Positive Obama supporter thread take 4

NoH8

Did the Obama's bring home a doggie bag from dinner? LOL. Good for them, they really are down to earth. I love how Michelle is falling into her role as first lady. I would love to see her take the route Hillary did and get into politics. She such a capable, strong, vibrant person and a great role model not jist for african american women, but for all women.

Achi- I really wish that the republicans on the hill would take an accounting course. I do wish they could switch places with some of my former clients for a week, including having a whole family sleeping in one bedroom. When people count not going out to eat or not taking a vacation is a hardship, they are out of touch. I would imagine that poor is relative and if the representatives come from weathier districts might not realize what some in the poorer districts encounter, blind and ignorant, as you say if they do know, out of touch if they don't. They should all see Diane Sawyer's documentary. I can't stop thinking about it.

Anonymous

Obama: 'I'm an optimist, not a sap'

by Clarence Page

ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE - If he was exhausted, he didn't show it.

Barack Obama had pushed to completion one of the most impressive, if lopsided, legislative triumphs in the first three weeks of any president in history.

Before he sat down with me and four other columnists late Friday afternoon on his first trip back home to Chicago aboard Air Force One, the House approved his $787 billion economic stimulus package.

(For a closer look at the Obama family's trip home aboard the world's most famous jetliner, see my blog, Page's Page later today.)

Despite vigorous outreach that included a bipartisan Super Bowl party at the White House, no Republicans voted for it, just as none approved its earlier version that cleared the chamber in January.

And while Obama chatted with us in the luxuriously furnished military version of a Boeing 747 somewhere over 30,000 feet the Senate began a vote that would approve the package with support from only three Republican senators.

Drama for Obama? No problem. He stepped into the conference room of the presidential jet as unruffled as a no-iron shirt.

During almost an hour-long chat, much of the time was filled with our pressing different versions of the same question: What have your first three weeks on the job taught you?

Not to be seen was the self-effacing candor that had led him to say "I screwed up" after backing a cabinet nominee who had to withdrew under a cloud of tax troubles.

And the Republican rebuke of his stimulus package, despite his energetic outreach efforts, may have taught him to define bipartisan as a change of tone, not by the number of Republican votes he won. But he didn't say that either.

No, after a few minutes of explaining the economic thinking and long-range policy aims of his stimulus package, he used the question to congratulate his "great team" of allies and experts who made it possible.

"In terms of what I've learned on the politics of it," he said, "I think what I've learned is that I've got a great team because we moved a very big piece of legislation through Congress in record time."

His bragging rights were easily justified. You'd have to go back to Lyndon B. Johnson in the 1960s or Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s to find a more sweeping, more expensive and more quickly enacted package of what Republicans call "new spending" and Democrats call "new investments."

"And that was not easy to do."

No, it wasn't. Not even when the vote fell almost totally along party lines, despite sacrifices by the Democratic majority of about $100 billion of pet Democratic projects and programs.

"And I think the end product is not a hundred percent of what we would want, but it is a very good start on moving things forward."

As for bipartisanship? "I made every effort to reach out to Republicans early to get their input and to get their buy-in," Obama said. "I think that there were some senators and House members who have a sincere philosophical difference with the idea of any government role in boosting demand in the economy. They don't believe in (John Maynard) Keynes and they're still fighting FDR.... I think we can disagree without being disagreeable on that front."

In other words, the president appears to have found that, given a choice, members of America's conservative major party tend to vote like conservatives.

"I also think that there was a decision made that was political and tactical on their part where they said, 'You know what, if we can enforce conformity among our ranks then it will invigorate our base and will potentially give us some political advantage, either short term or long term,' " Obama said. "And whether that's a smart strategy, I think you should ask them."

And it is not hard to imagine what they would say.

"The last point I would make, though, is that given the urgency of the situation right now, my consistent goal throughout this process is: Are we getting the most immediate, most effective relief possible to American families who are losing their jobs, losing their homes, losing their health care?," he said. "I welcome Republican participation in that process, but ultimately I'm answerable to the American people. And my determination was to get it done, and I think that we're going to get it done."

Obama is the third president in a row to come to Washington promising to bring more bipartisanship, then fail to close the deal. Did he make a mistake? Should he have defined bipartisanship as warmed relations between the parties instead of actually winning Republican votes? Obama did not say.

But he did say that he thought the GOP party-line vote was a fait accompli long before it was taken. "Look," he said, "once a decision was made by the Republican leadership to have a party-line vote -- a decision that I think occurred before I met with them -- then I'm not sure that there was a whole host of things that we were going to do that was going to make a difference.

"But again, my bottom line was not how pretty the process was; my bottom line was am I getting help to people who need it."

"Going forward, each and every time we've got an initiative I'm going to go to both Democrats and Republicans and I'm going to say, here's my best argument for why we need to do this."

Asked whether his experience had changed his expectations of winnable Republican support or how he might win it, he responded sagely. "You know, I am an eternal optimist," he said. "That doesn't mean I'm a sap."

As our laughter subsided, he described his goal? "Assume the best, but prepare for a whole range of different possibilities."

That's not an original thought, but it's durable.

Asked if he foresees a time when more drastic action might be required to save the financial markets, like the Japan or Swedish models, Obama explored the positives and negatives of each. Japan failed to intervene forcefully enough in the 1990s- "they sort of paper things over and never really bit the bullet"--and fell into an economic "lost decade."

Like many economists on the left, Obama found a "good argument" in Sweden's model, which temporarily nationalized its failed banks, then sold them off one-by-one. But here, too, he found a big problem: "They only had a handful of banks; we've got thousands of banks. The scale, the magnitude, of what we're dealing with is much bigger."

"But here's the bottom line," he said. "We will do what works."

Later he elaborated, "I think what you can say is, I will not allow our financial system to collapse. And we are going to do whatever is required to get credit flowing again so that companies and consumers can do their business and we can get this economy back on track."

With today's economic storm looking as though it's going to get worse -- before it might get even worse - he'd better keep his options open.

unique

OK, here ya go! If you can't see it, go to the link below for the whole thing or drag it to your desktop, it's actually twice as large as you see it here.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms#Related_graphs

unique

I did sneak into the Republican's board, and am proud to say I didn't post a single word.

They were talking about the mentally disabled and how they are able to keep a job doing something, anything, and aren't looking for a handout. What astounds me is none of them seems aware that busing carts in the supermarket lot, as admirable as it may be as a contribution, will hardly earn a mentally disabled person a living with health insurance. They will still need a handout because they cannot usually earn a living. Either they will live at home with their parents or they will need some kind of stipend.

They are soooooo out of touch, but the crazy thing is it isn't just the wealthy that are out of touch with reality, but also many who are barely scraping by. They do get government help, yet insist on believing in the neo-Con reality. I really don't understand their thinking. I am thinking of several friends here - I live in Pennsylvania outside of Philly and Pittsburgh, where it's really half and half Dem and GOP. So I have friends in both parties. I almost quit my GOP friends after the 2004 election, but decided to stick in there a la Obama. There's a friend, a lovely Christian lady, who gets CHIP for her kids who don't have medical insurance, she doesn't have medical insurance for herself, but she'll always vote Republican. I just don't get it, really.

NoH8

I am always perplexed why many poor people continually vote against their economic interests. I can certainly understand those who can afford to vote against their economic interests doing so, because it's merely the difference between more money, but when the poor do I think we're just not getting the message across.  I absolutely abhor the term "handout" welfare isn't charity, it's what we give to our fellow citizens to provide them with the bare minimun. Other countries do far more for their economically disenfranchised without the advantaged demeaning them. There really are two americas, at least 2, maybe more.

HopingforaCure

Good Morning, Obama supporters.  Ya know, "they'll" never get us, just as we don't understand them.  I think, especially, the more extreme one is to one side, it's harder to come to the middle, not to mention when you mix in emotions (which can often being illogical).  I used to be very middle of the road, but during the Bush years, starting leaning more left.  The fact that we have Obama as president now and a Democratic congress, I am hopeful and trying to be positive and rational and patient.  I know there will be things that I don't agree with, but that's okay.  On one of the morning shows today, Bill Clinton described the stimulus package as a "Bridge over Troubled Water."  Times are tough out there.  Anyone who thinks it will be an overnight fix is in for a letdown..........................still have the morning show on--someone just made a good point--talking about how we make snap judgements today.  He said FDR got 100 days, but we're only giving Obama 100 hours. 

Happy President's Day! 

NoH8

Hoping-- one of the republican talking heads, maybe Graham said that Obama has failed in his first three months? Huh? Three MONTHS? I realize that with Obama vs. Bush, it's the difference between the the electronic and stone ages, but come on, give the guy a break! Obama is going to need more than 100 days to judge his success, because of the dire straits we're in economically. Once he signs the stimulus package, things won't magically get better the following day. I think most people realize this, although the republicans who are against Obama rather than for the country, will pounce on every down day on the Dow. I think it's probably difficult for those in the most dire day to day situations to be patient, than those who are worried about their investments.

HopingforaCure

OiP (Amy)--I hear ya about the most dire and how it's hard to be patient when so many are close to foreclosure or have faced/are facing job losses.  We need this stimulus package now. And I agree, we need more than 100 days before we judge Obama's success.

Anonymous

i often take a contrarian view in the markets and was pleased wall street is not happy with geitners plans. he is not going to let the banks off easy, imo.

i was so surprised to hear graham talking about nationalizing banks yesterday, where is that smaller government mantra the gop is so famous for?

looking forward to seeing the stimulus package get into motion.

i was happy to see obama got in some basketball time in chicago...:)

NoH8

Maddy, you're right about the dow not being the best barometer for the economy. I'll bet lots of people don't even know what the dow is, not to mention how much of the nasdaq and dow rely on the psychology of the economy.

Obama is set to make an announcement about troups in Afghanistan.  He's really on his toes, not letting time rest between one major bill and another important policy for our country. I feel so safe and comfortable with him as president.

NoH8

Great news!

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Lawyer_Rove_wont_take_Fifth_if_0216.html

Rove not covered by executive privilege in political prosecution case, lawyer says 

Lawyer: Rove won't take the Fifth if he testifies

Representatives of the Bush White House are no longer advising former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove that he is protected by executive privilege as regards testimony about the alleged political prosecution of an Alabama governor.

In an exchange with Raw Story, Rove's Washington, D.C. attorney, Robert Luskin, also said Rove won't invoke his Fifth Amendment right to protect himself from self-incrimination, if and when he testifies about the firing of nine US Attorneys and the prosecution of the former governor.

There's "been speculation that he would decline to answer questions on Fifth Amendment grounds," Luskin said. "That's a personal privilege; he will not assert it."

Asked if he had a comment on Sen. Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) proposed "truth commission," in which Bush officials would be offered immunity in exchange for testimony, Luskin said, "No."

Last year, the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Rove to testify about his knowledge concerning the prosecution of former Democratic Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, which they alleged was carried out political grounds after a whistleblower said Rove had a hand in seeking the prosecution. In 2007, Rove was subpoenaed by the Senate about the firing of nine US Attorneys.

Both times, the Bush Administration asserted that Rove was protected by executive privilege; both times, Rove did not appear. Now, with a newly-installed Democratic president, the ice under Rove appears to have thinned.

Rove was subpoenaed in January and again last week by House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI). He has been told to appear Feb. 23 for a congressional deposition.

Though it remains unclear what form Rove's cooperation with Congress and Justice Department investigators - who continue to probe the US Attorney firings and the Siegelman case - might take, it seems increasingly likely that Rove will testify to Congress in some way. Luskin said last Thursday that no agreement had yet been reached with the committee.

Last year, Rove offered to speak in private to House Judiciary Committee investigators about the Siegelman case. He has said repeatedly that he had no involvement in the corruption prosecution mounted by a Bush-appointed US Attorney that critics say was motivated by politics. He refused, however, to testify under oath or in public, and the Committee balked.

Luskin says Rove's previous stance was based on advice from the Bush White House but that Bush representatives are no longer advising him on the matter.

"The only basis that Rove has ever declined to appear has been the White House claim of immunity for senior advisors to the president and executive privilege," Luskin said. "I do think that it's clearer now that the Siegelman matter falls outside the scope of the former claim and, on that basis, I offered to have Rove appear on this matter."

"Previously, as to the Siegelman matter, the White House was involved in the discussions about what form Rove's cooperation might take, hence the discussions about interviews, not public testimony, et cetera," he said in an earlier exchange. "Rove's most recent guidance from the White House did not express any limitations."

Today, "I do not think there are any limitations on potential testimony about Siegelman," Luskin added. "The circumstances - public testimony, deposition, under oath or not - would be up to the committee."

That said, Luskin refused to commit his client to testifying publicly or under oath.

"My circumspection now about what form Rove's cooperation might take regarding Siegelman comes from a desire not to say anything publicly that might prejudice opportunities to reach a constructive resolution with the committee," he said. "Rove is already on the record regarding the Siegelman allegations - they are wholly without merit - and he would obviously like to put this to rest."

He added, "We're continuing to engage in constructive discussions with the committee to that end, and I'd hesitate to speculate about what form Rove's cooperation might ultimately take."

A House Judiciary Committee spokesman declined to comment. The Committee wrote in a letter to Luskin last week that they wouldn't accept testimony on Siegelman alone, saying that witnesses didn't get to dictate terms.

Siegelman was convicted in 2006 on bribery charges stemming from accusations that in 1999 former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy had donated to a political fund that was lobbying for Siegelman's lottery plan in exchange for being appointed to a key medical licensing board.

He was released on bail last April, after a series of investigations into allegations that his prosecution had been politically motivated. At that time, one Republican whistleblower named Rove as having had a hand in pushing for the prosecution.

The charges against Siegelman were brought by US Attorney Leura Canary, who had been appointed by President Bush in 2001. Her husband, Bill Canary, was a veteran GOP operative who had worked in partnership with Rove on numerous Alabama campaigns in the 1990's, as well as for the Republican challenger who had defeated Siegelman in Alabama's 2002 gubernatorial race.

I hope Rove remembers that just because Scooter didn't go to jail, doesn't mean perjury is ok or that if Rove perjures himself, he won't go to jail.

HopingforaCure

By the way, just wanted to add a:

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Anonymous

don't have any art but i do have a big woohoo..:)))

woooooooooooooooooohoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

HopingforaCure

If you get a chance, check out Bill Clinton's interview on CNN. 

AnnNYC

HopingforaCure, I LOVE that cartoon!!!!

mke

HopingforaCure  you should change your name to "Hoopingforacure"

HopingforaCure

MKE--lol.  Hey whatever it takes.  Hoping, hooping, praying, fund raising.... ; ). 

It's been fun hanging out on the boards today.  Back to work tomorrow, though. 

 

Woooooooooooooohooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

sccruiser

And a big wooooooooooooooooooo-hoooooooooooooooooooooooo! to Obama.

He totally rocks!

Love the cartoons today, and the sweet pic of President Obama and his lovely First Lady, Michelle.They sure make a beautiful couple. I'm glad they have some time to spend with each other.

They are going to get this country moving again, with or without Republican bipartisanship. The train is leaving the station, and it's all aboard! If the Repubs don't get their ticket and get on the train, they will be left behind, with their old ways and their old policies that don't work!!

I just hope they (the repubs in Congress) it soon. We need everyone to unite together and help to "fix" what Bush and his cronies "broke" in 8 years. I hope Americans wake up and vote some of these old codgers out of office in 2010. It's time to clean house. We need fresh ideas and new thoughts. The last 8 years proved that.

Have a fantastic day! 

LAphoenix

Great pics and cartoons, ladies.  Here's a Newsweek article about the Obamas.  I thought it was appropriate on this Valentine and President's Day holiday weekend!  (I learned a new word reading it--millennials.)

Kanye West is a tough act to follow-unless you are a middle-aged couple slow dancing to tuba music. It's unlikely that anyone watching last month's Youth Inaugural Ball on TV noticed much difference between how the crowd of millennials welcomed the Louis Vuitton don and how they reacted, a few minutes later, when Barack and Michelle Obama took the stage. But if you were actually in the audience-like me, and my eardrums-the change was impossible to ignore. The young people screamed. The young people sighed. Several young people even began to weep. "I hope my husband looks at me like that someday," said one girl. When the song stopped, Obama leaned into the mike. "That's what's called 'old school'," he cracked. The new-school crowd responded like a bunch of banshees.

At the time, I attributed the scene to inauguration-induced hysteria. But since Jan. 20, a dozen peers have confirmed that what I witnessed in Washington wasn't a fluke. "Yeah," a friend admitted. "I'm totally obsessed with the two of them together." Which got me thinking: have the president and his wife become for 20-somethings what the stars of "Twilight" are for tweens-the swooniest couple around? And if so, what does that say about us?

My hunch is that millennials are going gaga over Barack and Michelle because they want to be Barack and Michelle. It's not that other generations can't admire the Obamas' bond; their marriage-a union of self-sufficient equals-embodies the post-'60s ideal. But unlike their elders, most millennials have yet to experience marriage firsthand, and what they've experienced by proxy hasn't been particularly encouraging: a 50 percent divorce rate, a steep rise in single parenthood, a culture captivated by cheap celebrity hookups. Even America's most visible household hasn't offered much hope, veering from '50s-era subservience (the Reagans) to boomer dysfunction (the Clintons). But now the Obamas-two independent individuals who also appear to be (surprise!) in love-have filled the void. For young people who have rejected the tired "wife in the kitchen" template but resolved not to follow their parents to divorce court, it's a relief to see that the sort of marriage they hope to have-equal and devoted-can actually exist.

Recent studies show that millennials are approaching the altar more cautiously than their forebears. Thirty years ago, the average American woman wed at 20 and gave birth by 22. Now the median age for both is 25. Why the shift? Sociologists say that an increased desire to establish a personal and professional identity before settling down-especially among women-has prolonged the period between college and adulthood. The result is that millennials as a whole are more likely than their predecessors to be self-reliant individuals when they finally do wed-and less willing to marry for reasons (such as financial stability or social pressure) other than love.

The first couple reflects this new reality. After college both Michelle and Barack spent years focusing on personal and professional advancement, waiting until they were 28 and 31, respectively, to tie the knot-a reassuring model for millennials who worry that "putting themselves first" could mean they'll end up alone. But more important is the egalitarian relationship the Obamas have maintained since marrying. When the two met in 1991 at a Chicago law firm, Barack was a summer associate; Michelle was his mentor. Until recently her résumé (mayoral assistant, nonprofit exec, hospital veep) was more impressive than his, as was her six-figure salary. And while Michelle sacrificed for Barack's bid, she did so only after establishing an identity outside of the relationship-and authority within it. In Illinois, Barack told friends he "would never [cheat]. Michelle would kick my butt." Afraid of emulating his absentee father, he'd often nix meetings because he was unwilling to "miss ... bedtime for this." At home, Obama has practiced the same consensus-driven process he preaches on the stump-a process that resonates with pragmatic millennials. His marriage is as "post-boomer" as his management style.

But ultimately I think it's the Obamas' willingness to act in public much how they act in private-open, informal, flirtatious-that has incited most of the swooning. At the Youth Ball, I noticed the president do something that's impossible to imagine any of his predecessors doing: resting his head, eyes closed, on Michelle's shoulder. It reminded me of other times Obama has let himself seem vulnerable, even submissive. When his wife told fans that he wakes up "snorey and stinky." When, in "The Audacity of Hope," he described Michelle ordering him to run errands after he'd called to crow about a Senate victory: "I ... wonder[ed] if Ted Kennedy or John McCain bought ant traps on the way home." And when, in a newly published 1996 interview, he explained that "it's [the] tension between familiarity and mystery that makes for something strong, because, even as you build a life of ... mutual support, you retain some sense of surprise or wonder about the other person." These unguarded moments once led Slate's Melinda Henneberger to ask "whether a husband who not only bows to his wife but admits it conforms to our notion of ... strength." For millennials inspired by the first couple's modern marriage-a group that sees greater strength in celebrating domestic equality than concealing it-the answer is apparently yes. After all, anything less would be, like, totally old school.

Anonymous

Laughing out loud at hoopingforacure!

I heard someone on television say this and I loved it.  "If the Republicans don't want to help solve the problem, then they are the problem."  They got us here and should be willing to work together to get us to a better place. 

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Change is here and it sure feels good.

Achi

Anonymous

lap - millennials was a big word during the election. as most pollsters had to change their ways of polling folks with landlines, the stats proved that a very small number of millennials had landlines, cell phones only, as the campaiign wore on, most pollsters adapted.

i am laughing also at hooping for a cure ...love it. so true the picture says it all.

so good to see ya grace and since there is no gggggggggg here i am going to say this in her honor...

baROCK our world, President Obama!

woooooooooooohoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

NoH8

 Hooping for a cure is a good one! I'm sure Obama would approve!

LAP- Great article! The Obamas are such a great couple and family. We can be so proud to have them in our White House. I love the way Obama jokes with her in a self depricating way.

grace- good to see ya, how have you been?

Did you guys see Dan Akroyd on SNL this weekend? He's so good, though the show hasn't been as funny since Tina Fey and Amy Poeller were on doing their spot on impressionations.

NoH8

Looks like the economic news isn't all bad.

The need for bankrupcy protection couldn't  happen to a more deserving person.

Donald Trump's Casino Company Files For Bankruptcy ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. - The three Atlantic City casinos once run by Donald Trump filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Tuesday _ for the third time.

Trump Entertainment Resorts made the filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Camden, N.J., four days after the real estate mogul whose name remains on the company and its three seaside gambling resorts resigned as chairman of the board.

Trump was frustrated that bond holders and their allies on the board rebuffed his offer to buy the company and take it private.

"Other than the fact that it has my name on it _ which I'm not thrilled about _ I have nothing to do with the company," Trump told The Associated Press Tuesday morning.

He acknowledged being sad over the end of a venture that was so publicly and relentlessly associated with his name and image. Yet he said the company "represents substantially less than 1 percent of my net worth, and has for some time."

"If I can't manage something, it's not for me," Trump said.

All three of the company's casinos will continue to operate as usual during the bankruptcy proceedings.

It marked the third time that the three Trump casinos have filed for Chapter 11 protection. That is uncommon in American business, according to Harlan Platt, a professor and bankruptcy expert at Northeastern University in Boston, who has followed Trump's casino bankruptcies for decades.

"Chapter 33! Wow! That's rare," he quipped.

"Mr. Trump has a way of doing business which was perfectly aligned with American capitalism over the last 20 years, but will probably be misaligned in the future," Platt said. "He has lots of leverage and a tendency to make very bold bets, " Platt said.

At least 10 other companies, including airlines, steel makers and grocery store chains, have filed for bankruptcy three times, according to an Associated Press review.

The casino company's current incarnation, Trump Entertainment Resorts, was born of a prior trip through bankruptcy that ended in 2005.

Debt that was still left over from that restructuring was exacerbated by the economic meltdown and cutthroat competition from slots parlors in Pennsylvania and New York that have been hammering Atlantic City for more than two years.

The company has $1.74 billion in total debt and $2.06 billion in assets, according to the court filing.

"It was the only option left to us," said Mark Juliano, the company's CEO. "We will work to get it restructured and come out of this with an appropriate amount of leverage."

The casino company owns three Atlantic City casinos but is in the process of selling the Trump Marina Hotel Casino. Its two other properties are the Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort, and the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino.

Juliano said the bankruptcy filing will have no effect on the planned sale in the spring of Trump Marina to a company led by Richard Fields, a former protege of Donald Trump.

In the meantime, Juliano stressed that all three Trump casinos will be open for business as usual, and customer loyalty programs will remain in effect.

"This is a restructuring, not a liquidation," he said. "Vendors and employees will be paid, customers will have winning bets paid."

He said the company is not seeking debtor-in-possession financing, and has enough cash on hand to fund its current operations.

The company skipped a biannual $53.1 million payment to bond holders that had been due last Dec. 1, and started negotiating with them on a refinancing of $1.25 billion in debt. Those talks had been extended four times before ending with Tuesday's bankruptcy filing.

Trump acknowledged the company has limited rights to use his name, but hinted he may seek legal action to force them to stop using it.

His daughter, Ivanka, whose image has been increasingly used to market the casinos, also resigned from the board last Friday.

I feel bad when good wealthy people like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates lose money, because they give so much to charity. I love how Buffet forked over a billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation for their global health initiative. I can really see how unfair life is to those who happen, through not fault of their own, to be born into areas of the world where health care is virtually nonexistant.  Their donations and initiatives can do so much through vaccinations and providing other preventative services.

NoH8

The republicans on the hill are making a mistake by refusing to participate in bipartisan negotiations and spinning the scenario as the dem's are the ones who aren't playing fair. When most republican governors and mayors are on board with the stimulus package, the true obstructionists are pretty obvious. I hope state representatives realize that deeming the stimulus to fail is not in the country's best interest, and probably isn't even in their own best political interest.  They need to take a chill pill and try to understand the Gestalt concept of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. No one was going to write a perfect stimuls package that everyone agreed with every part aspect. That's just not realisitic in a country of over 300 million people. I appreciate when Obama said that everyone was going to have to sacrifice. Bush should have said that when before we invaded Iraq. If he hadn't given the rich so many tax breaks, perhaps the situation wouldn't be as dire right now. No president before him gave tax breaks to the wealthy during a time of war, an unfunded war at that. Had Bush had been more responsible with finances, or if he had been more responsible in not invading Iraq based on lies, things may be different now. It's inexcusable that Bush wasn't more fiscally responsible and didn't call for sacrifices.

LAphoenix

Telling article, Mad.  Governors and mayors are answerable to real-world constituents--firefighters, police, nurse, teachers, et al--whereas D.C. politicians are much more insulated.  That's why so many of them end up tone-deaf I guess.  Too much K Street and not enough Main Street.  I think the GOP is still scrambling to figure out how to react to Obama, especially as the polls continue to show that Americans see him as much more bipartisan than the GOP.  Their current "just say no" strategy is a real gamble.

So Pat Robertson is lambasting Rush for hoping that Obama fails.  Good for him!  Actually what I think he said is, hoping Obama and the country fail isn't "rational."  That's a more rational statement than I would have ever given Robertson credit for!     

gpawelski

Stimulus plan would pour millions into healthcare

$21 billion to provide a 60% subsidy of health care insurance premiums for the unemployed under the COBRA program; $87 billion to help states with Medicaid; $19 billion to modernize health information technology systems; $10 billion for health research and construction of National Institutes of Health facilities.

One aspect of the monies was to fund a comparative-effectiveness program to assess whether or not treatments (mostly the newer targeted regimens) are really better than older treatments. Decisions are being made about what cancer treatments patients can actually afford.

Comparative research is not rationing health care. The research funding doled out in the recent Stimulus Package would go to the National Institute of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to focus on producing the best unbiased science possible.

Comparative research has the potential to tell us which drugs and treatments are safe, and which ones work. This is not information that the private sector will generate on its own, or that the "industry" wants to share. Companies want to control the data, how it is reviewed, evaluated, and whether the public and government find out about it and use it. Just about the way they are controlling data now.

Comparative-effectiveness research is not something for patients to be afraid of. It can help doctors and patients, through research, studies and comparisons, undertand which drugs, therapies and treatments work and which don't. Nothing in the legislation will have the government monitoring treatments in order to guide your doctor's decisions. Doctors will still have the ultimate decision, along with the patient.

Yet as anyone with even a passing familiarity with the medical science and medical economics literature understands, comparisons are rarely black and white. Most medical technologies only help a fraction of patients. Most medical technologies have some risks associated with their use. Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis is an important tool for accurately evaluating those benefits and risks.

Another aspect of the monies is the funding for health information technology in the recovery package is projected to create over 200,000 jobs and a down-payment on broader health care reform. Converting an antiquated paper system to a computer system by making the health care system more efficient.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that one-third of $2 trillion spent annually on health care in America may be unnecessary due to inefficiencies in the old system such as exessive paperwork. Investing in infrastructure like Health IT would help improve the quality of America's health care.

Currently, fewer than 25% of hospitals and fewer than 20% of doctor's offices employ health information technology systems. Researchers have found that implementing Health IT would result in a mean annual savings of $40 billion over a 15-year period by improving health outcomes through care management, increasing efficiency and reducing medical errors.

Investing in Health IT would also help primary care physicians who often bear the brunt of tech implementation without seeing immediate benefits, affording the infrastructure for expanison. Some PCPs are ahead of the IT curve but cannot afford the richness of its expansion. They need this important infrastructure.

NoH8

 The stimulus plan is already working!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2009/02/16/daily18.html

Missouri bridge is first project to break ground with stimulus money

Kansas City Business Journal

A Missouri transportation project has the distinction of being the first in the nation to break ground using financing from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which President Obama signed into law Tuesday.

The $8.5 million project will replace the Osage River Bridge on Route 17 one mile east of Tuscumbia, in central Missouri near Lake Ozark.

Shane Peck, community relations director for the Missouri Department of Transportation, said the project - which will be fully financed by the federal government - is scheduled for completion sometime in 2010.

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials confirmed that the project is the nation's first to break ground using money from the new legislation, Peck said.

This Missouri first joins one in Kansas, where a stretch of Interstate 70 just west of Topeka was the first part of the interstate highway system to open after President Eisenhower signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act on June 29, 1956, according to the Kansas Department of Transportation's Web site.

LAP- Robertson actually said that? I'm pleasantly shocked to hear that he's not spewing Rush's the distruction of America's economy in the pursuit of gains for his political party. I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day! LOL

LAphoenix

Wow, now that's what I call a "spade ready" project, Amy.

gpaw: great commentary.  Unfortunately the COBRA part of the bill now applies only to people laid off after October 08.  That was a last-minute change the conservatives pushed for.  Well, maybe some of the longterm unemployed can get one of those 200,000 IT jobs.  But I think it's all good news for cancer research and treatment. 

Yes, Amy, Pat Robertson really said that!  Hard to believe, I know.  On the other hand, crazy lady Michelle Bachmann did a GOP "best of" list today.  Amazing how many lies and inananities she managed to get into one short TV appearance:

ACORN is "under federal indictment for voter fraud," but the stimulus bill nevertheless gives ACORN "$5 billion." (In reality, ACORN is not under federal indictment and isn't mentioned in the stimulus bill at all.)

* many members of Congress have "a real aversion to capitalism."

* the stimulus bill includes a measure to create a "rationing board" for health care, and after the bill becomes law, "your doctor will no longer be able to make your healthcare decisions with you."

* the recovery package is part of a Democratic conspiracy to "direct" funding away from Republican districts, so Democratic districts can "suck up" all federal funds. Bachmann doesn't think this will work because, as she put it, "We're running out of rich people in this country."

* the "Community-Organizer-in-Chief" is also orchestrating a conspiracy involving the Census Bureau, which the president will use to redraw congressional lines to keep Democrats in power for up to "40 years." When the host said he was confused, noting that congressional district lines are drawn at the state level, Bachmann said Obama's non-existent plan is an "anti-constitutional move.   

You know, I'd LOVE to see Obama and Bachmann compete in a U.S. Constitution contest. 

AnnNYC

gpawelski,

Thank you so much for your post.

"Comparative effectiveness" studies are really important.

If all drug testing is left in the hands of drug companies, they will NOT sponsor tests to see if an older generic drug is comparable or superior to a new, proprietary drug that will make them a lot more money.

This 2004 article in the New York Times about comparative tests is still interesting.

Here's a brief quote:

But sometimes, the newer, more expensive medications do not work better than older, cheaper ones.

For instance, Celebrex and Bextra, painkillers from Pfizer, cost as much as $4 a pill and have become among the most popular medicines in the world. Pfizer markets the drugs as easier on the stomach than older anti-inflammatory medications. But that benefit has not been demonstrated conclusively for either drug, and Pfizer acknowledges that neither soothes pain any better than ibuprofen, an older medicine that costs about 20 cents a pill.

Anonymous

Did you all here the round of applause when Obama signed the Bill?  I heard it on the radio and definitely made me smile.  I'm finding your discussion about health particularly interesting since there seems to be a lot of Republicans doing the "fear" thing.  I agree,  Comparative-reflective research is a good thing and not something to be afraid of. 

I have to say, these are the things we should be talking about instead of how many times Obama uses AF1.  We have some serious issues going on in this country and we should ALL be putting our heads together to figure out a solution.  The whining by all those Republican Senators and Congressmen and women needs to stop.  They need to step up to the plate because we can do this together!  And if they don't well then we will just do it without them.

WHOOOOOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOO - - - - Change is here and it sure feels good.

Achi