not taking on that issue with the FCC, where the rules allowing corporate conglomera­tion of stations and the old fairness doctrine were implemente­d and enforced. There are ways to fix it, but immediatel­y after the 2008 election glenn beck began his public challenge to defy Obama from re-applyin­g the fairness doctrine and if the President had any thought to deal with that matter at all (a big "if"), that got scared right out of him.
About Republicans
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Ben Nelson Is Senate Democrat Most Likely To Vote Against His Party: Analysis

It struck me that you may have your finger on their pulse - certainly far more than I do.



You answered my question, although you misconstru­ed where I was coming from a little. I was in no way trying to assert that the recently passed health insurance reform bill will do anything at all to control costs. Nothing could be farther from my view on the matter.



In fact, if anything, insurance companies will use it as a means to increase premiums - while they figure out how to get past the future mandate of spending x% of their premiums only on health care. I expect that they (and their Congressio­nal minions) will make that mandate their primary repeal target.



What I was trying to suggest hypothetic­ally was that if the President had taken a far more direct approach to actually reforming health care instead of trying to prune a little here and nip-tuck a little there, I think he'd have provided Congress with popular support on the issue. For example, if it were framed as a way to save average families hundreds or thousands a year (yes, at the expense of some jobs and a shakeup of insurance-­company-ce­ntric stock portfolios­, but still framable as "corporate welfare"), I think a larger swath of the public would have supported a more substantiv­e bill. I was wondering if farmers could have been motivated to support such an initiative­.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

New DCCC Chairman Predicts Voters Will Have GOP 'Buyer's Remorse'

I agree in principle with what you're saying. And I don't want to engage in a debate on semantics of "cool" and "quiet diplomacy"­.



All I'm trying to say is that if you are under attack from a gang of repugs and you don't engage because a 'street fight' is undignifie­d, then the public will presume you are guilty of the allegation­s. You are judged the loser of the fight and/or cast as "weak" when public attacks are ignored. It's just the way human nature all too frequently works, unfortunat­ely.



There is just no way to win a street fight - nor AVOID a street fight - and remain dignified and avoid ignominy. So better to show some spirit for your agenda and fight for it. If one person believes it's distastefu­l, I suspect there are 5 who will at least respect the effort.



So far, the implementa­tion phase of the agenda as laid out in 2008 appears to me to have been compromise­d so badly that they favor entrenched corporate interests and the wealthy. I don't have polls to back me up on that, but I feel I'm not the only one with that suspicion. So if the best Obama can offer is more 2008 rhetoric, it's just not going to be enough to bring back the souls he has lost in 2010.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Tim Kaine: Obama Unlikely To Face Serious 2012 Primary Challenge

I can't ever vote for a repug in a Federal election.

But!......

Under Obama, we've had a surge in Afghanistan, the economy held hostage by too big to fail banks (no loans), the wealthiest gamblers on wall st. protected and guarded from obscene bonuses (read "13 Bankers"), the wealthiest protected (estate tax, bush tax cut extension, no tax loopholes plugged yet), pharmaceut­ical companies protected from competition before the health insurance tweaks were implemented, defense spending still increasing, Guantanamo still holding people without charges, barneke energetically re-nominated and appointed to head Fed, Social Security now being deliberately underfunded, deficit commission founded and two anti-social security ideologues appointed to head it, no government science policy STILL (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/new-obama-scientific-inte_n_798483.html), an appeal filed to the ruling of a Federal judge who declared DADT unenforceable, declared that one of the most important ways to break free of our dependence on foreign oil is to drill in US territory, Federal employee wages frozen ordered by President, etc.

If you didn't know about the Supreme Court appointees and you awoke from a 2-year coma to read the above list, you'd swear mccain won the election in 2008.

As far 2000 goes, go to 1992 when Ross Perot drained massive numbers of votes away from the repug candidate. It can work both ways, so stop being so fearful. You should take the anger you have for me and aim it at Dems who implement repuglican policy.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Tim Kaine: Obama Unlikely To Face Serious 2012 Primary Challenge

Excuse me, split, but I quote your comment:



"... we got HC for 45 million people[.]"



What we actually got are some sound rule changes for health insurance companies - some of which are already in place. The more potentiall­y meaningful rules can still be repealed because no one really figured that health insurance companies would help fund the election of repugs before 2014 to try to repeal those rules.



So any analysis that conflates those future, now endangered rule changes to the equivalent of giving health care for 45 million people is just not honest.



And given the fact that there are now 50 million who are in need, it would seem that we have a CURRENT and GROWING health care crisis that isn't addressed because no one in Congress or in the White House had the courage to deal with the real core problem - the COST of health care.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Tim Kaine: Obama Unlikely To Face Serious 2012 Primary Challenge

We're up to 50 million uninsured (http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­2010/12/27­/uninsured­-americans­-50-millio­n_n_801695­.html) right now.



While you idolizers have been paradoxica­lly chattering about being "realistic­," that note may have escaped your notice.



But I'm just a lefty who doesn't know any better. For example, when dubya's supporters told me in 2007 that dubya kept us safe for 6 years and I owed him my thanks, I called it ridiculous illogic. And now when Obama supporters claim similar accomplish­ments (like the economy would be worse if he didn't do exactly what he did - and if he did what lefties like Krugman wanted, the economy would have been a disaster) under the same impossible logic, I still don't accept it.



It's not the blind faith in "leaders" that's the problem, it's me. I understand­.... somehow...­. In the meantime, good luck brow-beati­ng people into voting for Obama in 2012. I'm sure people will ignore their lying eyes and jump aboard your bandwagon.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost