Institute for Public Accuracy

Updates from RSS

  • 11:13:30 pm on January 27, 2010 | 0 | # |

    Obama talks about eliminating nuclear weapons as a vision, but it’s a treaty obligation. In 2005, former Secretary of Defense McNamara told the Institute for Public Accuracy: “The NPT was signed by a president. It was submitted to the Senate; it was ratified by the Senate. It is today the law of the land. The U.S. government is not adhering to Article VI of the NPT and we show no signs of planning to adhere to its requirements to move forward with the elimination — not reduction, but elimination — of nuclear weapons. That was the agreement, these other countries would not develop nuclear weapons and the nuclear powers would move to elimination. We are violating that.”


  • 10:51:13 pm on January 27, 2010 | 0 | # |

    Obama says that if someone has a better plan on healthcare to “let him know” — while he has acknowledged that single payer (expanded Medicare) would fit that bill.

  • 09:10:34 pm on September 9, 2009 | 0 | # |

    Boustany claims Obama is proposing a gov plan and will cost a great deal. This mischaracterizes the Obama plan as a Medicare type plan and obscures the fact that such a plan would save money — a central point.

  • 09:08:38 pm on September 9, 2009 | 0 | # |

    Boustany, after years of heart surgery says he saw the need to cut costs, not provide better care or cover the uninsured.

  • 08:38:01 pm on September 9, 2009 | 0 | # |

    “Strike out on your own” — doesn’t the employer-based plan hinder that?

  • 08:34:26 pm on September 9, 2009 | 0 | # |

    “It’s time to give every American the opportunity we [congress people, etc] give ourselves.” — wouldn’t that imply a single payer type plan for all in the US?

  • 08:29:32 pm on September 9, 2009 | 0 | # |

    Re: healthcare being the deficit: A friend noted the other day — it’s good to spend money on healthcare — that would indicate a high degree of care. The problem is that alot of what’s called “healthcare spending” is profiteering by the drug and insurance companies, paper shuffleing, ads, etc. — ie, it’s not really spending on healthcare.

  • 08:26:57 pm on September 9, 2009 | 1 | # |

    Going forward and going back to 1900 are both “disruptive”.

  • 08:19:53 pm on September 9, 2009 | 0 | # |

    Determined to be last — so no further reforms, as per below.

  • 08:18:53 pm on September 9, 2009 | 0 | # |

    Bipartisanship goes out the window when Bush wants a tax cut or to invade (not that he doesn’t get substantial Democratic support).

  • 07:14:53 pm on September 9, 2009 | 0 | # |

    Obama will apparently say: “I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.” Doesn’t this seem to preclude further reform? It would seem to undermine the notion that what is now happening would be a step towards a real, national healthcare program.

    Also that he “will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.” But he has shunned a single payer, enhanced Medicare for all proposal, while acknowledging it would be better than his plan.