All you have to do to embrace this outcome is to belive in the Laffer Curve. And after all, hasn't it wirked swimmingly for the last ten years?

He is a disaster. I think not inviting Mitch to 1600 Penn Ave for a visit (took almost a year) was a huge mistake. You can blame Nancy Pelosi & that scum Reid for putting this very naive President under the ether for almost two years. Obamas focus should have been JOBS from day one. He sidetracked himself with that stupid health care abortion. He is a one term President. Only if Sarah Palin is the nominee will he win.

Meet the new boss, same as the last boss.

The teleprompter reader is a Hood Ornament!

I haven't seen anybody taking a dive this obvious since, well, John Kerry in 2004.

Bush is still president according to the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/us/politics/06cong.html?exprod=myyahoo

Those who whistled past the graveyard last year have a new tune.

Here is a balancing prediction for you: a strong economic recovery in 2011-2012 will sweep Obama back into office for a second term. This tax deal may not be the best economic stimulus, but it's big. And much of it -- the FICA holiday and the unemployment insurance in particular -- will have a good multiplier effect and will be felt immediately.

We hoped and prayed that he would be the man of the hour. He is not. I identify with George Soros who said that he is used to fighting losing battles but not used to losing without fighting.

A weak President and a weak Senate majority makes for an imperfect storm. Now is the time for a Bernie Sanders to filibuster. I have given up on the Senate and it is doubtful that will happen. We must recognize that the House is the last resort. It can stop the “deal”. Pelosi could fall on her sword and refuse to bring it to the floor or the House could just vote it down. I am placing my emphasis on making my feelings known to my Congressman.

Now all of you jerks who called me a racist for pointing out how ridiculously unqualified Obama was for the presidency can line up and apologize.

I hate to say I told you so.

Not so fast, Allen L

From Center for Budget Policy:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2264

This can destroy Social Security in one fell swoop. All you have to do is make it permanent.

Now all of you jerks who called me a racist for pointing out how ridiculously unqualified Obama was for the presidency can line up and apologize.

Bush giving tax cuts to the rich is acceptable, but Obama continuing them makes him "ridiculously unqualified"?

And what qualifications *specifically* do you believe are required to be President?

My opinion of Obama? He has too many problems to solve. The most atrocious of them, I believe, were bequeathed to him by George Bush, who's now chuckling and polishing his bank account. I also believe that Obama is only a fractional percentage of the problem; party politics, where a party publicly declares it will work *against* the President, is another part.

You want to talk about "ridiculously unqualified"? How qualified is a congressional majority body that publicly declares the unemployed are "lazy and unmotivated" and that the majority of Americans who want basic health care help are out of luck-unless, that is, they're in Congress?

He's like a Trojan Horse that you elect thinking he means what he says but once he gets inside, he destroys everything. Way to go and what option will the Republicans probably give us next time... I am soooooo disgusted

Up until recently I was still hoping that somehow Obama was simply using a "rope-a-dope" strategy.

Does anyone remember the Robert Redford movie, "The Candidate?" In the famous last scene, Redford, the charmismatic, articulate, newly-elected candidate faces the camera, and reveals that he doesn't know what to do now.

I think it's George Bush's fault that he isn't doing a good job. If George Bush hadn't done so many terrible things then Obama would be doing a much better job. Hopefully all the terrible things that George Bush did will be completely gone pretty soon so that Obama can be the great president that we all know he can be. Darn that George Bush.

Gee, that's so cute. And original! Thank you for that.

The complaint here is that he's not undoing the damage inflicted by The Chimp.

Darn that George Bush.

That is cute!

I don't understand why Obama made other blunders.
Terrorist trials in NYC?

All the drama to close GITMO?

Suing Arizona?

Pushing an unread and unworkable Health Care bill?

And pissing away trillions without any controls?

I think he needs to reload.

But he has a problem. For much of the left wing all of the blunders were too moderate.

If Obama keeps this up Jack's going to be wishing Palin was President. :)

Sorry.

Yes - it's all "Bush's Fault" isn't it LOL!!! Bwahahahhahah!

I think it's Barack Obama's fault that Congress isn't doing a good job. If Barack Obama hadn't done so many terrible things then Congress would be doing a much better job. Hopefully all the terrible things that Obama did will be completely gone pretty soon so that Congress can be the great governing body that we all know he can be. Darn that Barack Obama.

Yes - it's all "Obama's Fault" isn't it LOL!!! Bwahahahhahah!

I don't believe that Obama's job description includes undoing all the actions of his predecessor. His job is to govern in the manner he chooses while he holds the office. If he chooses to negotiate with the other party for a change I don't see that as a bad thing. I think that approach has as much chance of getting him elected the next time as would pleasing the people who want to put their feet in the sand on the other end of the spectrum.

Now that I see resistance building in the Democrats to the tax/stimulus deal that Obama's made, I'm more convinced than ever of its merits.

Starbuck, I think starving Social Security is a political impossibility. Blood will run in the streets before that happens. So I don't see the FICA holiday becoming permanent and, if it does, I don't see it having an impact on benefits.

If there's any redeeming feature of the deal on tax cuts, it's this: although the Republicans get a bigger deficit to use as a club to reduce spending, reducing spending won't be easy as a matter of politics, even with a Republican majority in the house. Why not? Because it's not what people want.

I love how all the exasperated talk is about how Obama hasn't cooperated enough with congressional Republicans. Can anyone explain how congressional Republicans have done anything but obstruct since the day Obama was sworn in?
-Middle class tax cuts, check
-Small business taxcut and jobs bill, check
-Healthcare reform (Dole's old plan), check
-DADT, check
-Stimulus, check

Allan, not my words, I'm only the messenger. I would like to believe as you do and in other circumstances, would have written it off as impossible, but right now, I have to hold all options open, if for the most important reason, I maintain an alertness. It's very shortsighted to think otherwise. The Catfood Commision didn't make the cut; 14 votes required by Obama to send it on. Didn't make it so he says (figuratively anyway!) WTF! Send it on anyway.

Don't doubt for a moment that the USA can sink into a plutocracy, if not outright fascism. There is nothing in the Constitution to prevent that as all we have to do is vote in a new one.

I've been disappointed in Obama in many ways. Don't know if I will vote for him again.

But telling the American people they can have it all has been the status quo for decades. It's disappointing he doesn't really represent change, but all it means is that he's no better or worse than every politician in Washington DC.

The financial crisis at the end of 2008 was the time to fix structural problems and we failed to do it. We aren't going to fix the big ticket items like entitlements until they completely blow up and force our hand.

I'd just like to point out that those of you attacking Obama from the left and those attacking him from the right are not actually in agreement with each other--even if you feel that you've found common cause in your criticisms.

I'm sympathetic to the criticisms from the left. I think Pelosi has worked more diligently for a true Democrat agenda than Obama has. But Obama is forced to work with a Republican party that has become almost nihilistic in its approach to governing. The Republicans have no coherent philoshopy other than to serve the wealthiest sliver of society, oppose Obama in every possible way and thereby, they cynically hope, get themselves reelected by a citizenry that to a great extent is too ignorant to discern its own interests and understand who today's crop of Republican politicians is really working for.

This country wasn't designed to work with one major political party operating in absolute bad faith.

Oh, President Pookie??? He's doing what he's been doing ever since he decided that he wanted to be president, he's glad handing and sticking a finger up to the wind to see which way it's blowing. He IS the most worthless president that we have EVER had; and it took some doing to wrest that title away from the peanut farmer (Jimmy Carter for those of you who didn't know).

As for Allan L, who thinks the economy is going to rebound; bet you thought that back when Obama told us all about the bail out packages. Remember, unemployment wasn't going to go above 8% -hmmm, I see more of that in this 'process' (so I don't think this is going to work either).

To Joey - Sir, Obama had the absolute BEST situtation possible. He had a fillibuster proof majority, all from his party. He didn't need a single republican vote to do ANYTHING. In fact this is about as powerless as republicans have been for the last 50 years, so quit saying that the republicans had ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING under Obama. Obama's idea of 'working with the republicans' is that he (Obama) will speak and the republicans will roll over and pee on themselves and vote in whatever that 'smartest-man-in-the-room' just put forth.

Obama had two years to show us his 'vision', he's had two years under which we've had a 'taste' of what Obama wants for America ... and we said "NO". Like many things in life, you think you've got it bad till something worse comes along. In the case of Obama, we were in a hole, the man jumped in, grabbed a shovel and started digging deeper (maybe THAT is what he meant by 'shovel ready').

I'm totally disenchanted with both of the major parties. The Republicans say that we need to reduce our deficits, but then they push for a tax cuts that will add substantially to the deficits. The Democrats seem hell-bent on preserving and expanding entitlement programs no matter what the cost. The US is a country on the verge of economic chaos and disaster due to its rising debt load. The only question now is timing: when will the bond markets and foreign governments stop financing our deficits? I believe the day of reckoning will arrive within two years.

Obama had an opportunity to provide some adult leadership here, but he blinked. I suspect he looked at the situation and decided that securing his own re-election is more important than doing what's right for the country's future. He's basically an old style Chicago politician who managed to hoodwink the rest of the US into thinking that he was something different.

http://my.firedoglake.com/hugh/2009/11/13/obama-scandals-list-passes-100/

Click on Obama’s Scandals List to the site that has the details,
paragraphs on why each item is on the list up to 200 now on Obama.
This site also has the list on Bush.

Right about Obama and the Repubs. The entire Congress is either Republican or fellow travelers.

This country wasn't designed to work with one major political party operating in absolute bad faith.

Why hasn't Obama called them out on this since day one????

Why hasn't Obama called [the Republicans] out on this [bad faith] since day one????

I don't know. Egotistical belief in his personal ability to bring them around through negotiation? Lack of faith in his own party's ability to stay unified on issues? A sense that the American public, most of whom identify as moderates and who claim to value compromise, wouldn't go along with a hyper-partisan President? Personal disinclination to engage in demagoguery and sustained political attack? Exaggerated faith in the fundamental soundness of the political process outlined in the Constitution?

I think Obama has been too willing to compromise with a party hellbent on his destruction regardless of the consequences for the country. In some cases, as with this extension of tax cuts for the wealthy, he may have been successful in making his case directly to the American people (always a difficult and risky propostion) and demonizing the opposition.

But I have to say, Obama has managed to do some significantly good things in the face of absolute opposition and much weakness within his own party. I wish he could have accomplished more when the time was more politically ripe.

All the Obama voters will come back to him in 2012, just like a dog that goes back to its vomit.

Sure the Republicans in the 111th Congress were obstructionists; however, the Dems had insurmountable majorities in both chambers. The blame is on Obama and the Dems for failing to exercise any discipline and executive or legislative skill.

Native Oregonian: . .Obama had the absolute BEST situtation possible. He had a fillibuster proof majority, all from his party. He didn't need a single republican vote to do ANYTHING. In fact this is about as powerless as republicans have been for the last 50 years, so quit saying that the republicans had ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING under Obama. . .

Agree.
Crystal clear for anyone who cares to look, that the President and the Democratic Party are responsible for laying down here.
This blame game of the Republicans being in the way is the kabuki of it all.
It seems to work as people still seem to be in the mode of the old paradigm of politics, the D or R Party.

In my view, as a culture we need to move away from this for the good of our country. Face up to that corporatism rules now and uses the D and R to keep us in line.

"the Dems had insurmountable majorities in both chambers"

That's true only in the narrowest sense.

After Franken was finally seated and before Brown was elected in Massachusetts, the Democrats has 60 Senators in their caucus for a short period of time. But that supposed filibuster-proof majority included the slimy and opportunistic Lieberman and such false Democrats playing to conservative constituencies as Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson. The Republicans were willing to filibuster everything, and holding together all 60 Democratic and independent votes was extremely problematic to say the least.

I'm not saying that Obama shouldn't have tried for a more progressive agenda by exercising more vocal and visible leadership. He should have tried, in my opinion. But the notion that he could have simmply run roughshod over the Republicans in pursuit of a progressive agenda is extremely unrealistic.

America's reached a very interesting tipping point. Citizens still harbor the fantasy that *one* person is responsible for governing over a quarter-billion people, and so blame him (or her) for everything they're unhappy with.

And it's a brilliant ploy when political parties play that up. They know it plays well in the news.

I'm stunned, really, that most readers who hurl invectives at Obama (not criticize, but just cuss and yell)refuse to heap an equal amount of invective on the rest of the federal governing body that actually MAKES THE LAWS and SETS MOST POLICY.

Richard (above) is right; the Republican scorched-earth approach to "governance" is untenable, and ultimately destroys the country, piece by piece. The system is eating itself in this way, in an eerily parallel way to previous empires. And America is so cognitively dissonant that it doesn't even recognize that it *is* an empire, exerts Imperial ambitions, and can't exist in its current form without doing so.

Richard wrote: "That's true only in the narrowest sense."

That doesn't make it false. It is still true. Obama and the Dems botched it on their own.

I don't think Obama ever was an honest actor. He seems to be nothing more than a corporate cipher who sold himself as anything but. Well hello one term presidency and welcome to the big show Mitt Romney. Dear God its looking bleak...

"the Republican scorched-earth approach to "governance" is untenable, and ultimately destroys the country, piece by piece."

Oh for crying out loud.

Is that really what Republicans are doing and want?
Of course not.

One needs only look locally and see the madness at TriMet and many other agencies to see government is out of control.

The same crisis exists on a grand scale nationally. The bigger the problem the more likely it will be made worse by our politicians.

It's not because there is a lack of taxation on the wealthy.

What is Obama supposed to do?

What Bernie Sanders wants? How about Sam Adams' wisdom?

If you can't tell Oregon Democrats how to fix Oregon, how can Democrats fix the county?

Most elected Democrats think Oregon just needs more of the "model for the nation things" they have been doing but with more money.

Gee and then the county could follow the model?

"Obama and the Dems botched it on their own."

Yeah, but if you're not inclined to look at the political context in which the "botching" occured, and if you can't discern any worth in the legislation that the Democrats did manage to pass in the past two years, then you're imagining that you're living in a country very different from the actual United States I'm familiar with. It's good in some respects to have high standards, but yours are impossibly high.

You're pretending that the past 30 years of political and civic decline in America hadn't occurred. You're fantasizing that the same country and system that (technically) elected George Bush twice and mythologizes Reagan is now ready to rally behind an uncompromisingly and humanely progressive leader. You're insisting on a heroic leader in a time and place that does not produce heroes.

My feeling at this point is I'm glad to see improvement, and Obama and the legislation under his leadership are big improvements over what preceded them.

Gigantic jelly-larva, our president. The world is turning slowly into Somalia and when he visits India he does a townhall.
A teeny-tiny Indian college student asks him in her cute thick accent what he thinks about jihad...

Answer?

Well, "jihad has a lot of different interpretations within Islam...."

No, you blind-folded buffoon, there are only two interpretations...

1)violent jihad (uh, we all know what that is and, uh, that's what she was ASKING about), and

2)non-violent jihad, jihad strictly by the pen, persuasion through the written word (uh, not what she was talking about, since jihad by the pen is only practiced by a few tiny obscure sects that make up less than 5% of the planet's Muslims, and noone's even HEARD of them. Generally they are too busy fending off suicide bombers themselves to actually get any attention).

Then there is jihad which describes the struggle to govern the self and one's base instincts. You know, governing one's base instinct to obliterate a bunch of innocent people, eg. I suppose Mr Obama wants us to be reminded about how much worse things could be, if that instinct were given free rein.

Maybe the president needs a little jihad work on governing some of his crassest, dumbest instincts on display in the clip below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY

Maybe there's hope yet. Here's another, interesting take following today's press conference:

"... Obama revealing in a very public way the choice he has made between the two political personas he has simultaneously inhabited throughout his candidacy and his presidency. He has tried to be both pragmatist and progressive savior. And even when he stopped trying to be the savior after he was elected, he was at a certain level content to let supporters continue to project that persona on to him.

"Today, he very clearly and loudly said: that savior persona is not me. I am the pragmatist. And you know what, I don't have a whole lot of patience for the idealists. I share their ideals, but I don't share their approach and I'm not going to get bogged down in recriminations over not living up to some abstract ideal."

-- David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo
http://bit.ly/f00S5N

Haven't read any comments on the 13 month extension of unemployment benefits included in the negotiated package. If the fund is already over drawn and the money comes from employer contributions (varies by State I understand) seems like the extension will have a negative effect on whomever is asked to pony up the money. So it seems like the tax cuts may not provide as much money to create jobs as some have suggested.

Who knows how the unemployment funding works?

Fred

I voted for Obama, and I think he's doing the right thing making a deal now. He's got more leverage now than he will next month, but he still has virtually no leverage at all. And he has a lot to lose--if he plays hardball and refuses to extend tax cuts for the wealthy at all, as so many Democrats want him to do, then he'll get the blame for the tax cuts expiring at the end of the year. The Republicans might get blamed too, but he definitely will, and he has to run nationally. They don't, except for whoever gets the nomination in 2012. So from a political calculus, I think he made the best choice. We'll see what happens now, though--evidently Congressional Democrats are balking.

Ultimately, and always, empires deal with raging unemployment in only one way: war. War stimulates the econmy, weakens the economics of others, and distracts the populace from their troubles. There are 3,000 years of examples, and all are the same story with different names.

You think we have enough war now? Wait. It's going to get worse.

wheres our Congressional delegation on this? I sent off a email to Earl today asking that he oppose the deal, and hope that serious opposition forms. Sad deal is the BlueDogs will probably fall right in with the Repugnicans.
Pretty sad day, indeed. I bet lots of folks are peeling their obama bumperstickers off on this one. And corporate folks are going to tell their employees' hey, you don't get a raise, we got you a tax cut!'.. and fatten their even bloated profits
Humbug.. Merry Christmas to you

He's got more leverage now than he will next month, but he still has virtually no leverage at all.

He's been President for 22 months. The tax system should have been addressed long before this.

But Barack Obama, like the Democrats in the Senate, don't care about the Bush tax cuts. Most of them are perfectly fine with them. Corporate tools, mostly.

We have the exact same tax system that bush left behind. Nice job, Obama.

I voted for Obama because McCain/Palin, not because I thought he was Jesus.

For perspective, imagine McCain and Palin in office: war expanded dramatically, diplomatic relations worse than WikiLeaks could ever make them, and Sarah Palin winking at the nation.

Jack and commenters: there's way too much over-reaction to this. Try reading a couple of other takes: here and here. I hate to break this to you all, but politics is all about compromise. And the fact that you are all so angry with him is a good indication that he is actually leading, and not pandering to a specific contingent. Snark is not going to help. I don't agree with everything he does either, but I'm glad he's our president, even if only to have kept McCain/Palin out of there. Maybe Hillary would have been better, but how the hell can you know that? You can't! It's a waste of time to speculate. It's your God-given, American RIGHT to speculate, but that still doesn't make it less a waste of time.

Oh, take heart, folks.

Maybe Portlanders can organize a carbon-neutral protest march on Saturday afternoon. I can hear the chants now on Southwest Broadway:

"Hell Yes! We won't pay less!
Tax us! Tax us! Tax us!"

Maybe some of you could get that organized. The rest of us are going to need some entertainment after the Army-Navy game.

Meantime, if you feel undertaxed, it is still possible to send your personal check to the U.S. Treasury. Here's the address:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

Could have been worse. Could have been that sick puke named John Edwards.Bet he milks the wifes death for a comeback bid.Yuk.

Oh well, now we know where we fit in the agenda.

"He's been President for 22 months. The tax system should have been addressed long before this."

Sure, the tax system "should have been addressed" just like a million other issues should have been addressed--in an ideal world. But the political and civic world we're living in is far from ideal.

The fundamental problem with the tax system that we need to fix is its current failure to raise enough money from the wealthy, and that's not an easy problem to solve. We have one political party that takes as its primary commitment protecting the wealth of the richest Americans. And we're in a deep recession, when raising taxes doesn't normally strike anyone as a top priority. And a good half or more of the American public doesn't for the most part want to raise taxes on anyone at anytime--perhaps because half the public is a bunch of suckers who think they'll someday be wealthy themselves.

Obama has had a fuller, more crisis-filled agenda than probably any president since FDR. I think you should grant him some leeway for not getting around to a few issues, and give him some credit for some real accomplishments.

As you've pointed out in the past, McCain/Palin probably would have brought us a true second Great Depression and greatly expanded war around the globe. McCain and Palin aren't radicals in their political party, and they came pretty close to matching Obama's popular vote total in the last election. That should tell you something about this country and how difficult it will be to change course.

Criticisms here of Obama on this fiscal proposal will prove to have been misguided and overblown. I'll stand by that prediction until I have a better one.

We have one political party that takes as its primary commitment protecting the wealth of the richest Americans.

And we have a second political party protecting the right of the first to do so.

Wake up, people! Neither side works for us.

Richard - I really don't care for Obama and I didn't vote for the guy. The "hope & change" stuff was a steaming load of crap and I really can't believe how many people fell for it. I was also completely creeped-out by the third world-ish cult of personality in 2008 as evidenced by the Shepard Fairey posters. You mentioned mythologizing Reagan - at least we waited for Reagan to actually do something before we mythologized him.

Sure Obama and the Dems passed significant legislation but I still think Obama and the Democrats botched it because they had it all - the Presidency and massive majorities in both chambers of Congress. Our inexperienced President couldn't handle the House or the Senate and as a result, they lost the House and almost lost the Senate. No matter how you slice it, that is an epic train-wreck.

Many other Presidents did a lot more with a lot less in the House and Senate.

Obama and the Democrats managed to make the Republicans look good again.

With all that said, it is still very difficult to lose a re-election.

I also agree that too many liberals are overreacting. Then again, they thought they elected whatever is the progressive equivalent of Jesus Christ and are now just realizing that they elected a very inexperienced politician who seems lost without a teleprompter.

Thanks for throwing the teleprompter line in at the end. It cancels out your entire comment.

Jack - Well, did you see his press conference today?

Yes. Quite the coward. "I'll fight against the Bush tax cuts two years from now!" What a joke. By then, he'll be packing the boxes for the move back to Chicago.

I thought the teleprompter line was pretty good and it is certainly accurate.

Richard, . . But that supposed filibuster-proof majority included the slimy and opportunistic Lieberman and such false Democrats playing to conservative constituencies as Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson. .

Agree that these that betray the party such as Lieberman and the blue dogs have not helped the Democratic Party to be strong here when needed. However, all it would have taken is one true Democratic Senator to vote No on that health bill and the mandate that benefits the insurance corporations. It is very likely that one vote needed here by such a brave Senator would have gone against the party line and likely ended his career. The Senatorial career was evidently more important than the public interest and our country.

Ben.
. .Is that really what Republicans are doing and want?
Of course not. .

When you write that comment, I believe you may be intending to mean the traditional Republican Party, not the one that I have referred to as the hijacked one and most likely the one that many are writing in disgust about.
I have commented here before, it just simply looks like our Congress is filled no longer with traditional D or R values. We are left floundering and carrying on as though they exist.
Perhaps each state has their own brand of Democrats. Can we look at the Oregon Democrats as being the same as in other areas? You might say much of our brand is branded with the big "G" that has colored too much of what has gone on in Oregon.

Conrad,
"... Obama revealing in a very public way the choice he has made between the two political personas he has simultaneously inhabited throughout his candidacy and his presidency. . .

I see this as the administration’s way of trying to smooth over that people are on to the hypocrisy. Pretty clever I must say, but am quite weary of this kind of talk . .
and when he says:
I'm not going to get bogged down in recriminations over not living up to some abstract ideal."

I see this as some fancy words to excuse not carrying out what he said in his campaign. Many people feel betrayed.

Kevin,
I hate to break this to you all, but politics is all about compromise. And the fact that you are all so angry with him is a good indication that he is actually leading, and not pandering to a specific contingent. . .

Oh there is pandering - to the specific contingency of corporations, and the very rich. . and have seen very little compromise on that score.

For right or for wrong, the Repugs have their troops in line,with marching orders from Day One. The Dems live up to that old Will Rogers line: I don't belong to an organized political party, I am a Democrat...
What would happen if the D troops were grabbed by the short and curlies and told." go thattaway".. and if you don't, you don't get party support, you don't get the support of your peers, etc.
It worked for the Rs, why not the D's?
It seems the only way to beat the Rs is by beating them at their own game.
Its gonna be a long two years.

Look at Wyden. When his party needs him, he always has a better idea. Which is the biggest reason why I didn't vote for him.

Yes, look at Wyden.
When we needed him to do something about the huge amount of benzene in our air here (as a result of more dirty gasoline being brought into our area) I expected some emergency measures by Wyden and others in NW Congress to take care of this matter. As I recall, Wyden stepped up, we were told this would be taken care of - "in five years!" Wonder how long it would have taken if he was raising his family here?

Health care reform. ObamaCare: Yes. HillaryCare: No Chance.

Obama has done the fundamental change of health care, that all of his Democratic predecessors failed at. It is the most stunning domestic victory since the Voting Rights Act. He should retire after this term knowing that he has remade 1/7 of the US economy in a manner that will benefit all citizens.

Fair point, that Obama should have taken on the tax cuts much earlier. My take is that he wanted to ration the number of big fights he took on, and get health care done first. Health care took a lot longer than he bargained for, and by the time it got done, the mid-terms were under way and a lot of Democrats wanted to wait till after the mid-terms. So I think it was a combination of too many things in the hopper, and then wanting to accomodate Rust Belt Dems who didn't want to fight that battle while campaigning for re-election. He still should have tried though.

the fundamental change of health care

Single payer? No.

Public option? No.

"Fundamental"? No.

Nice try, though.

JFree,
Was the fundamental change of health care the mandate to pay corporations now or be fined?
I don't view that as a stunning domestic victory or beneficial to the citizens. How in this "jobless environment" further brought down with this latest Korea trade deal going to help people "mandated" to pay what or how much here? Any regulations on just how high this mandated payment will become? This is a stunning victory all right for the insurance corporations.
Congress cares not much as they will get what they need with ease.