Getting There from Here - How should Obama reform health care?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/01/26/090126fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all
------
A must read. How it is implemented is not as important as that it should be implemented almost immediately. We can work out the kinks later...
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Monday, January 19, 2009
Alternet Reader Quotes on the Failures of the Democratic Party
Plexius2 said:
Basically, those of us on the ground trying to support LIBERAL (yes, I said the L word)candidates have been tearing our hair out for years now, because the Democratic frontrunners are always just Republican Lite from our perspective. We support them ONLY because, though voting for Nader felt good, it resulted in Bush's election. So we are always supporting spineless cowards like Clinton, and perhaps Obama, who won't act in a truly Democratic fashion, when what we need is someone bold like Kucinich. I am hoping that the pendulum must swing back to a moderate like Obama first, before it continues on further left to a Kennedy. I am sooo sick of living in a Conservative world governed by repressive Repubs and wimpy Demos.
...
mmckinl said:
At least from what I've read. He wants 70 or 80 Senators to support his Stimulus Plan. This would of course need the support of 15 to 25 Republicans ...
Ask yourself what "real change" are we the people to get if Obama wants to cater to Republicans ... The answer is not much. Looking at Obama's stimulus it is all temporary, there are no structural or permanent changes.
We need bold, daring proposals such as "Medicare for All", a Public Central Bank and higher taxes and eliminated loopholes on the well to do and corporations.
Obama 's incrementalism will only lead to disaster. We do not face "normal problems" in normal times. We face a crisis that will consume us if economic, structural, political, moral and philosophical changes are not made. These needed changes will not be born out of compromise but out of bold even radical ideas ideas pressed by bold and courageous leadership.
Obama is trashing his own mandate with small ball, incremental, compromised proposals that give away progressive ground in return for nothing.
------
Sickening, ain't it?
Basically, those of us on the ground trying to support LIBERAL (yes, I said the L word)candidates have been tearing our hair out for years now, because the Democratic frontrunners are always just Republican Lite from our perspective. We support them ONLY because, though voting for Nader felt good, it resulted in Bush's election. So we are always supporting spineless cowards like Clinton, and perhaps Obama, who won't act in a truly Democratic fashion, when what we need is someone bold like Kucinich. I am hoping that the pendulum must swing back to a moderate like Obama first, before it continues on further left to a Kennedy. I am sooo sick of living in a Conservative world governed by repressive Repubs and wimpy Demos.
...
mmckinl said:
At least from what I've read. He wants 70 or 80 Senators to support his Stimulus Plan. This would of course need the support of 15 to 25 Republicans ...
Ask yourself what "real change" are we the people to get if Obama wants to cater to Republicans ... The answer is not much. Looking at Obama's stimulus it is all temporary, there are no structural or permanent changes.
We need bold, daring proposals such as "Medicare for All", a Public Central Bank and higher taxes and eliminated loopholes on the well to do and corporations.
Obama 's incrementalism will only lead to disaster. We do not face "normal problems" in normal times. We face a crisis that will consume us if economic, structural, political, moral and philosophical changes are not made. These needed changes will not be born out of compromise but out of bold even radical ideas ideas pressed by bold and courageous leadership.
Obama is trashing his own mandate with small ball, incremental, compromised proposals that give away progressive ground in return for nothing.
------
Sickening, ain't it?
Why not nationalise?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2009/01/why_not_nationalise.cfm
...Not really on the list was nationalisation.
But it seems to me, based on an ongoing blogospheric discussion, that nationalisation is the only good option left. The basic problem is this—some banks are likely insolvent. Any option that solves the problem by buying bad assets will either fail (if those assets are bought at face value—recall, the banks are insolvent) or will succeed by buying those assets at well more than they're worth. The latter option is a large and generous gift to the bank's shareholders.
The question is, why would one want to give a large and generous gift to bank shareholders, out of the taxpayer's purse?...
------
Exactly. And remember, this is from that well-known "liberal" source the "Economist."
Nationalization is the only solution and always was. But the elite want their handouts and politicians abhor doing their actual job of providing oversight in these matters.
This what we do:
We nationalize insolvent banks and then hold onto their toxic waste real estate or put it to work housing the homeless. Later we can sell these banks to other banks once the subprime debris is cleared away. Once the economy stiffens a bit we can unload the real estate at improved market prices. The taxpayer might not even lose anything at all in such an arrangement.
But yeah, that makes too much sense to actually be implemented.
And so it goes...
...Not really on the list was nationalisation.
But it seems to me, based on an ongoing blogospheric discussion, that nationalisation is the only good option left. The basic problem is this—some banks are likely insolvent. Any option that solves the problem by buying bad assets will either fail (if those assets are bought at face value—recall, the banks are insolvent) or will succeed by buying those assets at well more than they're worth. The latter option is a large and generous gift to the bank's shareholders.
The question is, why would one want to give a large and generous gift to bank shareholders, out of the taxpayer's purse?...
------
Exactly. And remember, this is from that well-known "liberal" source the "Economist."
Nationalization is the only solution and always was. But the elite want their handouts and politicians abhor doing their actual job of providing oversight in these matters.
This what we do:
We nationalize insolvent banks and then hold onto their toxic waste real estate or put it to work housing the homeless. Later we can sell these banks to other banks once the subprime debris is cleared away. Once the economy stiffens a bit we can unload the real estate at improved market prices. The taxpayer might not even lose anything at all in such an arrangement.
But yeah, that makes too much sense to actually be implemented.
And so it goes...
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Friday, January 16, 2009
Worst. President. Ever!
Bye Bye to the Worst President Ever
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009010315/bye-bye-worst-president-ever
-------
That pretty much sums it up.
Goodbye you odious motherfucker. Most of the world will celebrate your passing when it comes.
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009010315/bye-bye-worst-president-ever
-------
That pretty much sums it up.
Goodbye you odious motherfucker. Most of the world will celebrate your passing when it comes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
