From his website:
http://kucinich.us/index.php
------
The President's health care policy speech was brilliant but when you get into the details another picture emerges. Unfortunately, at this point, the proposal outlined last night is the ultimate corporate giveaway. It's not health care, it’s insurance care. As many as thirty million new customers for an insurance industry which makes money not providing health care. The only way this country will see true health is by investing in real health care. That is the essence of HR676, the single payer bill.
The President opened his speech speaking of how we have solved the economic crisis - how? By rewarding those who caused the crash! Is this the way we solve the health care crisis? Rewarding the insurance companies? Helping insurance and pharmaceutical stock to soar, propping up markets while skimping on health care? The very same system which caused the health care crisis is being rewarded with the guarantee of tens of millions of new customers mandated - by law - to have health care. The latest plan rewards the very companies that have denied treatment, denied care, denied drug coverage while their profits grow daily.
The only way this country will see true sustainable economic recovery is through investment in the real economy, priming the pump through job creation. The only way this country will see true health is by investing in real health care.
The "public option" has been relegated to insignificance. What we will now get is yet another "private option", not a public option, because single-payer is "off the table." We the people deserve better. We have been faced with general warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan - multi-trillion dollar bailouts for arms merchants, $12 trillion in bailouts for Wall Street, bailouts to coal and nuclear industries, and now proposed huge subsidies for the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. What's wrong with this picture? Everything!
------
Yeah, that's how I saw it too. What a total dick Obama is turning out to be. Totally fucking useless.
Showing posts with label Kucinich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kucinich. Show all posts
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Alternet Posters on the Uselessness of the Kucinich Amendment
Source: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/141404/how_dennis_kucinich_may_save_the_health_reform_battle/?comments=view&cID=1265323&pID=1265300
No Thank You
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jul 18, 2009 12:24 AM
We Need A SINGLE PAYER, COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE, UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM. What a state-by-state system will condemn us to is an unequal system where the redneck states have a crappy, poorly done system laced with cronyism run by the good old boy network, while other states have better systems. Since I live in the Blue Tick state of Arkansas, where people working at Wal-Mart who live in trailers consider themselves Republicans- I think I'll pass.
...
Don't bother with another meaningless struggle
Posted by: Moonray on Jul 18, 2009 4:45 AM
Commenter NoPCZone is right in saying "no thank you." From now on all discussion on the issue is wasted anyway. In fact, our unending discussion -- our psuedo-democratic process -- ensures that the yammering continues indefinitely and nothing ever changes significantly.
You see, that's how they continue to screw us. Our government process is so completely controlled by big-money interests and corrupt politicians that attempts at reform are quickly co-opted into more opportunities for the corporations to gouge us. Entering into a long fight over whether states could create their own single-payer systems would delight the big-money interests because it would merely add to the yammering.
When Obama was elected I hoped that America was turning around, but that obviously is not the case. What little democracy we have is slipping away, down the black hole of corporate greed and growing militarism. I have been putting off getting a passport, but it's time.
...
RE: Don't bother with another meaningless struggle
Posted by: poetac on Jul 18, 2009 1:17 PM
You give up awful easy. You have no sense of the time scale of "turning around" a situation like the one we're in. And in any case, Obama's election is just a sign of underlying tectonic shifts, not in any sense the solution. The solution is US--we, the people, organized democratically and making change ourselves. There are no saviors and there never were. Good luck with your emigration plans.
------
I'd say the last poster is an optimist that hasn't already lived through decades of watching corporations utterly take control of our government. I'm not saying the situation is totally hopeless - good things may yet come if people move more to the "left" and put up a real fight against the corporatist style fascism that threatens the U.S. Most people really haven't a clue as to what will prove necessary to retake our democracy and to regain the top leadership position of the world economy. How clueless are they? Well, something approaching 50% of them are still Republicans if that tells you anything.
Nations are becoming old news and corporations are ascendant. That's bad news.
And rebellions are for the young and crazy, or possibly those with nothing left to lose.
For those of us with something we still cherish about life the time frame is off - recovery will take too long. Maybe leaving is the smart move.
For a long time people came to the U.S. for a better way of life. Now, there is no new world, no new frontier, where one can seek to build things from scratch. But there are other places. And the U.S. is not the bastion of freedom it once was either.
I'm getting my passport ready too. Call it Plan B. Everyone else can get fucked. Patriotism is for suckers. And momma didn't raise no suckers.
The only flag I wave is that belonging to the nation of Me, Myself, and I.
No Thank You
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jul 18, 2009 12:24 AM
We Need A SINGLE PAYER, COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE, UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM. What a state-by-state system will condemn us to is an unequal system where the redneck states have a crappy, poorly done system laced with cronyism run by the good old boy network, while other states have better systems. Since I live in the Blue Tick state of Arkansas, where people working at Wal-Mart who live in trailers consider themselves Republicans- I think I'll pass.
...
Don't bother with another meaningless struggle
Posted by: Moonray on Jul 18, 2009 4:45 AM
Commenter NoPCZone is right in saying "no thank you." From now on all discussion on the issue is wasted anyway. In fact, our unending discussion -- our psuedo-democratic process -- ensures that the yammering continues indefinitely and nothing ever changes significantly.
You see, that's how they continue to screw us. Our government process is so completely controlled by big-money interests and corrupt politicians that attempts at reform are quickly co-opted into more opportunities for the corporations to gouge us. Entering into a long fight over whether states could create their own single-payer systems would delight the big-money interests because it would merely add to the yammering.
When Obama was elected I hoped that America was turning around, but that obviously is not the case. What little democracy we have is slipping away, down the black hole of corporate greed and growing militarism. I have been putting off getting a passport, but it's time.
...
RE: Don't bother with another meaningless struggle
Posted by: poetac on Jul 18, 2009 1:17 PM
You give up awful easy. You have no sense of the time scale of "turning around" a situation like the one we're in. And in any case, Obama's election is just a sign of underlying tectonic shifts, not in any sense the solution. The solution is US--we, the people, organized democratically and making change ourselves. There are no saviors and there never were. Good luck with your emigration plans.
------
I'd say the last poster is an optimist that hasn't already lived through decades of watching corporations utterly take control of our government. I'm not saying the situation is totally hopeless - good things may yet come if people move more to the "left" and put up a real fight against the corporatist style fascism that threatens the U.S. Most people really haven't a clue as to what will prove necessary to retake our democracy and to regain the top leadership position of the world economy. How clueless are they? Well, something approaching 50% of them are still Republicans if that tells you anything.
Nations are becoming old news and corporations are ascendant. That's bad news.
And rebellions are for the young and crazy, or possibly those with nothing left to lose.
For those of us with something we still cherish about life the time frame is off - recovery will take too long. Maybe leaving is the smart move.
For a long time people came to the U.S. for a better way of life. Now, there is no new world, no new frontier, where one can seek to build things from scratch. But there are other places. And the U.S. is not the bastion of freedom it once was either.
I'm getting my passport ready too. Call it Plan B. Everyone else can get fucked. Patriotism is for suckers. And momma didn't raise no suckers.
The only flag I wave is that belonging to the nation of Me, Myself, and I.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Losers Take All
Big Financiers Start Lobbying for Wider Aid
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/business/22lobby.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all
Even as policy makers worked on details of a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, Wall Street began looking for ways to profit from it.
Financial firms were lobbying to have all manner of troubled investments covered, not just those related to mortgages.
At the same time, investment firms were jockeying to oversee all the assets that Treasury plans to take off the books of financial institutions, a role that could earn them hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fees.
Nobody wants to be left out of Treasury’s proposal to buy up bad assets of financial institutions.
-----
“Is this the United States Congress or the Board of Directors of Goldman Sachs?” Rep. Dennis Kucinich Rejects $700 Billion Bailout
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/29/is_this_the_united_states_congress
This is a copy of the bill which will provide for a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. It has provisions in it where it talks about helping homeowners, but when you read the fine print, you see it has language like “may” instead of “shall” and “encouraging” instead of “mandating” help for the millions of homeowners who are worried right now about whether they’re going to lose their home. There’s no help for them in this.
...
So what we have here is a rescue plan that essentially gives all the speculators a bailout and puts the bad debts in the custody of the government. The president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank has said that this plan could create a fiscal chasm, says that the problem isn’t tight monetary policy, it’s the reckless behavior of some of these investors who have now found themselves in a position where a government bailout is going to help reward their bad behavior.
...
Well, you know, that implies that you would accept the underlying premise. I reject the underlying premise that we needed this bill. And as a matter of fact, that we’re putting this up before an adjournment in an election season shows that Congress is being put under extraordinary pressure to bail out Wall Street. We haven’t looked at any alternatives, Amy. This is—you know, it isn’t as though, if you had a liquidity crisis, that—you know, a real one—that you’d start to look at all the alternatives. We haven’t done that. We have a bill here, a bill of more than a hundred pages, that we haven’t had a single hearing on the bill, you know—on the concept, yes, on what Paulson and Bernanke asked for initially. But, you know, we need to have hearings on this. There’s 400 economists and three Nobel Prize-winning economists who have said, “Whoa, wait a minute! What are you doing? Why are you rushing this?” You know, this thing doesn’t smell right, frankly.
...
I said we’re the Congress of the United States; we’re not the board of Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs is struggling to survive. And, you know, their former chief is now the head of the US Treasury. He’s in a position to be able to direct assets in a way that would help enhance his own financial standing. I mean, that’s a clear conflict of interest. And, you know, that’s something that needs to be said. You know, why are we permitting the person who has essentially been in a position where he’s managed assets that—you know, many of which are now in trouble, and he can come back and help clear the books for a lot of his friends? This is wrong. It’s fundamentally wrong. And, you know, it’s one of the things that adds a degree of stench to this.
...
Well, there’s many ways that you can stimulate the economy. One is that you can have massive infrastructure spending. You could get that started right away. It would have to go far beyond what Congress passed the other day. If you want to spend money into circulation and move the money in the economy, you can do that through spending on things that are tangible: bridges, water systems, sewer system. You can stimulate the economy by having a national healthcare plan. I mean, that would take a little bit longer to set up, but that would be a huge break for all these businesses that are having difficulties.
...
Well, you know, the word “oversight” has new meaning here. You know, oversight could mean “I overlooked something.” And frankly, the Securities and Exchange Commission looked the other way while all these—all this fast-paced trading was going in derivatives and derivatives of derivatives. We have about a four—$500 trillion, almost a half a quadrillion dollars of derivatives floating out there that no one really understands how that’s going to affect the underlying economy when some of these things start imploding.
...
You know, I think that—I think we’re looking at a situation here where it is precisely the lack of regulation and the lack of oversight by the administration that has caused this. Congress is going to have hearings next month, but frankly, we should be having hearings now, before we pass a bill. I mean, it’s just upside-down that you have hearings about the underlying problem after you pass a bill, because you have hearings first, you do the analysis, and then you come up with a fix that can protect investors, strengthen the economy.
...
We need to challenge again the underlying assumptions about a debt-based economy, about whether or not we should revisit the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, which has an unfortunately privatized monetary system and created a system which includes banks having the ability to create money almost out of thin air with a fractional reserve. We have to look at the implications of that, maybe put the Federal Reserve under the Treasury and have the Treasury really be responsive to the interests of the American people and keeping the economy going.
-----
I see those that want to take and how they will keep taking. Remember how Warren Buffett wanted in on the action? Here is more of the same.
And then I see Kucinich - who is normally derided as a UFO-freak - as one of the few that is making any sense whatever. But his political clout has been completely marginalized. Kucinich's presidential candidacy was of real interest me. So, of course, he didn't have a bloody prayer.
I'm with the seers of moonbeams...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/business/22lobby.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all
Even as policy makers worked on details of a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, Wall Street began looking for ways to profit from it.
Financial firms were lobbying to have all manner of troubled investments covered, not just those related to mortgages.
At the same time, investment firms were jockeying to oversee all the assets that Treasury plans to take off the books of financial institutions, a role that could earn them hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fees.
Nobody wants to be left out of Treasury’s proposal to buy up bad assets of financial institutions.
-----
“Is this the United States Congress or the Board of Directors of Goldman Sachs?” Rep. Dennis Kucinich Rejects $700 Billion Bailout
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/29/is_this_the_united_states_congress
This is a copy of the bill which will provide for a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. It has provisions in it where it talks about helping homeowners, but when you read the fine print, you see it has language like “may” instead of “shall” and “encouraging” instead of “mandating” help for the millions of homeowners who are worried right now about whether they’re going to lose their home. There’s no help for them in this.
...
So what we have here is a rescue plan that essentially gives all the speculators a bailout and puts the bad debts in the custody of the government. The president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank has said that this plan could create a fiscal chasm, says that the problem isn’t tight monetary policy, it’s the reckless behavior of some of these investors who have now found themselves in a position where a government bailout is going to help reward their bad behavior.
...
Well, you know, that implies that you would accept the underlying premise. I reject the underlying premise that we needed this bill. And as a matter of fact, that we’re putting this up before an adjournment in an election season shows that Congress is being put under extraordinary pressure to bail out Wall Street. We haven’t looked at any alternatives, Amy. This is—you know, it isn’t as though, if you had a liquidity crisis, that—you know, a real one—that you’d start to look at all the alternatives. We haven’t done that. We have a bill here, a bill of more than a hundred pages, that we haven’t had a single hearing on the bill, you know—on the concept, yes, on what Paulson and Bernanke asked for initially. But, you know, we need to have hearings on this. There’s 400 economists and three Nobel Prize-winning economists who have said, “Whoa, wait a minute! What are you doing? Why are you rushing this?” You know, this thing doesn’t smell right, frankly.
...
I said we’re the Congress of the United States; we’re not the board of Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs is struggling to survive. And, you know, their former chief is now the head of the US Treasury. He’s in a position to be able to direct assets in a way that would help enhance his own financial standing. I mean, that’s a clear conflict of interest. And, you know, that’s something that needs to be said. You know, why are we permitting the person who has essentially been in a position where he’s managed assets that—you know, many of which are now in trouble, and he can come back and help clear the books for a lot of his friends? This is wrong. It’s fundamentally wrong. And, you know, it’s one of the things that adds a degree of stench to this.
...
Well, there’s many ways that you can stimulate the economy. One is that you can have massive infrastructure spending. You could get that started right away. It would have to go far beyond what Congress passed the other day. If you want to spend money into circulation and move the money in the economy, you can do that through spending on things that are tangible: bridges, water systems, sewer system. You can stimulate the economy by having a national healthcare plan. I mean, that would take a little bit longer to set up, but that would be a huge break for all these businesses that are having difficulties.
...
Well, you know, the word “oversight” has new meaning here. You know, oversight could mean “I overlooked something.” And frankly, the Securities and Exchange Commission looked the other way while all these—all this fast-paced trading was going in derivatives and derivatives of derivatives. We have about a four—$500 trillion, almost a half a quadrillion dollars of derivatives floating out there that no one really understands how that’s going to affect the underlying economy when some of these things start imploding.
...
You know, I think that—I think we’re looking at a situation here where it is precisely the lack of regulation and the lack of oversight by the administration that has caused this. Congress is going to have hearings next month, but frankly, we should be having hearings now, before we pass a bill. I mean, it’s just upside-down that you have hearings about the underlying problem after you pass a bill, because you have hearings first, you do the analysis, and then you come up with a fix that can protect investors, strengthen the economy.
...
We need to challenge again the underlying assumptions about a debt-based economy, about whether or not we should revisit the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, which has an unfortunately privatized monetary system and created a system which includes banks having the ability to create money almost out of thin air with a fractional reserve. We have to look at the implications of that, maybe put the Federal Reserve under the Treasury and have the Treasury really be responsive to the interests of the American people and keeping the economy going.
-----
I see those that want to take and how they will keep taking. Remember how Warren Buffett wanted in on the action? Here is more of the same.
And then I see Kucinich - who is normally derided as a UFO-freak - as one of the few that is making any sense whatever. But his political clout has been completely marginalized. Kucinich's presidential candidacy was of real interest me. So, of course, he didn't have a bloody prayer.
I'm with the seers of moonbeams...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
