I suspect something is afoot in Washington

[Hondo]

Although the Healthcare Bill is the subject of the issue, this thread is not about healthcare or the pros and cons of the different systems so kindly take those arguments elsewhere.

Every poll I can recall has shown that the American people do not want this healthcare bill. Everything I've seen or heard on radio news about phone calls, emails, and snail mails to the representatives from their constituants overwhelmingly indicate the people don't want this healthcare bill. The congressmen and senators don't want this bill either because they have ammended it to exempt themselves and their families. But, they want the rest of us to have it.

American politicians are the same cut of weasles found everywhere else and they aren't known for doing things that risk them losing their jobs. the House and Senate versions of this bill have now been approved by an all Democrat yea vote. Now they have to combine the two versions and vote on it again but it looks like it can't be stopped.

Now some of these politicians may choose to retire but most will run for re-election. If the numbers and the anger are correct, they shouldn't stand a chance of being returned to office.

With the Democratic Party being long known for election fun and games, I can't help but feel like every representitive that voted for these bills has been guaranteed re-election by the party. I just wonder what sort of sleezy plan they have up their sleeves to ensure it happens.

[airshifter]

Although the Healthcare Bill is the subject of the issue, this thread is not about healthcare or the pros and cons of the different systems so kindly take those arguments elsewhere.

Every poll I can recall has shown that the American people do not want this healthcare bill. Everything I've seen or heard on radio news about phone calls, emails, and snail mails to the representatives from their constituants overwhelmingly indicate the people don't want this healthcare bill. The congressmen and senators don't want this bill either because they have ammended it to exempt themselves and their families. But, they want the rest of us to have it.

American politicians are the same cut of weasles found everywhere else and they aren't known for doing things that risk them losing their jobs. the House and Senate versions of this bill have now been approved by an all Democrat yea vote. Now they have to combine the two versions and vote on it again but it looks like it can't be stopped.

Now some of these politicians may choose to retire but most will run for re-election. If the numbers and the anger are correct, they shouldn't stand a chance of being returned to office.

With the Democratic Party being long known for election fun and games, I can't help but feel like every representitive that voted for these bills has been guaranteed re-election by the party. I just wonder what sort of sleezy plan they have up their sleeves to ensure it happens.

I think in this case they have angered enough people to almost ensure that they aren't in the position to make such decisions much longer. Even people that want health care reform have no idea what exactly they are doing, and I don't think half of the people voting on it know what it really does either.

IF they had a good plan they could lay it out in SIMPLE black and white, and most people would be behind it. Instead they relied on thousands of pages, late night and early morning votes, and buying votes. I don't think it's going to get past the public.

[SportscarBruce]

I think the interest of the people have been set aside long ago for the political interest of members from both parties and their lobbyist benefactors.

I also think as more and more people realize this the more tenuous the two-party system's grip will become upon the reigns of government.

[Camelopard]

OK I'll bite, if this isn't in the best interests of the average american and if what you say is correct and most people don't want it, why is it happening?

Who is going to benefit?

[Hondo]

The Democrat Party and the start of, for all practical purposes, a one party system.

[Hondo]

OK I'll bite, if this isn't in the best interests of the average american and if what you say is correct and most people don't want it, why is it happening?

Who is going to benefit?

The very people that are voting to force it on the Amercan people know it is so bad they have exempted themselves from having to participate in the program.

What does that tell you about it?

[Mark in Oshawa]

The very people that are voting to force it on the Amercan people know it is so bad they have exempted themselves from having to participate in the program.

What does that tell you about it?

That is the thing. The other thing is, Not many Republicans could even hold their noses and vote for this thing. For the most part, it was the Dem's doing it all. I think they somehow think if they do this now, they have a year to sell it's merits to the American public.

Personally, I think if the US was going to do public healthcare as it was passed in the rest of the world, it wont fly. What they have actually passed tho isn't that, it is a hodgepodge of legislation that will allow a public system to be formed out of the wreckage of the private system, which will happen with all these new regs and rules. Basically, they will attack anything that reduces costs in this legisltion to the private insurance company while making the American public BUY insurance. IF I am a 20 year old guy with a good job that doesn't have health insurance, I am not crazy about THAT at all.....

[SportscarBruce]

I believe the allowances given Nebraska just might be unconstitutional.

There were four paragraphs to explain why but they're gone...gone to the electronic winds.

:mad:

Probably just as well :s mokin:

[SportscarBruce]

OK I'll bite, if this isn't in the best interests of the average american and if what you say is correct and most people don't want it, why is it happening?

Because we're ruled by a pack of professional liars and con artist, that's why.


Who is going to benefit?

The health insurance industry.

See, they started out constructing a plan to ensure every man, woman, and child has access to affordable, effective healthcare. What emerged is a plan to force every citizen not already covered into purchasing insurance from a handful of insurance giants which remain exempted from federal antitrust regulatory compliance.

There's a word for this;

shakedown

:mad:

[Hondo]

For these representatives to go so far against the will of their constituents should be politicical death. No re-election. However, they don't appear to be concerned in the least.

I'm telling you, something underhanded is going on to ensure that every supporter of this bill retains his or her seat in the House or Senate. They quit going to town hall meetings so they wouldn't have to face their angry public. They should be running like the dogs they are, but they aren't.

Somehow, somewhere the fix is in and these people have been guaranteed their jobs. What is the fix and how is it going to work? Will it be more ballot box fixing, illegal and dead voters, exclusion of the military vote again and disgualifications? Or will it be something snappy and glossy like promising the stupid and worthless all kinds of free things they know they can't deliver? Will a national or global emergency cause the elections to be postponed?

[anthonyvop]

The health insurance industry.

Actually it is special interest groups. The AMA, AARP, various Unions, Ilegal Immigrant rights groups and the politicians themselves who want more power and control.


See, they started out constructing a plan to ensure every man, woman, and child has access to affordable, effective healthcare.

I saw no plan that even came close to providing that. I saw government run insurance plan......... and that would be a disaster.



What emerged is a plan to force every citizen not already covered into purchasing insurance from a handful of insurance giants which remain exempted from federal antitrust regulatory compliance.
What needs to be done is insurance deregulation. Why can't I buy health insurance from out of state? Why Can't I design a plan that means my needs? I am covered for Ob/Gyn costs due to the regs....Why?


There's a word for this;
shakedown


The word is Facism.

[Rollo]

Now some of these politicians may choose to retire but most will run for re-election. If the numbers and the anger are correct, they shouldn't stand a chance of being returned to office.
With the Democratic Party being long known for election fun and games, I can't help but feel like every representitive that voted for these bills has been guaranteed re-election by the party. I just wonder what sort of sleezy plan they have up their sleeves to ensure it happens.

That is the goal of every politician, to be re-elected, to remain in power; to keep their job. There's nothing mystical about that at all.

The biggest weapon that politicians have in the USA is the apathy of the electorate. It's only the people that can be bothered to have a say that actually matter, so provided the rhetoric can whip those people into voting for you then the game has been won.

So called democracy for most people means turning up every so often and putting a mark on a piece of paper, about legislation and politicians that they know nothing about and a system that they scarcely understand.

[chuck34]

To Fiero's original point, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutly. And the Dems have absolute power right now. So I think that they have all twisted themselves ointo thinking "the people" really do want it. All they hear in their echo chaimber there in DC is how great single payer is/will be. And they genuenly believe that all the letters, emails,etc they get are really all comming from Rush's interns. I really think that all the Dem Senators and Representatives actually believe in what they are doing, and can not accept thaanyone would not. It's some sort of derangement syndrome or something

[Mark in Oshawa]

That is the goal of every politician, to be re-elected, to remain in power; to keep their job. There's nothing mystical about that at all.

The biggest weapon that politicians have in the USA is the apathy of the electorate. It's only the people that can be bothered to have a say that actually matter, so provided the rhetoric can whip those people into voting for you then the game has been won.

So called democracy for most people means turning up every so often and putting a mark on a piece of paper, about legislation and politicians that they know nothing about and a system that they scarcely understand.

Leave it to Rollo to hit the nail on the head. Not enough people vote, not enough pay attention. I said they wanted this through now so they have almost a year to whitewash this mess. They are depending on the Fiero's, Chuck's and Tony's to not be able to sustain this anger and disdain for that length of time. THey are going to try to brazen this out, and what is more, the thing is, no program created is ever killed. They got the bones of a national health care system now laid in the body politic, and in future years, they can build on it.

The US was unique in how it approached healthcare, and while there were some faults, it had created a system that is far more based on a pay as you go model then the leviathan of most gov't programs.

[chuck34]

To Bruce's Constitutionality point: it isn't just the Nelson/Nebraska issue that makes this unconstitutional. I'm not a lawyer but I think there are at least 3 ways this could be challenged.

1) Nebraska is getting a sweetheart deal. This goes against equal protection issues because why should I, a citizen of Indiana (or any other state), be taxed a a higher rate to make up for what Nebraska doesn't want to pay? I've heard this one probably won't go through because it happens all the time, all Congress has to do is apparently come up with somewhere that Nebraska is being screwed, and say this is making up for that.

2) This bill FORCES you to buy something (healthcare) simply on the condition of your birth. This has NEVER been done before, and I bet that our Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves about this part. I know that many are asking "what about the car insurance I have to buy?" Well you aren't forced to buy it simply as a condition of your birth. You only need to buy it if you are going to enjoy a priveledge, driving. So it's at least a bit different.

3) There is language, at least in the Senate bill, about funding hospitals and research institutions that show preferential hiring/admittance to "under represented minorities". That is a clear violation of the equal protection clause.

[chuck34]

To Bruce's Constitutionality point: it isn't just the Nelson/Nebraska issue that makes this unconstitutional. I'm not a lawyer but I think there are at least 3 ways this could be challenged.

1) Nebraska is getting a sweetheart deal. This goes against equal protection issues because why should I, a citizen of Indiana (or any other state), be taxed a a higher rate to make up for what Nebraska doesn't want to pay? I've heard this one probably won't go through because it happens all the time, all Congress has to do is apparently come up with somewhere that Nebraska is being screwed, and say this is making up for that.

2) This bill FORCES you to buy something (healthcare) simply on the condition of your birth. This has NEVER been done before, and I bet that our Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves about this part. I know that many are asking "what about the car insurance I have to buy?" Well you aren't forced to buy it simply as a condition of your birth. You only need to buy it if you are going to enjoy a priveledge, driving. So it's at least a bit different.

3) There is language, at least in the Senate bill, about funding hospitals and research institutions that show preferential hiring/admittance to "under represented minorities". That is a clear violation of the equal protection clause.

[Mark in Oshawa]

To Bruce's Constitutionality point: it isn't just the Nelson/Nebraska issue that makes this unconstitutional. I'm not a lawyer but I think there are at least 3 ways this could be challenged.

1) Nebraska is getting a sweetheart deal. This goes against equal protection issues because why should I, a citizen of Indiana (or any other state), be taxed a a higher rate to make up for what Nebraska doesn't want to pay? I've heard this one probably won't go through because it happens all the time, all Congress has to do is apparently come up with somewhere that Nebraska is being screwed, and say this is making up for that.

2) This bill FORCES you to buy something (healthcare) simply on the condition of your birth. This has NEVER been done before, and I bet that our Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves about this part. I know that many are asking "what about the car insurance I have to buy?" Well you aren't forced to buy it simply as a condition of your birth. You only need to buy it if you are going to enjoy a priveledge, driving. So it's at least a bit different.

3) There is language, at least in the Senate bill, about funding hospitals and research institutions that show preferential hiring/admittance to "under represented minorities". That is a clear violation of the equal protection clause.

You saying they are shredding the US Constitution? Gee, that happens about every week any more....this is not going to cause them to lose sleep....

[Hondo]

The Founding Fathers got out of their graves and left town when President Lincoln got his Supreme Court to rule the Southern Secession illegal. Although I doubt they they would have favored the split, they purposely made that option available to counter a Federal government that exceeded it's authority and power.

It's not just Nebraska. "New Orleans Mary", Mary Landrieu got Louisiana $300 million and bragged about it. As long as she can keep jobs out of New Orleans and free benefits coming in, she'll keep her seat.

This is what my country has become.

[SportscarBruce]

That is the goal of every politician, to be re-elected, to remain in power; to keep their job. There's nothing mystical about that at all.

The biggest weapon that politicians have in the USA is the apathy of the electorate. It's only the people that can be bothered to have a say that actually matter, so provided the rhetoric can whip those people into voting for you then the game has been won.

So called democracy for most people means turning up every so often and putting a mark on a piece of paper, about legislation and politicians that they know nothing about and a system that they scarcely understand.

Regretfully that assessment is not far off the mark.

To our credit, from time to time a substantial percentage of the electorate does get fed up to the point of rebelling against established institutions of DC political power by tossing aside two-party identifications in order to organize and nominate from within their own ranks.

Unfortunately the very record of assured failure record on part of grassroots populist movements illuminates just how compromised the foundations democracy have become.

The defense mechanism protecting Beltway DC politics as usual from third party reformist populism is a spring trap of interlocking cogs and kingpins within the realm of politics, mass media, PACs, think tanks, advertising, public relations, IT, etc. All rely upon a continuous money stream of investment and donation funding dollars. The real power of capitalist democracy lies within the hands of a rarely mentioned global oligarchy.

This is why they placed into effect trade policies which destroyed the industrial sector and blue collar middle class. Through this machinery we've been routinely fed pro-war propaganda via "free press" media then set up for attack and ultimately committed to wars overseas over and over since 1917.

And finally, this is why third parties repeatedly go from populist boom to political bust - by infiltration and subversion from within (co-opting, sabotage) and slanting public perceptions downward through a readjustment in mass media coverage.

At the very heart of this democracy bait and switch lies two vital ingredients;

1. The first is an apathetic, distracted, or dumbed-down voting public (preferably all three)

2. A culture that worships materialism instead of philosophical idealism.

Now look over at your TV. Isn't it ironic that at great cost we pay for the very instrument most responsible our cultural destruction and political betrayal? Chew on that for awhile....

[Mark in Oshawa]

See....yet another guy wants a third party in the US and I look at the history of it...and I fail to see where it will bring about the change you want.

It hasn't yet, because the two party model in the US has more or less worked to some degree. If you guys want to change things, get organized and TAKE over the party in question. You get involved in the process and use the structure there. The reason a milquetoast leader like McCain got elected to be the nominee was because the "conservatives" in the party didn't work hard and unite behind one good candidate. Yet which part of the Republican party makes the most noise about needing a new party? The conservative right. You can take the party back with more success than creating a new one.

One only has to look at the hard left of the Democrats pulling that party leftward. They got Obama in power and they are going where they feel they need to go. Love him or hate him, he has a party behind him. The Republicans spend most of their time moaning and whining or fighting amongst each other because they are more hung up on their particular princples...

[SportscarBruce]

See....yet another guy wants a third party in the US and I look at the history of it...and I fail to see where it will bring about the change you want.

It hasn't yet, because the two party model in the US has more or less worked to some degree. If you guys want to change things, get organized and TAKE over the party in question. You get involved in the process and use the structure there.

Surely you realize even across the border there in Canada how futile and rooted in fantasy such notions as grassroots political revolutions taking back the reigns of government. Either by taking over the movement, burying it, or through deception on the campaign trail by compromised reform candidates, the unseen hands of power always win.


The reason a milquetoast leader like McCain got elected to be the nominee was because the "conservatives" in the party didn't work hard and unite behind one good candidate.

The reason McCain the Maverick reformist became McCain the nominee was essentially the due to the same reason Obama the candidate for change governs as Obama defender of the status quo. Both sold out their principles in order to place within their reach presidential office aspirations. Look at who ran McCain's campaign following a quietly reported on GOP fundraiser summit in California - a Carl Rove-trained team of political PR hacks. Look at who Obama selected to staff his cabinet, a rogue's gallery of Clinton-era staffers, former lobbyist, Chicago machine politics insiders, and a handful of Bush administration holdovers to boot. This is why the reformers never reform, why no matter who we end up sending to Washington the song remains the same.

In a political system run by money he who writes the biggest checks runs government. As Theodore Roosevelt so eloquently stated within the Bull Moose Party Platform of 1912; To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."


Yet which part of the Republican party makes the most noise about needing a new party? The conservative right. You can take the party back with more success than creating a new one.

One only has to look at the hard left of the Democrats pulling that party leftward. They got Obama in power and they are going where they feel they need to go. Love him or hate him, he has a party behind him. The Republicans spend most of their time moaning and whining or fighting amongst each other because they are more hung up on their particular princples...

Bugle calls to war on whatever political strawmen, hyped foreign threats, or ideologically impure internal threats the scriptwriters of electronic political theater can dream up distract the everyday party loyalist from genuine assaults on democratic principles and institutions taking place every day within the halls of government.

You still believe Obama is a "leftist"? Founded on what, the voices of talk radio or his record? The party went left and the nation went along with it because his election was supposed to bring about a peaceful revolution against corruption. A cursory examination will reveal Obama merely used the left along with legions of supporters from college campuses and inner cities only to betray them and their causes once the seat of office was achieved.

[anthonyvop]

Bruce,

Name me one action Obama has done that would be considered Middle of the road let alone conservative.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Surely you realize even across the border there in Canada how futile and rooted in fantasy such notions as grassroots political revolutions taking back the reigns of government. Either by taking over the movement, burying it, or through deception on the campaign trail by compromised reform candidates, the unseen hands of power always win. .

Grassroots movements only work when they take the established party from within. THAT is my point. The Reform Party up here took down the Conservatives from a distance, than pushed a merger of the two back in and our current Conservative PM came from that movement. You have the Tea Party movement which is rebelling, and if they all put that time and energy and money into taking control of the Republicans at the grass roots level, they can change the tone of the party. The left did the same with the Dem's...hence Obama is the President, and not Hillary Clinton.




The reason McCain the Maverick reformist became McCain the nominee was essentially the due to the same reason Obama the candidate for change governs as Obama defender of the status quo. Both sold out their principles in order to place within their reach presidential office aspirations. Look at who ran McCain's campaign following a quietly reported on GOP fundraiser summit in California - a Carl Rove-trained team of political PR hacks. Look at who Obama selected to staff his cabinet, a rogue's gallery of Clinton-era staffers, former lobbyist, Chicago machine politics insiders, and a handful of Bush administration holdovers to boot. This is why the reformers never reform, why no matter who we end up sending to Washington the song remains the same. .

I keep waiting for Obama to keep a Bush policy that is distinctly a BUSH policy. The point the song remains the same is nonsense. The Election of Ronald Reagan was LIGHT years away from the feckless Carter years.


In a political system run by money he who writes the biggest checks runs government. As Theodore Roosevelt so eloquently stated within the Bull Moose Party Platform of 1912; To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." .
So you need money to get a President elected? Duuuh, what other pearls of wisdom you want to drop on us? As for Teddy, he had no problem working with big business when it suited his purposes. Teddy was a Progressive in the same way Obama is, except when Teddy did it, the US was a vastly different land....



Bugle calls to war on whatever political strawmen, hyped foreign threats, or ideologically impure internal threats the scriptwriters of electronic political theater can dream up distract the everyday party loyalist from genuine assaults on democratic principles and institutions taking place every day within the halls of government.

You still believe Obama is a "leftist"? Founded on what, the voices of talk radio or his record? The party went left and the nation went along with it because his election was supposed to bring about a peaceful revolution against corruption. A cursory examination will reveal Obama merely used the left along with legions of supporters from college campuses and inner cities only to betray them and their causes once the seat of office was achieved.

Obama isn't left? Really? First off, his election wasn't a peaceful revolution against corruption, since there was no appreciable corruption. Bush wasn't taking bribes, although it can be argued that Obama is owned by the Unions when 90 to 100% of union political contributions went to his party. That isn't corrupt? How about all the spending? That isn't left wing? The debt he has added in this year ALONE is way more than Bush on his worst day.

He hasn't betrayed them on healthcare, he got them as much they could get without immolation of the Democratic party as we know it. When taxes go up on the rich, I again fail to see how that wont be a left wing political stance.

To say Obama is governing from the center is to wilfully ignore everything he has done domestically. The only policy where he is even close to from the center on is the War on Terrorism, but if you listen to the rhetoric at times, he is not singing from the playbook of anyone in the center......

[SportscarBruce]

Bruce,

Name me one action Obama has done that would be considered Middle of the road let alone conservative.
For starters;

More Bush than progressive on:

FISA (domestic surveillance)

Barack Obama’s rightward sprint is nowhere more obvious than in his betrayal on the FISA bill.

http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx0602408

Education:

Obama has appointed as his secretary of education (Arne Duncan) someone who actually embodies this (neo-conservative) utterly punitive, anti-intellectual, corporatized and test-driven model of schooling.

http://www.truthout.org/121708R

AgriBusiness:

OBAMA CAVES IN TO AGRIBUSINESS

Kathy Ozer and Marcia Ishii-Eiteman

“Lobbyists won’t find a job in my White House.” President Obama assured us with this claim upon inauguration. And yet he just nominated to two key posts “Big Ag” industry power brokers who come straight from the chemical pesticide and biotechnology sectors.
http://stuffedandstarved.org/drupal/node/504

Obama’s 'Agribusiness as Usual' Problem
Biotech- and Industry-Friendly Ag Appointments have Farm, Hunger and Enviro Groups Lining Up in Protest

"On the campaign trail Barack Obama promised that he would end business as usual in Washington; Siddiqui's nomination is a fundamental violation of that campaign pledge," commented Dave Murphy, director of Food Democracy Now! "Instead of dipping into the same stale pond of radical ‘free' trade and GMO proponents, President Obama should nominate individuals that have a new vision for agriculture that is sustainable both economically and environmentally."
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/11/18-23

Flip-flop on occupied West Bank settlements

In May President Obama read the Israelis the riot act, telling the Israeli government that he was serious about ending the Israeli conflict with the Palestinians and that a lasting peace agreement required the Israeli government to abandon all construction of new settlements in the occupied West Bank.

On November 10 Obama’s White House chief of staff, Rahm Israel Emanuel, surrendered for his boss at the annual conference of the United Jewish Communities.

The ongoing Israeli settlements, he said, should not be a “distraction” to a peace agreement.
http://america-hijacked.com/2009/11/12/israel-lobby-routs-obama-as-dollar-dies/

Health Care Reform

"Right now, Mr. President," declared Ed Schultz on his 6 pm MSNBC show, "Your base thinks you're nothing but a sellout, a corporate sellout, at that. I know it's tough audio, but I'm your buddy Ed. I've got to tell you this. I don't think anybody else is."

Schultz also reflected the sentiment put forth by Arianna Huffington and other progressives -- that this bill is effectively a bailout for insurance companies.

"Mr. President, I don't know if you've noticed or not," he said, "but you have carved out the most important elements of reform. The only people who like this current bill right now, Mr. President, is the insurance industry. They get a bunch of new customers."

"The base is restless," Schultz continued. "They are wandering in the wilderness, Mr. President. They are looking for your GPS coordinates."

Schultz has in recent days voiced concerns as to whether the current bill is worth passing. "So much for change we can believe in," he said.

http://rawstory.com/2009/12/ed-schultz-mr-president-base-thinks-sellout/

Now, in light of the tea party-n-town hall hysteria with posters of Obama w/Hitleresque moustache or Obama as Communist the right-wing fear factory must at least be seen for what it is - a smoke and mirror deception machine.

[Rollo]

The Founding Fathers got out of their graves and left town when President Lincoln got his Supreme Court to rule the Southern Secession illegal

You mean in Texas v. White in 1869? Which was four years after Lincoln died? Lincoln would have to get out of his own grave to do that.

[anthonyvop]

Sportscarbruce,

So you agree with me? Nothing you listed is even remotely conservative or middle of the road.

[SportscarBruce]

Sportscarbruce,

So you agree with me? Nothing you listed is even remotely conservative or middle of the road.

That short list of policy betrayal has the progressives screaming and without exception each and every one is in line with the former administration's policy footprint. Painting stripes on a donkey doesn't make it a zebra, so put the brush down.

[SportscarBruce]

Consolidating power within the Executive Branch. Lapdog legislation. Quietly shelving regulatory and oversight responsibility.

Sounds a familiar ring.

Taibbi: Obama’s sellout to Wall Street creates ‘permanent bailout’

December 3rd, 2009

If passed as it is, the financial reform bill winding its way through Congress will create a "permanent bailout mechanism," and will give complete control over future bailouts to the White House, says columnist Matt Taibbi.

In a video preview of an upcoming Rolling Stone article, Taibbi explained how the Obama administration started selling out to Wall Street interests almost as soon as the 2008 election was over.

"The really big thing that's in these bills that's really, really scary is that it kind of outlines a permanent bailout mechanism," Taibbi said. "If it survives in the way that it was originally conceived, it's basically going to formalize an arrangement whereby the government is expected to bail out the top 20 to 25 largest financial companies. ... It will be entirely up to the White House to determine whether or not these companies are in trouble in the future, so there won't be any congressional role in deciding when and when not to give a bailout."

Taibbi also said that President Barack Obama gave key economic positions away to Wall Street insiders instead of keeping on progressive voices from his presidential campaign.

During the campaign, Obama was primarily advised by people like Austan Goolsbee from University of Chicago and Karen Kornbluh who is a well known progressive economist. Obama gets elected, the very day he gets elected those people are basically off the team and he brings in a whole bunch of people from Wall Street.

http://rawstory.com/2009/12/taibbi-obamas-big-sellout/

Clinton/Rubin, Bush/Paulson, Obama/Geithner. The more things change the more they remain the same.

[chuck34]

Bruce, if you think being just a bit right of the most rabid progessives, is being a centrist or conservative, then you have much to learn. Your last post, suggesting that somehow a permanent bailout situation is "conservative", particularly points to the fact that you need to read up on what conservative really means (hint Bush is no model of conservatism). Your other points are equally superficial. You might want to turn off Shultz, Olberman, and Maddow from time to time and get a dose of reality. I honestly don't mean that as any kind of insult, but as real advise. You seem like an intelligent guy, but your last couple of posts read just like the unhinged rantings of Olberman

[Hondo]

You mean in Texas v. White in 1869? Which was four years after Lincoln died? Lincoln would have to get out of his own grave to do that.

No.

[Hondo]

Bruce has some points, some of which you're not going to find hard fact to back up. Some of it is "wink and nod and you had to be there" kind of stuff. My dad knew Ron Paul back in the day. My dad was republican because he knew the libertarian's didn't stand a chance. I was libertarian because I was idealistic and idealism allows you a certain amount of stupidity. When Ron Paul first ran for congress he lost to a guy (very close) that soon gave up the office for a presidential appointment. Paul won the follow up special election and became a congressman. Pushing libertarism and fighting the "good old boy" network made Paul a lot of enemies. The GOP chose to not fund him in the next election and he was out. He lost. The next time around, both sides had learned the game a little better and he got back in. Bottom line, you have to play the game to get it the game.