The Whiner-in-Chief?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

To deny an administration - any administration - the opportunity to put it's actions into proper context is ridiculous. They don't operate in some vacuum but rather shape policy based on where we come from, where we are at any given point in time and where it intents to go from here. When you inherit an economy in free fall and then operate on an unreasonable expectation that the economy is to grow strongly within a few months of taking office, it apparently needs reminding the public what the situation was when you took office. For all those that haven't noticed or chose not to notice, the economy is no longer in free fall.

excellent post.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

To deny an administration - any administration - the opportunity to put it's actions into proper context is ridiculous. They don't operate in some vacuum but rather shape policy based on where we come from, where we are at any given point in time and where it intents to go from here. When you inherit an economy in free fall and then operate on an unreasonable expectation that the economy is to grow strongly within a few months of taking office, it apparently needs reminding the public what the situation was when you took office. For all those that haven't noticed or chose not to notice, the economy is no longer in free fall.

excellent post.

Pffft! That's why hippies are such big pussies and never get anything done.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

To deny an administration - any administration - the opportunity to put it's actions into proper context is ridiculous. They don't operate in some vacuum but rather shape policy based on where we come from, where we are at any given point in time and where it intents to go from here. When you inherit an economy in free fall and then operate on an unreasonable expectation that the economy is to grow strongly within a few months of taking office, it apparently needs reminding the public what the situation was when you took office. For all those that haven't noticed or chose not to notice, the economy is no longer in free fall.

excellent post.

Pffft! That's why hippies are such big pussies and never get anything done.

So, every administration works in a vacuum and is solely responsible for everything that happens on their watch?

Reagan was then solely responsible for the deep recession in the early 80's and the double digit unemployment that resulted from it? He was solely responsible for over 4 million jobs lost during the early years of his administration?

And W was solely responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the US and it is not true, as many right wingers have always liked to claim and continue to point out, that Clinton is at least partially to blame as he ignored warning signs of this growing threat after the first attack on the WTC?

Is that the essence of the point you're looking to make?

Edited November 5, 2009 by Mr. Big Dog

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

To deny an administration - any administration - the opportunity to put it's actions into proper context is ridiculous. They don't operate in some vacuum but rather shape policy based on where we come from, where we are at any given point in time and where it intents to go from here. When you inherit an economy in free fall and then operate on an unreasonable expectation that the economy is to grow strongly within a few months of taking office, it apparently needs reminding the public what the situation was when you took office. For all those that haven't noticed or chose not to notice, the economy is no longer in free fall.

excellent post.

Pffft! That's why hippies are such big pussies and never get anything done.

So, every administration works in a vacuum and is solely responsible for everything that happens on their watch?

Reagan was then solely responsible for the deep recession in the early 80's and the double digit unemployment that resulted from it? He was solely responsible for over 4 million jobs lost during the early years of his administration?

And W was solely responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the US and it is not true, as many right wingers have always liked to claim and continue to point out, that Clinton is at least partially to blame as he ignored warning signs of this growing threat after the first attack on the WTC?

Is that the essence of the point you're looking to make?

If Obama was not ready to hit the ground running, then he should not have sought the job. Bush's learning curve was rather shallow until 9/11, and even there, the situation made the man, not the other way around.

If Bush derailed the train, why is Obama still shovelling coal into the boiler?

You can't change the past. Obama would last about ten seconds on the battlefield, before someone stepped in, capped him, and took charge. The situation is that dire. If Obama won't lead, then opportunities will continue to pass him by, as they pretty much already have. America can not afford to have Pelosi, Reid, and Emmanual continue to do the job Obama was elected to do.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

To deny an administration - any administration - the opportunity to put it's actions into proper context is ridiculous. They don't operate in some vacuum but rather shape policy based on where we come from, where we are at any given point in time and where it intents to go from here. When you inherit an economy in free fall and then operate on an unreasonable expectation that the economy is to grow strongly within a few months of taking office, it apparently needs reminding the public what the situation was when you took office. For all those that haven't noticed or chose not to notice, the economy is no longer in free fall.

excellent post.

Pffft! That's why hippies are such big pussies and never get anything done.

So, every administration works in a vacuum and is solely responsible for everything that happens on their watch?

Reagan was then solely responsible for the deep recession in the early 80's and the double digit unemployment that resulted from it? He was solely responsible for over 4 million jobs lost during the early years of his administration?

And W was solely responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the US and it is not true, as many right wingers have always liked to claim and continue to point out, that Clinton is at least partially to blame as he ignored warning signs of this growing threat after the first attack on the WTC?

Is that the essence of the point you're looking to make?

If Obama was not ready to hit the ground running, then he should not have sought the job. Bush's learning curve was rather shallow until 9/11, and even there, the situation made the man, not the other way around.

If Bush derailed the train, why is Obama still shovelling coal into the boiler?

You can't change the past. Obama would last about ten seconds on the battlefield, before someone stepped in, capped him, and took charge. The situation is that dire. If Obama won't lead, then opportunities will continue to pass him by, as they pretty much already have. America can not afford to have Pelosi, Reid, and Emmanual continue to do the job Obama was elected to do.

Many words and no answer to the issue of perspective. It's okay if the other guys do it but Obama can't point out that he's inherited the worst mess that any administration has inherited in decades. Why the double standard, brother? Why the expectation that this administration should deliver more than any other and faster?

The issue isn't that the administrations isn't doing anything - remember, they're actively destroying the country by deploying all the wrong policies if you were to believe the opposition. The issue isn't that the free fall of the economy hasn't been stopped - it has. The issue isn't that our standing in the world has not improved and that fences haven't been mended - they have. The issue isn't that important issues such as health care reform aren't being tackled with a very real chance of passing - they are.

The issue and the whining by the opponents of this administration is about the roads not being paved with gold yet. The issue is that the opponents of the administration set up unreasonable expectations that they then whine about not being met.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

To deny an administration - any administration - the opportunity to put it's actions into proper context is ridiculous. They don't operate in some vacuum but rather shape policy based on where we come from, where we are at any given point in time and where it intents to go from here. When you inherit an economy in free fall and then operate on an unreasonable expectation that the economy is to grow strongly within a few months of taking office, it apparently needs reminding the public what the situation was when you took office. For all those that haven't noticed or chose not to notice, the economy is no longer in free fall.

excellent post.

Pffft! That's why hippies are such big pussies and never get anything done.

So, every administration works in a vacuum and is solely responsible for everything that happens on their watch?

Reagan was then solely responsible for the deep recession in the early 80's and the double digit unemployment that resulted from it? He was solely responsible for over 4 million jobs lost during the early years of his administration?

And W was solely responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the US and it is not true, as many right wingers have always liked to claim and continue to point out, that Clinton is at least partially to blame as he ignored warning signs of this growing threat after the first attack on the WTC?

Is that the essence of the point you're looking to make?

If Obama was not ready to hit the ground running, then he should not have sought the job. Bush's learning curve was rather shallow until 9/11, and even there, the situation made the man, not the other way around.

If Bush derailed the train, why is Obama still shovelling coal into the boiler?

You can't change the past. Obama would last about ten seconds on the battlefield, before someone stepped in, capped him, and took charge. The situation is that dire. If Obama won't lead, then opportunities will continue to pass him by, as they pretty much already have. America can not afford to have Pelosi, Reid, and Emmanual continue to do the job Obama was elected to do.

Many words and no answer to the issue of perspective. It's okay if the other guys do it but Obama can't point out that he's inherited the worst mess that any administration has inherited in decades. Why the double standard, brother? Why the expectation that this administration should deliver more than any other and faster?

The issue isn't that the administrations isn't doing anything - remember, they're actively destroying the country by deploying all the wrong policies if you were to believe the opposition. The issue isn't that the free fall of the economy hasn't been stopped - it has. The issue isn't that our standing in the world has not improved and that fences haven't been mended - they have. The issue isn't that important issues such as health care reform aren't being tackled with a very real chance of passing - they are.

The issue and the whining by the opponents of this administration is about the roads not being paved with gold yet. The issue is that the opponents of the administration set up unreasonable expectations that they then whine about not being met.

What double standard? I don't play favorites. I don't accept excuses.

No, this administration is feckless. If the freefall has stopped, why does Congress continue to write checks on an overdrawn account, and why does the President continue to sign them? Kissing the arses of old world leaders is not solving any problems, just more pissing in the wind.

And Healthcare? You said it yourself. Single Payer is the only viable solution. We agree that these bills won't take us far enough to do anything useful, other than drive insurance costs up, make some folks richer, at the expense of the taxpayers, and put more bureaucrats between a patient and his/her doctor.

Fine. Take another hit on the pipe and sing "We Shall Overcome" with the rest of the socialists.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Lone Ranger

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

To deny an administration - any administration - the opportunity to put it's actions into proper context is ridiculous. They don't operate in some vacuum but rather shape policy based on where we come from, where we are at any given point in time and where it intents to go from here. When you inherit an economy in free fall and then operate on an unreasonable expectation that the economy is to grow strongly within a few months of taking office, it apparently needs reminding the public what the situation was when you took office. For all those that haven't noticed or chose not to notice, the economy is no longer in free fall.

excellent post.

Pffft! That's why hippies are such big pussies and never get anything done.

So, every administration works in a vacuum and is solely responsible for everything that happens on their watch?

Reagan was then solely responsible for the deep recession in the early 80's and the double digit unemployment that resulted from it? He was solely responsible for over 4 million jobs lost during the early years of his administration?

And W was solely responsible for the 9/11 attacks on the US and it is not true, as many right wingers have always liked to claim and continue to point out, that Clinton is at least partially to blame as he ignored warning signs of this growing threat after the first attack on the WTC?

Is that the essence of the point you're looking to make?

If Obama was not ready to hit the ground running, then he should not have sought the job. Bush's learning curve was rather shallow until 9/11, and even there, the situation made the man, not the other way around.

If Bush derailed the train, why is Obama still shovelling coal into the boiler?

You can't change the past. Obama would last about ten seconds on the battlefield, before someone stepped in, capped him, and took charge. The situation is that dire. If Obama won't lead, then opportunities will continue to pass him by, as they pretty much already have. America can not afford to have Pelosi, Reid, and Emmanual continue to do the job Obama was elected to do.

Many words and no answer to the issue of perspective. It's okay if the other guys do it but Obama can't point out that he's inherited the worst mess that any administration has inherited in decades. Why the double standard, brother? Why the expectation that this administration should deliver more than any other and faster?

The issue isn't that the administrations isn't doing anything - remember, they're actively destroying the country by deploying all the wrong policies if you were to believe the opposition. The issue isn't that the free fall of the economy hasn't been stopped - it has. The issue isn't that our standing in the world has not improved and that fences haven't been mended - they have. The issue isn't that important issues such as health care reform aren't being tackled with a very real chance of passing - they are.

The issue and the whining by the opponents of this administration is about the roads not being paved with gold yet. The issue is that the opponents of the administration set up unreasonable expectations that they then whine about not being met.

What double standard? I don't play favorites. I don't accept excuses.

No, this administration is feckless. If the freefall has stopped, why does Congress continue to write checks on an overdrawn account, and why does the President continue to sign them? Kissing the arses of old world leaders is not solving any problems, just more pissing in the wind.

And Healthcare? You said it yourself. Single Payer is the only viable solution. We agree that these bills won't take us far enough to do anything useful, other than drive insurance costs up, make some folks richer, at the expense of the taxpayers, and put more bureaucrats between a patient and his/her doctor.

Fine. Take another hit on the pipe and sing "We Shall Overcome" with the rest of the socialists.

I defined the double standard very clearly and it sure does exist whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

The economy is not shrinking anymore as I'm sure you are aware. The public spending will be reduced as private spending picks up. You know better than to suggest that you could just snap your finger and the public spending will stop and the economy will continue to go on at this point. Besides, there are infrastructure projects that are still to be built - those are investments rather than runaway spending. Give it some time, buddy. You're so fcuking American that nothing short of instant gratification will do, eh? Rome wasn't built in a day, you know?

Now, health care is something I am not entirely happy with - actually I'm quite unhappy with the watered down reform that is likely to pass. It's nowhere near the optimum but it sure is a heck of a lot better than the only viable alternative - which is what's been done over the last serveral decades - nothing. Where you produce the extra bureaucrats that will all of a sudden pop up between the patient and the doctor, I sure don't know. Pull those out of your hat or do you really see them. In case of the latter, I'd like some of whatever it is you're smoking.

[alienlovechild 75]

The issue isn't that our standing in the world has not improved and that fences haven't been mended - they have.

The issue and the whining by the opponents of this administration is about the roads not being paved with gold yet. The issue is that the opponents of the administration set up unreasonable expectations that they then whine about not being met.

Fences mended? Where? Obama's handling on the Afghan elections has been a disaster and he's clueless about what to do next.

The streets are paved with gold if you look at how much was spent to "create or save" some jobs. Obama and friends set themselves up for a fall with all the talk about how Obama was Mr. Yes We Can. Remember it's the opposition that said he'd fail.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The issue isn't that our standing in the world has not improved and that fences haven't been mended - they have.

The issue and the whining by the opponents of this administration is about the roads not being paved with gold yet. The issue is that the opponents of the administration set up unreasonable expectations that they then whine about not being met.

Fences mended? Where?

Switch off Fixed News from time to time and try to peruse some actual news media. Your worldview will improve greatly.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Now, health care is something I am not entirely happy with - actually I'm quite unhappy with the watered down reform that is likely to pass. It's nowhere near the optimum but it sure is a heck of a lot better than the only viable alternative - which is what's been done over the last serveral decades - nothing. Where you produce the extra bureaucrats that will all of a sudden pop up between the patient and the doctor, I sure don't know. Pull those out of your hat or do you really see them. In case of the latter, I'd like some of whatever it is you're smoking.

In case you were not paying attention (don't worry, not too many folks were), it is already law:

The President’s support of EHRs [electronic health records] catapulted previously landlocked congressional legislation onto the deck of the fast-moving stimulus bill. Known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the stimulus bill aims to create a new digital health nirvana in which federal dollars would be pumped into physician practices and hospitals (but not pharmacies) so that they can purchase off-the-shelf software systems that will become magically robust and, at long last, interoperable.

The ARRA has three general components:

•$19.2 billion in funding ($17.2 billion plus another $2 billion going to the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology)

•establishment of voluntary standards

•privacy provisions

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2697098/

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Now, health care is something I am not entirely happy with - actually I'm quite unhappy with the watered down reform that is likely to pass. It's nowhere near the optimum but it sure is a heck of a lot better than the only viable alternative - which is what's been done over the last serveral decades - nothing. Where you produce the extra bureaucrats that will all of a sudden pop up between the patient and the doctor, I sure don't know. Pull those out of your hat or do you really see them. In case of the latter, I'd like some of whatever it is you're smoking.

In case you were not paying attention (don't worry, not too many folks were), it is already law:

The President’s support of EHRs [electronic health records] catapulted previously landlocked congressional legislation onto the deck of the fast-moving stimulus bill. Known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the stimulus bill aims to create a new digital health nirvana in which federal dollars would be pumped into physician practices and hospitals (but not pharmacies) so that they can purchase off-the-shelf software systems that will become magically robust and, at long last, interoperable.

The ARRA has three general components:

•$19.2 billion in funding ($17.2 billion plus another $2 billion going to the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology)

•establishment of voluntary standards

•privacy provisions

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2697098/

I'm sorry. This is an article that begrudges the pharma industry being left out of the electronic health record effort - for now - and that might be a valid complaint. But I don't see how this effort which is geared towards improving efficiency in health record keeping and sharing and reducing duplicate procedures and tests proves the point of additional bureaucrats being pushed between the patient and the doctor.

Seriously, whatever you're on, I want some.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Now, health care is something I am not entirely happy with - actually I'm quite unhappy with the watered down reform that is likely to pass. It's nowhere near the optimum but it sure is a heck of a lot better than the only viable alternative - which is what's been done over the last serveral decades - nothing. Where you produce the extra bureaucrats that will all of a sudden pop up between the patient and the doctor, I sure don't know. Pull those out of your hat or do you really see them. In case of the latter, I'd like some of whatever it is you're smoking.

In case you were not paying attention (don't worry, not too many folks were), it is already law:

The President’s support of EHRs [electronic health records] catapulted previously landlocked congressional legislation onto the deck of the fast-moving stimulus bill. Known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the stimulus bill aims to create a new digital health nirvana in which federal dollars would be pumped into physician practices and hospitals (but not pharmacies) so that they can purchase off-the-shelf software systems that will become magically robust and, at long last, interoperable.

The ARRA has three general components:

•$19.2 billion in funding ($17.2 billion plus another $2 billion going to the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology)

•establishment of voluntary standards

•privacy provisions

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2697098/

I'm sorry. This is an article that begrudges the pharma industry being left out of the electronic health record effort - for now - and that might be a valid complaint. But I don't see how this effort which is geared towards improving efficiency in health record keeping and sharing and reducing duplicate procedures and tests proves the point of additional bureaucrats being pushed between the patient and the doctor.

Seriously, whatever you're on, I want some.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aLzfDxfbwhzs

You really were not paying attention back then, were you?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Now, health care is something I am not entirely happy with - actually I'm quite unhappy with the watered down reform that is likely to pass. It's nowhere near the optimum but it sure is a heck of a lot better than the only viable alternative - which is what's been done over the last serveral decades - nothing. Where you produce the extra bureaucrats that will all of a sudden pop up between the patient and the doctor, I sure don't know. Pull those out of your hat or do you really see them. In case of the latter, I'd like some of whatever it is you're smoking.

In case you were not paying attention (don't worry, not too many folks were), it is already law:

The President’s support of EHRs [electronic health records] catapulted previously landlocked congressional legislation onto the deck of the fast-moving stimulus bill. Known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the stimulus bill aims to create a new digital health nirvana in which federal dollars would be pumped into physician practices and hospitals (but not pharmacies) so that they can purchase off-the-shelf software systems that will become magically robust and, at long last, interoperable.

The ARRA has three general components:

•$19.2 billion in funding ($17.2 billion plus another $2 billion going to the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology)

•establishment of voluntary standards

•privacy provisions

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2697098/

I'm sorry. This is an article that begrudges the pharma industry being left out of the electronic health record effort - for now - and that might be a valid complaint. But I don't see how this effort which is geared towards improving efficiency in health record keeping and sharing and reducing duplicate procedures and tests proves the point of additional bureaucrats being pushed between the patient and the doctor.

Seriously, whatever you're on, I want some.

Commentary by Betsy McCaughey

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aLzfDxfbwhzs

You really were not paying attention back then, were you?

Actually, I was paying attention but you seem to have missed a lot. Otherwise, you would have noticed where this "evidence" you try to serve up here is actually coming from. Do you expect me - or any sane person, for that matter - to take as evidence of fact or in any other way seriously commentary offered by Betsy "Death Panels" McCaughey?

Nice try but:

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Betsy McCaughey...

[sly_wolf 199]

To deny an administration - any administration - the opportunity to put it's actions into proper context is ridiculous. They don't operate in some vacuum but rather shape policy based on where we come from, where we are at any given point in time and where it intents to go from here. When you inherit an economy in free fall and then operate on an unreasonable expectation that the economy is to grow strongly within a few months of taking office, it apparently needs reminding the public what the situation was when you took office. For all those that haven't noticed or chose not to notice, the economy is no longer in free fall.

Agreed. Many people have their heads so far up their a$$ that they constantly see nothing but sh_t.