Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

It's OK some health plans got cancelled

It's called health care reform for a reason, folks:  

Senator Mary Landrieu's "Keeping the Affordable Care Act Promise Act" would require insurance companies to keep offering people the plans they have right now as long as they keep paying their premiums. It's the kind of poll-tested idea that's good politics, and horrible, horrible policy. That's because it's a good thing if some people lose their plans. That's how reform should work, the White House's false promises and hopelessly bungled roll-out, notwithstanding.

The individual insurance market doesn't work. You can't get insurance if you are sick, and don't get much insurance if you become sick. In other words, insurers won't sell policies to people with preexisting conditions, and sell insufficient policies to healthy people. As Jonathan Cohn explains, these insufficient policies often don't cover things like prescription drugs and won't cover high out-of-pocket expenses. And if your plan wasn't insufficient, insurance companies would look for excuses to cancel it after-the-fact if you did become seriously ill—what's known as "rescission."

Obamacare tries to fix these problems with the individual market—and the inescapable logic of that is some people will end up paying more than before. Here's why in three steps. First, Obamacare makes insurers offer everyone the same policies at the same prices regardless of preexisting conditions (though not age). But bare bones coverage with high out-of-pockets, and even lifetime limits, isn't much use if you're sick. So, second, it sets minimum benefit levels. But what about healthy people who already have individual policies that don't meet these levels? Well, if they had those plans before Obamacare was passed in March 2010, and those plans haven't changed at all since, they can keep them. Otherwise, they can't. [That's an oversimplification of the ACA's grandfathering rules -- J.] They have to buy conforming plans that are almost certainly more expensive. Because, third, Obamacare needs healthy people paying for more than just catastrophic (and even junk) insurance to help pay for all the sick people now getting coverage. In other words, Obamacare needs health insurance to be...insurance.


By Matthew O'Brien
November 14, 2013 | Atlantic

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Obama lacks the 'leadership thing'

What a shame for our country that President Obama is too aloof, timid and devoid of the "vision thing" to lead our country in these momentous, turbulent times.  What a wasted opportunity!  It seems Obama really wanted to be elected President, but he doesn't want to be President.  

Egan makes a wonderful point: "[Rep. Darrell] Issa is typical of Obama’s opponents; they are laughable, unserious people."  It's not like Obama is getting overshadowed by dynamic Republicans.  He's the brightest dull bulb in a very dim room.  

Bill Clinton would be rolling over these GOP clowns right now, with a smile and a twinkle in his eye to the roar of applause, and he'd love waking up every morning to do it all over again.  I miss Slick Willy.  


By Timothy Egan
June 27, 2013 | New York Times

Sunday, September 23, 2012

American Dream v. American Lotto

I was waiting for the part when Robert Samuelson blamed the death of the American Dream on Obama.  Whew! -- he didn't.  Instead, he explains it was Bill Clinton's fault for perverting the Dream to:  Americans “who work hard and play by the rules shouldn’t be poor.”  

We knew it had to be one of them to blame.  (Beating up on Jimmy Carter is so '70s.)  Damn you, Slick Willy!

Seriously though, outside of pundits and politicians, most Americans have gotten the memo that the Dream is dead.  Maybe they have read how income mobility is greater in Canada and Europe, although I doubt it.  All they have to do is compare how they live now to how their parents or grandparents did. The Dream is now the Lottery: keep working, paying your taxes and buying those tickets, year in-year out, and maybe, just maybe, you'll get lucky, too.  

Is it any wonder that casinosonline poker and other forms of legalized gambling are making a huge comeback?  Everybody knows the game is rigged, the house always wins, and yet, and yet.... They prefer to hope against the odds.  


Today Ben Franklin would be scratching lotto cards.


By Robert J. Samuelson
September 24, 2012 | Washington Post

Thursday, August 9, 2012

GOP's political rehabilitation of Bill Clinton

We must harken back to our fathers' wholesome, anti-American radicalism of the 90s to save our country

Ah, the 90s.  Believe it or not, I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy daily, read all Ayn Rand's "masterpieces," and subscribed to National Review.  I voted for Bob Dole!  I really drank the kooky conservative Kool-Aid.

I remember myself and other conservatives foaming at the mouth about how Clinton hated America; Clinton was going to destroy the economy "with the largest peace time tax increase in U.S. history;" Clinton killed Vince Foster, Ron Brown and about 40 other people; Clinton was going to take all our guns away; Clinton was handing over our sovereignty to the UN as their black choppers invaded our airspace with impunity.  And on and on.

If all these right-wing voices (including my own) were to be believed, America was in certain decline and facing imminent disaster.

And now, lo and behold, Repulicans are looking back wistfully on the Clinton years with fondness. 

Doesn't it make you conservatives wonder, if only just for a moment, if you're not being unreasonable and paranoid now as well?  Maybe Obama is not the Anti-Christ, or an Afro-Arab-Asian Manchurian Candidate, or a crypto-Muslim?...

... Nah!  Of course he is all those things!  Definitely Obama is the most liberal, anti-American POTUS ever...  until the next Democrat gets elected, that is.


By Ari Shapiro
August 9, 2012 | NPR

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Ames: Newsmax blog advocated treason until lefty blogs called them out

Here's a new rule: rightwing pundits and bloggers shouldn't be allowed to declare their (almost sexual) love of our nation's military -- a love which they assume gives them special claim to speak for the best interests of our military, and our nation -- unless they have done an actual combat tour in 'Nam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

Simple rule, right? And yet how many writers would disappear from view forever if it were followed?

They're all pencil-necked geeks, flabby wannabes, and chickenhawks who have read too many Tom Clancy novels and not enough history books. They don't know the first thing. Oh, but they think they do. Because the LOVE our armed forces. Gimme a break.

Know what our generals are really good at? Doing what they're told. That's what they're educated and trained to do; and the ones who do it the best with the snappiest "Yessir!" rise up the ranks the fastest. Our generals have no special insights into politics or the human condition, and certainly no special gift for governing. Our top military brass are there because they are the best political chameleons and career climbers, able to shift and wiggle their way up the ranks through successive Democratic-Republican administrations.

I'll tell you another secret: our military works because civilian prick politicians who smoked dope, snorted coke and never fired a gun at anybody, like Clinton and Dubya, get to tell it what to do. They don't need the military's approval. They (and by extension, we) tell it whom to fight, and the military gets to tell us how many things they can blow up, how many people they can kill, when, and with how many resources. Now that's service. And the USA pioneered it. That's what we should be proud of.

Our only job is to avoid sending them into impossible missions that they can't possibly execute, like Iraq and Afghanistan. Such situations require civilians with independent minds, because, per secret #1, generals are always going to tell their commander-in-chief that they can get the job done, if only they are given the right resources. Unfortunately, the general who says to his president, "Sir, we can't do that," probably won't be reporting to that president much longer. To be sure, successful U.S. presidents should recognize that they're surrounded by sycophantic yes-men, whether they are appointed bureaucrats or career soldiers. They need to exercise common sense, and know a little history and geography -- or at least have advisers who do. But when all their advisers are like, "We love the generals, the generals are rock stars, they say we can win it!" then the President (and by extension, America) is in deep trouble. Exhibits A and B: Iraq and Afghanistan.


By Mark Ames
September 30, 2009 | Exiledonline.com



shaggy-scared

Zoinks! I think I heard a liberal blogger!

This is just like America's rightwing pussies: all bluster and no fight. When no one's looking, they're screaming crazy treasonous shit like they're badass revolutionaries, but at the first whiff of liberal-blogger criticism, they're fleeing with their tails between their legs.

Yesterday, on a rightwing webzine site called Newsmax, one of their columnists called for the US military to overthrow President Obama, in order to "resolve the 'Obama Problem.'" The column, headlined "Obama Risks a Military 'Intervention,'" laid out a nerdoid fantasy-scenario in which the U.S. military ousts Obama, and the junta rules America for an interim period to "restore" the Constitution:

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

You can almost smell author John L. [for "Loser"] Perry's urine-scented basement bedroom and sticky underwear wafting up from each word of his waffentwerp fantasy column.

In the great tradition of waffentwerp loudmouths like Perry, as soon as a few liberals started to blog his article, the yeasty pussies at Newsmax screamed "RETREAT!" and pulled the article down, and used the ol' grammar school excuse of "I've never even seen this guy in my life!" claiming that Perry isn't even on Newsmax's payroll. Translation: WE'RE TOO AFRAID TO STAND BEHIND OUR YAPPING POODLES.

It's like the screaming loudmouth jerk who makes a lot of noise about "I'll kick yer fuckin ass man!" but then when the other guy finally gets tired of it and starts to lift himself from his barstool, the loudmouth flees like Snagglepus, exit stage left, even. Fucking pathetic.

I'll write more about this soon, but a couple of points to note:

1. I've been following the angry-rightwing's obsession over the military coup in Honduras which overthrew the democratically-elected leftwing president, Manuel Zelaya. If you've watched how the rightwingers have framed that coup, it's been clear that they see it as both a proxy-coup for the battle they believe is unfolding in America, and a blueprint for how to get rid of Obama.

2. Since the John Loser Perrys of America are truly such big gigantic pussies that they can't feel safe without guns, it's time some of us who don't want to be part of John Loser Perry's twerp fantasy to brush up on our marksmanship skills at the local shooting range too.

And now, just to make sure that this article is posted in as many places as possible, I give you the mighty John L. Perry's coup blueprint:


Obama Risks a Domestic Military 'Intervention'

There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America's military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the "Obama problem." Don't dismiss it as unrealistic.

America isn't the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn't mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it. So, view the following through military eyes:

  • Officers swear to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Unlike enlisted personnel, they do not swear to "obey the orders of the president of the United States."
  • Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.
  • They can see that Americans are increasingly alarmed that this nation, under President Barack Obama, may not even be recognizable as America by the 2012 election, in which he will surely seek continuation in office.
  • They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.
  • They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.
  • They can see the dismantling of defenses against missiles targeted at this nation by avowed enemies, even as America's troop strength is allowed to sag.
  • They can see the horror of major warfare erupting simultaneously in two, and possibly three, far-flung theaters before America can react in time.
  • They can see the nation's safety and their own military establishments and honor placed in jeopardy as never before.So, if you are one of those observant military professionals, what do you do?Wait until this president bungles into losing the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan's arsenal of nuclear bombs falls into the hands of militant Islam?Wait until Israel is forced to launch air strikes on Iran's nuclear-bomb plants, and the Middle East explodes, destabilizing or subjugating the Free World?What happens if the generals Obama sent to win the Afghan war are told by this president (who now says, "I'm not interested in victory") that they will be denied troops they must have to win? Do they follow orders they cannot carry out, consistent with their oath of duty? Do they resign en masse?

    Or do they soldier on, hoping the 2010 congressional elections will reverse the situation? Do they dare gamble the national survival on such political whims?

    Anyone who imagines that those thoughts are not weighing heavily on the intellect and conscience of America's military leadership is lost in a fool's fog.

    Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a "family intervention," with some form of limited, shared responsibility?

    Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

    Military intervention is what Obama's exponentially accelerating agenda for "fundamental change" toward a Marxist state is inviting upon America. A coup is not an ideal option, but Obama's radical ideal is not acceptable or reversible.

    Unthinkable? Then think up an alternative, non-violent solution to the Obama problem. Just don't shrug and say, "We can always worry about that later."

    In the 2008 election, that was the wistful, self-indulgent, indifferent reliance on abnegation of personal responsibility that has sunk the nation into this morass.

    John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer who served on White House staffs of two presidents, is a regular columnist for Newsmax.com. Read John Perry's columns here.

  • Here we go again... Impeach Obama Campaign

    Impeach Obama Campaign


    Brought to you by the guy who claims he initiated the Whitewater investigation, which started with digging into a funny-smelling land deal, and ended with discovering a funny-smelling cigar and a jizz-stained dress. If not for the efforts of brave and patriotic Republicans like Floyd to bring them into the public light, that cigar and dress could have destroyed America like hidden nuclear suitcase bombs.

    Read Floyd's damning Articles of Impeachment of President Obama right here!

    We can't wait 3 years to elect a new President, we need to impeach BHO now, before his real birth certificate conspires with the cigar and the dress to tear America apart!

    Bring back McVeigh, Gingrich, Mulder and Scully, because Guvmint is evil again and we need to go on the offensive! Seriously though, like I said before, it's gonna be the wacky 90's all over again with these nutjobs....


    Impeach Obama Campaign


    Monday, July 13, 2009

    Taibbi: Goldman Sachs is a bubble machine

    I don't think this is the whole article, but in addition to long excerpts are videos of Taibbi and others talking about Goldman and the financial crisis.

    For a scanned version of the RS article, go to Zero Hedge, or here.

    The Great American Bubble Machine

    Matt Taibbi on how Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression

    By Matt Taibbi

    July 2, 2009 | Rolling Stone

    Tuesday, November 4, 2008

    Retrospective: National Nightmare of Clinton Era Finally Over

    I think it's apropos to read this now, especially if you haven't voted yet and you're thinking of pulling the lever -- they don't still use levers, do they? -- for McCain. This piece was amazingly, sadly prescient. Just think: Do you really want everything McCain is promising: continued occupation of Iraq; war with Iran and possibly Syria; confrontation with nuclear Russia; "drill baby drill;" no action on global warming; deeper tax cuts leading to a larger national debt; continued outsourcing of U.S. jobs; and creationist, apocalypse-hungry Evangelical kooks with a White House hall pass, courtesy of Palin?


    January 17, 2001 | The Onion

    WASHINGTON, DC–Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."

    President-elect Bush vows that "together, we can put the triumphs of the recent past behind us."

    "My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."

    Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.

    During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

    "You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"

    [Neocon and conservative commentator William Kristol actually asked this same rhetorical question after 9/11, only he wasn't joking! – J]

    On the economic side, Bush vowed to bring back economic stagnation by implementing substantial tax cuts, which would lead to a recession, which would necessitate a tax hike, which would lead to a drop in consumer spending, which would lead to layoffs, which would deepen the recession even further.

    Wall Street responded strongly to the Bush speech, with the Dow Jones industrial fluctuating wildly before closing at an 18-month low. The NASDAQ composite index, rattled by a gloomy outlook for tech stocks in 2001, also fell sharply, losing 4.4 percent of its total value between 3 p.m. and the closing bell.

    Asked for comment about the cooling technology sector, Bush said: "That's hardly my area of expertise."

    Turning to the subject of the environment, Bush said he will do whatever it takes to undo the tremendous damage not done by the Clinton Administration to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He assured citizens that he will follow through on his campaign promise to open the 1.5 million acre refuge's coastal plain to oil drilling. As a sign of his commitment to bringing about a change in the environment, he pointed to his choice of Gale Norton for Secretary of the Interior. Norton, Bush noted, has "extensive experience" fighting environmental causes, working as a lobbyist for lead-paint manufacturers and as an attorney for loggers and miners, in addition to suing the EPA to overturn clean-air standards.

    Bush had equally high praise for Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft, whom he praised as "a tireless champion in the battle to protect a woman's right to give birth."

    "Soon, with John Ashcroft's help, we will move out of the Dark Ages and into a more enlightened time when a woman will be free to think long and hard before trying to fight her way past throngs of protesters blocking her entrance to an abortion clinic," Bush said. "We as a nation can look forward to lots and lots of babies."

    Continued Bush: "John Ashcroft will be invaluable in healing the terrible wedge President Clinton drove between church and state."

    The speech was met with overwhelming approval from Republican leaders.

    "Finally, the horrific misrule of the Democrats has been brought to a close," House Majority Leader Dennis Hastert (R-IL) told reporters. "Under Bush, we can all look forward to military aggression, deregulation of dangerous, greedy industries, and the defunding of vital domestic social-service programs upon which millions depend. Mercifully, we can now say goodbye to the awful nightmare that was Clinton's America."

    "For years, I tirelessly preached the message that Clinton must be stopped," conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh said. "And yet, in 1996, the American public failed to heed my urgent warnings, re-electing Clinton despite the fact that the nation was prosperous and at peace under his regime. But now, thank God, that's all done with. Once again, we will enjoy mounting debt, jingoism, nuclear paranoia, mass deficit, and a massive military build-up."

    An overwhelming 49.9 percent of Americans responded enthusiastically to the Bush speech.

    "After eight years of relatively sane fiscal policy under the Democrats, we have reached a point where, just a few weeks ago, President Clinton said that the national debt could be paid off by as early as 2012," Rahway, NJ, machinist and father of three Bud Crandall said. "That's not the kind of world I want my children to grow up in."

    "You have no idea what it's like to be black and enfranchised," said Marlon Hastings, one of thousands of Miami-Dade County residents whose votes were not counted in the 2000 presidential election. "George W. Bush understands the pain of enfranchisement, and ever since Election Day, he has fought tirelessly to make sure it never happens to my people again."
    Bush concluded his speech on a note of healing and redemption.

    "We as a people must stand united, banding together to tear this nation in two," Bush said. "Much work lies ahead of us: The gap between the rich and the poor may be wide, be there's much more widening left to do. We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."

    "The insanity is over," Bush said. "After a long, dark night of peace and stability, the sun is finally rising again over America. We look forward to a bright new dawn not seen since the glory days of my dad."

    Wednesday, February 6, 2008

    Hillary's baggage


    Below are the most germane sections Eugene Robinson's op-ed. Hillary and Bill would certainly have to answer Robinson's questions eventually and try to put them to rest. The question is, would Clinton haters believe and accept their answers? And how much distracting noise would be made, and political damage be done, in the the meantime?

    Fair or unfair, Hillary Clinton's nomination would initiate an exhumation and post mortem of the Bill Clinton years. Her campaign wouldn't be a debate about the future, but rather a constant defensive reaction to her critics' re-hashing arguments and scandals from the past. And meanwhile, the real tragedy of 8 years of Bush-Republican rule would be set to one side. Do we really want that?

    Contrast that with an Obama nomination. We'd leave all that Clinton junk behind us. We'd be hopeful for real change. And Obama would have the moral authority to take on Bush's record and offer us something better.



    The Baggage Hillary Bears
    By Eugene Robinson
    February 5, 2008 | Washington Post

    [...]

    That's the unfair part -- mostly unfair, at least. There's no way that Hillary Clinton would go to the considerable trouble of running for president in order to let her husband make the decisions, as if the Clinton marriage were out of a 1950s sitcom. Hillary has her people -- longtime friends, supporters, aides -- just as Bill has his. If she made it to the White House, her people would be the ones with real power; if his people didn't like it, there wouldn't be much they could do but grumble.

    But Hillary Clinton opens the door to all the questions and suspicions about Bill's role. Has she made a single campaign appearance without claiming that "for 35 years" she's been fighting for this, that or the other?

    "When she tries to portray herself as a battle-scarred political veteran and Obama as an ingenue, she counts the years she spent as first lady in Little Rock and Washington. When she adds the policy successes of the 1990s (but not the failures) to her résumé, she implies that she was part of a co-presidency. It's legitimate to ask whether she intends to be part of another.

    [...]

    Questions about Hillary's role in the Clinton administration, and about Bill's business and philanthropic ventures since he left office, are not just fair but necessary.

    Why won't the Clintons speed up the release of White House papers that would let us see what kind of authority Hillary Clinton enjoyed? Who donated how much to the Clinton presidential library, and might those donors expect anything from a Hillary Clinton administration? What business tycoons have snuggled up to the former president, and what -- other than the chance to bask in the radiance of his wit -- did they hope to get out of the exercise?

    Would Bill return to his foundation and its high-profile international projects? If so, would that work be coordinated with Hillary's foreign policy? Could donors be sure that the foundation's priorities were still being set independently, in accord with what they were told when they wrote the check?

    Wednesday, January 30, 2008

    Why doesn't W get credit for the economy?


    This blog post from Krugman links to some great charts, especially the last one, which shows how GDP grew more under Clinton than Reagan, and Bush I and II are at the bottom of the presidential pile!

    Going back to Kennedy, the GDP has grown more with Democrats in the White House. Interpret that as you will!



    Why Doesn't Bush Get Economic Credit?
    By Paul Krugman
    January 28, 2008 | New York Times

    URL: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/why-doesnt-bush-get-economic-credit/