Providing access is an important indicator of quality, surely you will agree. If you want additional cost savings you can pass another (more socialist!) bill in addition. Stuff like allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices and establishing a nation-wide pool come 2014 would seem to fit right in. But i'm not sure why the current law needs to be scrapped, indeed that will just make the situation worse.
Does that mean you support the waivers or oppose them? I mean the if the bill is a sham then the waivers are good, but the waivers were given by the administration, which is also a sham, so the waivers are no good. Your really confused here aren't you?
Even Jerome, who was fairly active at the time, knows this is false:
After a public outcry against bailing out the big banks, Congress voted down the bailout bill by a vote of 205-222 on September 29, 2008. It was later passed in the House and Senate the following January.
TARP was passed by the Senate on Oct 1 and by the House on Oct 3 and was signed into law on the same day. Most of the TARP money was disbursed in October itself.
Federal Reserve Loans are not tax-payer money. Rather they are the banks own monies which they deposit with the Fed, which is then lent out by the Fed. If the banks are unable to pay back these loans (for which they provide collateral anyway), it's no biggie for the tax-payer at any rate. Worst case scenario the Fed will make a smaller profit which they won't be able to pay to the treasury like they have been doing all these years.
What difference did the Left/Right dynamic make? Almost none whatsoever.
I'll only respond to this one particular point. That statement is not true from any objective results oriented view. We can examine the facts as they played out.
Both Obama and Bush proposed a budgetary stimulus to help the economy. Bush's failed - leading to or failing to prevent an even worse economic disaster. Obama's largely succeeded in halting the decline and beginning the reverse.
Both Obama and Bush "bailed out" the auto manufacturers - The Bush plan failed and the companies teetered on the brink of insolvency, the Obama plan succeeded and tax payers are likely to recoup their investment in the companies in a short while.
Obama inherited TARP from Bush, but while under Bush losses were expected to be over 1/2 of the program, under Obama it's all going to be pretty much repaid, other than those bits used for home-owner assistance.
There are undoubtably numerous other cases in which "change" has been made. Would we have gotten student loan reform or Medicaid and CHIP expansion under Bush/McCain. Not on your life. So there are actual real world differences. I understand that as far as playing politics goes it may not be enough.
Calling this theory a "new dynamic" or paradigm is false. These kinds of complaints - people vs the powerful is a very common complaint among populist causes. I'm pretty sure if we look back 15 or 30 or 50 years we will see similar articles been written.
It existed, but was shut down in the early 90's, and verified as such by inspectors at the time (uptil '98). And was further documented by the Iraq Survey Group. If your saying Iraq still had a clandestine nuclear weapons program during the 90's - that's a lie, like many others.
That's why the IAEA labelled it as a "question". Not fact. Bit silly to authorize a war over a question. Not to even mention the "clear and immediate danger" criteria that is supposed to be used.
Your missing the forest for the trees. The manner is which decisions are taken are deliberate and deliberative with all sides (and everyone has differing opinions) well aware of the gravity of the decisions being made.
That's quite the contrast from before and is what I meant by saying "cautious". Caution is ofcourse not a pseudonym for timidity or inactions.