American Politics during the Obama Presidency

WW. For the record I neither need nor would rely on DNC talking points. As a former staffer for a US President, Senator and Governor, I do my own research, construct my own arguments and, as at least Alamo has observed, can handle the written word.

I regret to observe that despite my bestowing the old Irish blessing on you, it appears the wind is not at your back, but continues to emanate from a part of your anatomy in that general area.

I have no idea if you are a racist, anti-Nevadan, anti-dead. Antigay, pro or anti Elvis, a John, Paul, George or Ringo Beatle fan or a Keith Richards wannabe or wear a tin foil hat. Nor do I care. But if you found my critique of your post reminded you of a "bitchy, disapproving wife" - my feminist friends would find the sexist handle pretty apt.

Rather to try to refute my talking points, I would recommend you familiarize yourself with the views of Wendell Potter, the former CIGNA PR executive, on how the health insurance industry creates and disseminates its talking points. That might help you to get beyond the pre-packaged flotsam mixed in the backrooms of the insurance industry think tanks and pimped to their wholly-owned subsidiary - the Republican Party and to the False News show anchors.

Or maybe we just forget it all.

Bame Mata raises an obvious point about the futility of what Barney Frank - my old buddy - would term arguing with a dining room table!

[QUOTE=Ricardo] As a former staffer for a US President, Senator and Governor, I do my own research, construct my own arguments and, as at least Alamo has observed, can handle the written word.[/QUOTE]Err. Whatever. I used to be a day laborer in the construction trade and now live on the same street with a sitting senator and former governor and have two other former senators that I see socially on rare occasions. I learned more a bout life, America and the American Dream from my 'undereducated' construction bosses and coworkers than I could from the other four (2 dems, 2 reps) combined. When I worked in DC, I got a great view as to how the government became so far removed from the people. One reason is staffers. Not that the staffers themselves are bad, but the entire legislature (which had long ago abdicated its role of legislating on difficult issues to the judicial branch) is run by staffers. This is a far cry from the citizen legislature initiated and envisions by our founders. We should go back to a citizen legislature, eliminate the legislative class from our society and get back to basics. As part of that, we should demand that legislators derive their income from actual work in their home state and do their own work. Yes it can be done because we already have enough laws on the books, just do the budget and a few other things and go back to your home state and work.

[quote]I regret to observe that despite my bestowing the old Irish blessing on you, it appears the wind is not at your back, but continues to emanate from a part of your anatomy in that general area.

I have no idea if you are a racist, anti-Nevadan, anti-dead. Antigay, pro or anti Elvis, a John, Paul, George or Ringo Beatle fan or a Keith Richards wannabe or wear a tin foil hat. Nor do I care. But if you found my critique of your post reminded you of a "bitchy, disapproving wife" - my feminist friends would find the sexist handle pretty apt.[/QUOTE]Your feminist friends for the most part hate wives, especially those that need / depend on having a man in their lives, chose to have children and God forbid stay home with them.

[quote]Rather to try to refute my talking points, I would recommend you familiarize yourself with the views of Wendell Potter, the former CIGNA PR executive, on how the health insurance industry creates and disseminates its talking points. That might help you to get beyond the pre-packaged flotsam mixed in the backrooms of the insurance industry think tanks and pimped to their wholly-owned subsidiary - the Republican Party and to the False News show anchors.[/QUOTE]Nothing more trustworthy than a PR executive. You've sold me.

[quote]Or maybe we just forget it all.

Bame Mata raises an obvious point about the futility of what Barney Frank - my old buddy - would term arguing with a dining room table![/QUOTE]Good idea. When did you set up Bame Mata as your alter ego? He popped up out of nowhere just in time to support you.

Barney Frank should be in jail.

[QUOTE=Ricardo]WW,

The main stream media use of the 47+ million Americans who are currently uninsured may be worthy of criticism. But your claim that the actual number of Americans who CANNOT get insurance is approximately 12 million people is demonstrably false. Your number is derived from an easily refuted misrepresentation of the 2007 Census Bureau telephone survey estimates that has been floating around the web for a few years. I will now detail the flaws of the so-called analysis.[/QUOTE]Okay Ricardo, I'll bite.

Please tell us what is the approximate number of people who do not have have health insurance and...

1. Who are American Citizens, (please do not include criminal trespassers) and...

2. Who are between 18 and 65 (adults and seniors are already covered by government insurance) and...

3. Who make more than $75,000 a year (people making more than this can afford their own insurance) and...

4. Who are eligible for some sort of coverage but simply choose not to enroll in existing programs, and...

5. Who are between 18 and 24 and who do not want to pay anything for any coverage what-so-ever because they believe that they are invincible, and...

6. Who are not military veterans (they are already covered).

Thanks,

Jackson

Alamo --- you make some very valid points.

Remember James Madison (one of Walleye's revered Founding Fathers) wrote in 1795 - "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. Known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

I agree that the Iraq War represents the dumbest foreign policy decision in my lifetime, with Vietnam a distant second (except for the 50+k dead US troops, tens of thousands of physically and mentally damaged veterans and the millions of dead or damaged innocent Vietnamese)

The greatest irony of Vietnam to me is that the loss of that war occurred over seven years of the Nixon presidency and the admission of defeat came when President Ford ordered the US retreat from Saigon, yet antiwar Democrats have always carried the blame for the US defeat. Because they were right that the "domino theory" was about as valid as the "Saddam has WMDs" horse shit, they had to be discredited. Because the US military industrial / political complex and their bat boy Henry Kissinger was wrong, it had to seize and change the factual narrative – which it did very effectively at the end of the 1970s and through the Reagan years.

The reality was papered over, that the Vietnam War could never have been "won" in any humanly acceptable definition of that term or any feasible commitment of US forces, even if we had followed US Air Force General LeMay's advice and bombed all of Vietnam back to the Stone Age. The unfair and inaccurate narrative that the Democrats wouldn't let the War be won became accepted wisdom by many. This is sadly understandable because Americans have a very, very hard time accepting that with the exception of the two World Wars, their country has very often been both wrong and ham-handed, as it throws its' weight around the world. And for three decades, most Democratic office holders have engaged in political posturing rather than speaking truth to power on defense matters to avoid the charge of being "soft on national security." Remember Hillary the Hawk against Obama the "wuss" in the late 2008 primaries?

Little wonder that the US is the world's biggest military spender, accounting for 48% , or almost half, of the world's total; more than the combined spending of the next 45 countries; 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and almost 55 times the spending on the six "rogue" states - Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria.

As for Iraq there are two primary points. First, the war that was supposed to bring a wave of democratic revolutions across the Middle East has only firmed the grip of the anti-democratic power holders in every Middle Eastern country. While the Shia-led rulers in Iraq are quite likely to move closer to Iran, once the US presence is gone. Second, Maliki who we installed in office shrewdly engineered a plan to kick us out of his country and the Bush Administration went along when it signed the Status of Forces agreement that requires the full US withdrawal by 2010. Obama is carrying out the agreement as written.

The Pentagon is willing to accept this outcome rather than stay stuck in an unpleasant and dangerous hellhole and thus will support Obama as he fulfills his campaign promise. Occasional up-ticks in violence may affect timetables, but not the eventual outcome. So three trillion US taxpayers dollars, over 4000 troop deaths and 30,000 wounded will be the cost of a nine year conflict that failed to fulfill any of its initial objectives.

Moving onto Afghanistan, I also agree that the effort has become a misadventure that can do serious damage to Obama and his ambition to rationalize US foreign and military policy, unless he plays the game more shrewdly than it appears on the surface at this early date in his presidency.

Obama inherited a festering wound. You might notice when Dick Cheney claims the Bush policies kept America safe, he never mentions Afghanistan, because like the Iraq misadventure, the Bush war objectives were never met. After seven years, the operative question is what should Obama do?

With lingering uncertainty about the amount of steel in the spine of Democrats, Obama – as he completes the Iraq withdrawal - is effectively precluded from just pulling up stakes in Afghanistan. As noted above, Bin Laden remains at large, al Qaeda has not been completely defanged and the Taliban is resurgent. If he had began his Presidency by withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan, nationwide impeachment rallies would make the health care town halls look like Episcopal prayer meetings.

Obama's rhetoric notwithstanding; he knows he stands no better chance of turning Afghanistan - "the graveyard of empires" - into Kansas than the Russians, Bush or Genghis Kahn. It is hard to imagine the Pentagon suckering him into a huge, long-term escalation of troop levels and of cave-to-cave combat in Afghanistan, no matter how much the Generals need a hot war somewhere to keep the threat of Islamic terror in the news and to justify big budgets.

There are recent signs of Obama's hesitancy. First is a leaked complaint from an un-named senior Pentagon source stating: "I think they (the Obama administration) thought this would be more popular and easier. We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war." Second, is the Administration's latest decision not to increase the number of troops in the country. Rather, in order to execute the Pentagon's more aggressive approach on the ground, combat units will be sent to replace exiting non-combat units.

The most politically palatable exit strategy for Obama out of the Afghan box Bush left him will be to bow to the ground swell of antiwar popular opinion, the widespread calls for us to cut our losses, with conservatives ironically leading the "cut and run" charge. George Will is the first conservative out of the box. Next time he sees Obama he may get kissed!

The best bet is by the end of his first term, although it will take a lot of finesse, Obama will have maneuvered the US presence into a lower profile in Afghanistan. That may require proof that Osama is dead and news on that front can pop up any day. Drone planes may still be targeting al Qaeda bases. But there won't be 300,000 US and Nato troops on the ground, or even 100,000. The Pentagon won't make this easy. Still, Republicans will not be able to attack Obama for following both the will of the American people and much of their own intelligentsia.

Now let's not be naive, if Obama leaves both Iraq and Afghanistan, should a bomb go off in an empty parking lot and be attributed to al Qaeda, Republican calls for his impeachment will follow as the day follows night.

You heard it here first!

I commend you for trying to get your arms around a very complex issue.

As I wrote before, "whether the number of uninsured is 47, 37, 27 or 7 million people, that is only part of the problem." In many ways it is the least critical problem, except for those who get seriously sick with a chronic condition and have no insurance coverage, or have been denied coverage by the companies they had been paying premiums to for care or for those without coverage who can't afford to see a doctor and avoid treatment until it gets critical.

The core issue in the health care reform debate is future "affordability" of health insurance for every income group unless something is changed.

As I also wrote, "the fact that the current system is unsustainable is what must concern everyone whether or not they have coverage. There should be little debate on whether the current system is broken or whether it can be sustained over time without a major overhaul." I noted that "average family health insurance premiums have risen from $5,791 in 1999 to $12,680 in 2008 and are expected to possibly double by 2020. Wages which have been stagnant through most of the Bush years are unlikely to double by 2020"

To understand the broken system one need only read yesterday's announcement that Pfizer Inc. The world's largest drug maker, has agreed to pay US citizens $2.3 billion for its past history of health care drug marketing fraud - including the largest criminal fine in U. S. History.

What Pfizer did was use corrupt means to get doctors to prescribe their drugs rather than competing, cheaper options at an estimated cost of over $11 billion to the patients of those doctors. That excess cost was either paid by insurers - thereby increasing premium costs - or the government - thereby increasing taxpayer costs.

Pfizer was not alone among the major pharma firms in using such tactics. The Pfizer case is just the tip of the iceberg in petty and serious corruption that permeates the fee for services model of private insurance that is unique to the US.

You are absolutely correct, seniors and veterans currently have health care coverage. Yes they do. They are covered by a government funded and managed system that offers high-level quality care with no exceptions for the nature of patients' health care needs. These programs get very high marks in customer satisfaction. Medicaid, medicare and the VA are single-payer government plans that beat private plans on the critical measures of cost, quality and user satisfaction.

As for specific numbers in the categories you ask for details on, many are unavailable. More importantly, they are not really germane to the issue. When you argue the numbers in various categories of currently uninsured, you display a serious misconception about proposed reforms of the system.

The reform advocates, including Obama, are not calling for taxpayers to provide and pay for insurance coverage for the young and healthy who don't buy private insurance or for those making over $75k or for illegal immigrants or to replace existing programs.

Coverage will be paid for by those who are covered, with provisions for helping the poorest citizens including poor children and poor legal immigrants, probably with some subsidy. (Even the Republicans support such subsidies, as Walleye's revered Founding Fathers guaranteed the full rights of legal non-citizens in the Constitution!

The so-called public option is for a plan that will require those who choose the option to buy and pay for coverage just like private plans. The plan will offer lower costs than private plans whose high premiums pay for lobbying, marketing, high administration costs, huge executive compensation packages, excessive profits, etc.

I hope this is helpful.

[QUOTE=Ricardo]Whether the number of uninsured is 47, 37, 27 or 7 million people, that is only part of the problem, the fact that the current system is unsustainable is what must concern everyone whether or not they have coverage. There should be little debate on whether the current system is broken or whether it can be sustained over time without a major overhaul. You don't address that key concern, but rather provide debatable interpretations of the 2007 Census data.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Ricardo]Coverage will be paid for by those who are covered, with provisions for helping the poorest citizens including poor children and poor legal immigrants, probably with some subsidy. (Even the Republicans support such subsidies, as Walleye's revered Founding Fathers guaranteed the full rights of legal non-citizens in the Constitution!

The so-called public option is for a plan that will require those who choose the option to buy and pay for coverage just like private plans. The plan will offer lower costs than private plans whose high premiums pay for lobbying, marketing, high administration costs, huge executive compensation packages, excessive profits, etc. [/QUOTE]Against my better judgment, I'll weigh in here with a few unsolicited points.

Saying the current system is "unsustainable" is really no argument in favor of the Obama plan. I don't think the principal objection of most folks is that the current system is flawless. It is that the proposed system is likely to be far more flawed. The government's track record in running anything is not good. There's little reason to believe our government -- whether the current regime is run by Democrats or Republicans -- can do better than the private sector. Churchill's old saying is apt here: "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." We don't scrap democracy because it is flawed. The alternatives are worse. That may be a judgment call where health care is concerned, but those arguing for change generally ignore the principal objection of most people. They argue that the current system is "broken" or "unsustainable" and argue that we must do [I]something[/i], even if it means having the government stick its nose further into the private sector. This latter part is where the argument goes off the rails for me.

Personally, my principal objection to most of what Obama is trying to do stems from how he intends to pay for it. He's a shameless soak-the-rich populist. Frankly, it's disgraceful -- and I actually like the guy.

Pointing to medicare and medicaid really doesn't help much in advocating for the Obama plan. One might argue that those are better run programs -- that point is highly debatable -- but at least the tax burden to pay for them is distributed more equitably. Every taxpayer pays 1.45%. The government then soaks employers with an equivalent tax, but at least all wage earners are required to pay for a portion of their share. Arguably, social security is even more democratic to the extent that it lapses at a certain point and, before that, everyone pays 6.2%. None of these programs, however, can be held up as anything approaching a model of fiscal efficiency. It's ironic that countries like France, which has a system akin to where Obama wants to go, is now talking about how its publicly funded system is broken and need of repair.

Here's some more stats from that 2007 census. In 2007, those in the top 1% of income in the United States paid [b]40% of all income taxes collected.[/b] Those in the top 5% of income paid 60% of all income taxes collected. Stated another way, the top 1% paid more than the bottom 95% [b]combined[/b].

So, who does Obama intend to stick with the bill for the yawning gaps in revenue needed to pay for his health care overhaul? The top 5%. Why? Because it's easy to sell (or, at least, he thought it would be easy to sell) Just get 95% to vote to have the other 5% pay for everyone's insurance. It's disgusting, shameful pandering. I won't compare Obama to Chavez, but he's using the same tactics. And, at base, this is my chief objection to the Democratic party -- their platforms are thinly-veiled tactics aimed at robbing the top income earners and giving the money to Democratic constituents -- as long as they vote early and vote often, thus keeping them in office.

When tactics like these are successful, they will break the system. Make no mistake, I'm not a big fan of the Republican party over the past 8 years. They lost me when they stopped paying attention to the bottom line. Today, unless you're a social conservative, which I'm not, it's difficult to vote for anyone without holding your nose.

Republicans may be adrift and without a coherent platform at the moment. But, Obama's methodology is dangerous, in my opinion, because he's going to destroy much of what made the country great in the first place. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and he's bent on wielding that arsenal. If he succeeds in regulating and destroying the venture capital markets -- one of the areas he's said he wants to review in the name of "fairness" -- he'll ruin one of the few remaining sectors that have generated much of the country's wealth over the past 30 years. Sarbanes-Oxley already has done enough damage, and it appears Obama is planning to finish the sector off.

Policies like these eventually trickle down and damage the lower classes. That's the risk here. Eventually, millions may not have food on the table. But hey, at least they'll have health insurance! I realize that arguments like that are a bit pejorative, and one could argue that the current system will lead to the same result. (Some might even argue that we're already there, but that would be silly. I'm just more confident that a government-run system will get us there -- and more quickly -- than the current system.

"Here's some more stats from that 2007 census. In 2007, those in the top 1% of income in the United States paid 40% of all income taxes collected. Those in the top 5% of income paid 60% of all income taxes collected. Stated another way, the top 1% paid more than the bottom 95% combined."

Framing the numbers in that manner is highly misleading.

In 2007 top 10% took in 49.7% of total wages. That's a wider gap than in the gilded age and even during the stock market boom of 1928.

Between 1993 - 2007 the top 1% captured literally half of the economic growth.

[url]http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/[/url]

Because income is so very concentrated at the top, saying "the top 1% paid more than the bottom 95% combined" doesn't really mean anything. Of course they did.

I've said it before, and in reality it means nothing to me. I'm living in Paraguay where the health care delivery system is just as good (and the women are hotter) as in the good old USA. Furthermore the health care in Paraguay ia available at a fraction of the price we pay in the United States (Cuba, for Christ's sake has a health care delivery system which is as good or better than the good old USA and Cuba doesn't have 2 cents to spend on health care). Anyway, here goes.

1) All the high-tech liver transplants, and bone marrow transplants and latest chemotherapy drugs approved by the FDA don't mean shit. None of these affect more than a minute fraction of the population and none of them work very well. There has not been even 1% of improvement in the survival of patients with lung cancer over the last 50 years.

2) Get over the idea you need to see a doctor for your common cold. In reality you don't need to see anybody. There is no treatment for the common cold and it will run its course whether or not you see a doctor. But if you insist on medical intervention I am sure we can have a 2nd year Medical Student (or the Hospital Janitor if the 2nd year Medical student is not available) see you and let you know that you are a whimpering crybaby.

3) You should be able to self medicate yourself. You don't need a doctors prescription for you worthless selflimiting medical conditions I. E. Common cold, eating at a greasy spoon and ending up with diarrhea or for your self induced hangover.

What I meant by this is, if you want to accept the responsibility i.e read Wikipedia on line, you should be able to buy almost any medication you want at the pharmacy and bypass the incredibly expensive process of getting the prescription in the first place, and the incredibly expensive process of getting the prescription refilled. Of course, in this perfect world, controlled substances i.e.' street drugs ' are legal, taxed and pay for most of yhe health care delivery system.

We are in a pickle because we have graduated way too many doctors. When I went to Medical School we were graduating 10,000 physicians a year. Now we are graduating 40,000 to 50,000 a year. You have to pay these people and it is not cheap.

One of the main reasons we are graduating so many medical students is gracias a Ted Kennedy (sorry Ricardo) who back in the late l960'sand 1970's came up with the bright idea to build more Medical Schools - think East Tennesse Medical School, East Carolina Medical school and Rolling Rock Medical School. The idea was that more doctors would foster competition resulting in a lowering of prices.

Nice try, but it didn't work. Physicians showed themselves perfectly capable of increasing the number of unnecessary tests, unnecessary exams and uneccesary office visits to negate any benefit from increased competition.

Try telling the old farts in the United states that they are not going to receive bone marrows transplants, liver transplants, lung transplants, or the latest chemotherapy drug at $100,000 a treatment and that all americans will have to take their silly ass colds, and diarrhea and hangovers down the street to perchance find someone who gives a shit.

Well, this is not going to happen and Obama's plan is not going to remedy the situation. Obama is not the villian and Obama is not the savior in this movie.

We are in a no win situation and unless the real Terminator and the real Dirty Harry get together and tell the American public that whining will not be tolerated - we are fucked.

P.S. By the way, I was voted Most Compassionate in my Medical School Class

You argue substance rather than hurl insults, slogans or obvious distortions. I'll make a few points though - one in line with Bame Mata.

Before I do, I admit Alamo may well be right and Obama plan or not, the current US system is fucked for the long haul.

(I am a satisfied OSDE member who loves leaving my doctors offices with a warm hand shake rather than a stiff bill!

First, as of today there is no official detailed "Obama" health insurance reform plan, just a set of principles along the lines I mentioned. There are numerous competing plans that have come out of or are being debated in the involved Congressional committees with a wide range of specifics. For good or for ill, Obama has recognized that under the Constitution, Congress writes the laws. Whether a good, fair or disastrous plan ends up on his desk is still an unknown, which makes so much of the over-the-top rhetoric of his detractors more than suspect.

Ironically the loudest citizen voices against changing the existing health insurance system are the people who aren't in it. The elderly on Medicare! The classic was the gentleman who yelled at his Congressman "Keep your stinking government hands off my Medicaid!"

Unfortunately, there is no Republican reform plan or a Republican set of principles that have been offered to address the core problems with the current system. The Republican plan is "just say no." That may be smart strategically, but I find it irresponsible.

I agree the government doesn't do things all that well – including fighting wars these days. But a pretty compelling case can be made, that in regard to US health care, the current private sector model is hardly the best of all possible alternatives.

The US does offer superb health care to the wealthy, but to average Americans not so much. The efficacy of the current system is on a downward slope as costs escalate and the general health of most population groups has not kept pace with that of other countries with different systems.

Unfortunately, recent history has taught us a few lessons about letting business self-regulate. (To paraphrase an old slogan – "Are your equity holdings better off today than they were four years ago?") And if government can't be trusted to do its job, what's the alternative? Churchill might say "government regulation is the worst way to curb dangerous corporate practices, except all others."

You are an obviously intelligent and pretty well informed guy. Accordingly, I am a bit surprised that you buy into the charge that Obama poses an existential threat to America capitalism. The details of his tax ideas do not support the charge he wants to "soak the rich" unless you want to hang that petard on each President from Eisenhower to Clinton.

The tax burdens for high income people that Obama has suggested are far less onerous than what was in place during the go-go years of the 1950s, 60s and 70s and no more onerous than what was in place under Reagan and Clinton. Where in the world does all the hyperbole on this come from? Bet you can guess.

Bame Mata is right about bending statistics. The statistics used in debates over tax burdens become impossibly confusing because of the range and mix of taxes people pay from payroll to corporate to capital gains to estate to property to sales to local and state and the deductions and exemptions that are allowed in each category. Measuring what level of taxation that is confiscatory is like asking, "how's your wife." The answer is compared to what!

I used to work for the infamous "Queen of Mean" Leona Helmsley, whose daily income was in excess of half a million dollars. With lousy accountants she may have paid the maximum 35% corporate tax or $175k a day (but I doubt it seeing as she famously observed "only the little people pay taxes!") Her workers at the Empire State Building had average wages of around $30,000. If they paid the 15% standard tax rate, it would take 38 of them to match her burden! At the end of the year, she would have paid $6.4 million and her 38 employees $171,000. Now that may seem a bit unbalanced. However, at the end of every day, she had $325k to spend or invest and each worker had $70. Looked at that way, maybe the progressive tax system isn't such a bad idea!

I wonder if an economy where the gap between the richest and everyone else keeps getting wider is the best model for sustained growth and social stability? As a unashamed liberal I just say no (oops that sounds Republican!

"Ironically the loudest citizen voices against changing the existing health insurance system are the people who aren't in it. The elderly on Medicare! The classic was the gentleman who yelled at his Congressman 'Keep your stinking government hands off my Medicaid!'"

This is born out in the most recent polling by CNN on the subject.

CNN / OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION POLL.

August 28-31

Obama's Health Care Plan.

Favor Oppose.

60% 39% 18-34 years old

41% 56% 35-49 years old

46% 53% 50-64 years old

38% 60% 65 and older

The poll has a fairly large sampling error of +/-8% , but the trend is still unmistakable.

It's also interesting that when you change the language from Government Run Health Care or Obama's Health Care plan to simply Universal Health Coverage support for the initiative sky rockets.

For another reason to support a public option, look to the practice of recissions by the insurance companies. This is when the companies comb through a person's records and determine ways to cancel the policy when the patient becomes too high dollar (ie sick). This is why we hear stories about people losing coverage because their weight was listed wrong on a form. By their own congressional testimony insurance companies cancel policies on.5% of their clients.

That doesn't sound like much, but remember they aren't randomly canceling policies. It actually breaks down to if you get very ill you have a 1 out of 10 chance of losing your coverage. Just for getting sick and needing care.

If we leave it in the hands of insurance companies we are all treated as a loss as soon as we contract an illness and they look to get us off the books. You may not be a fan of government but I don't see how the current system is an optimal solution by any determination.

As Ricardo has said before, this isn't so much about covering the uninsured but holding down costs and guaranteeing that people have access to health care.

[QUOTE=Ricardo]But a pretty compelling case can be made, that in regard to US health care, the current private sector model is hardly the best of all possible alternatives. [/QUOTE]Perhaps so. But, again, I think that misses the point a bit. The issue is not whether the current system is flawless. It's not really even whether there are better systems. It is whether what is being proposed would be [b]better.[/b] I realize that there is no concrete Obama plan, since nothing's been sent to his desk. But, even the vague details that do exist have turned off a substantial portion of the population. If you asked the same people in the poll whether they favor Universal Coverage where the government runs a substantial chunk and regulates extensively the rest, I bet the skyrocketing numbers would immediately fall substantially. That's the issue, in my opinion: The public doesn't want the government so involved. To the extent details exist about what Obama wants to accomplish, it's pretty clear the government would be heavily involved and (I think) equally apparent that this prospect is very offensive to a substantial portion of the population. I wouldn't advocate this, but I would submit that a proposal that simply lets government raise extra taxes (something it is good at) but keeps the government out of the actual provision of insurance, would fare much, much better than the current framework. Again, I wouldn't be in favor of that, but it would be an easier plan to sell.

[QUOTE=Ricardo]Unfortunately, recent history has taught us a few lessons about letting business self-regulate. (To paraphrase an old slogan – "Are your equity holdings better off today than they were four years ago?") And if government can't be trusted to do its job, what's the alternative? Churchill might say "government regulation is the worst way to curb dangerous corporate practices, except all others."[/QUOTE]I don't mean to nitpick, but I would take issue with this, as well. At least in terms of what most folks contend led to the current economic malaise -- the housing sector and the collateralized debt obligations that became so intertwined in all facets of the capital markets -- the blame for this really can be traced directly back to the government. Starting with the GI Bill in the 50s, HUD and various other government-sponsored programs to promote home ownership, right up to Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac and the artificially low interest rates at the beginning of this decade. The markets just responded to the perverse incentives fostered by government regulation -- especially in the late 90s through the first half of this decade.

Both Republicans and Democrats share the blame equally for this. They each altered the economics and the fundamental risk side of the equation that traditionally has been associated with extending loans. The "unregulated" companies (which we both know don't exist) simply responded to the false incentives initially created by government programs. To be sure, they had profit as their central motive. But, I hear far too many folks citing this as somehow "evil" or "wrong." Everyone likes social responsibility when it is someone else that has to be responsible.

I won't argue that regulation has no place in society. I would simply argue that regulations are to be avoided except where absolutely necessary. The housing industry -- and the laudable motives both parties may have had for promoting home ownership among different sectors of the population -- show that even the most well-intentioned legislation and social programs can have some pretty nasty consequences.

I know you weren't alluding exclusively to the housing sector, but many blame it for the current economic mess, and it's at least partly (if not mainly) to blame.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Ricardo]The tax burdens for high income people that Obama has suggested are far less onerous than what was in place during the go-go years of the 1950s, 60s and 70s and no more onerous than what was in place under Reagan and Clinton. Where in the world does all the hyperbole on this come from? Bet you can guess.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps. But most of the 50s, 60s and 70s were characterized by economic stagnation. It wasn't until regulation began to be curbed in the 80s -- culminating with the passage of the '86 tax act -- that our economy really exploded. This latter measure, while jarring and largely responsible for the bank failures of the late 80s and early 90s, set us on the path to several decades of largely unparalleled prosperity. Many will argue the point, especially those who currently attempt to dismantle or distort Reagan's legacy, but it was deregulation and reduction of tax that propelled the economy. I generally don't favor Democratic candidates, but I admired Bill Clinton mostly because he knew when [b]not[/b] to interfere. There was virtually no significant, landscape-altering legislation passed while he was in the White House, except perhaps welfare reform. He didn't unduly fetter the capital markets. He just got out of the way. Smart man, that one.

[QUOTE=Ricardo]Bame Mata is right about bending statistics. The statistics used in debates over tax burdens become impossibly confusing because of the range and mix of taxes people pay from payroll to corporate to capital gains to estate to property to sales to local and state and the deductions and exemptions that are allowed in each category. Measuring what level of taxation that is confiscatory is like asking, "how's your wife." The answer is compared to what![/QUOTE]I can't bring myself to address directly Bame Mata's arguments. His / her points are too spurious to warrant comment, in my view. Regardless, however, the numbers I cited on tax burden are real and widely cited. They're incontestable and not lies or mere "statistics." If the best response is, "well, those folks make a lot of money," then I take it that there is no real response.

In truth, the statistics used on tax don't become confusing due to the myriad of layers of taxation that are imposed. It's just more obscene the more you look at it. At the end of each year, I take home less than 40% of what I earn after the entirety of the tax burden is factored into the equation. If you want to talk about exemptions, that's easy: They get taken away the more you make. Talk to any tax accountant about that. I don't mean to be flip about the issue. But, tax issues used to be far more complex when extensive tax shelters existed. In large part, that hasn't been true for two decades.

I got a kick recently when I read that one of the Oscar Mayer heirs is attempting to find 1,000 millionaires to stand up and agree that they should pay more taxes. Hmmmm. How much do you want to bet that he's a trust fund baby? He didn't start the company and, to the extent he pays any tax, it's likely at the 15% long term cap gains rate. If he's drawing any salary, he's a fool -- but then again, that is obvious from his quest. But, even as to this fool, I don't support raising his taxes.

[QUOTE=Ricardo]I wonder if an economy where the gap between the richest and everyone else keeps getting wider is the best model for sustained growth and social stability? [/QUOTE]Ricardo, I enjoy your posts. It's a bit like the reason I listen to NPR every day: I don't agree with much they have to say, but I do enjoy hearing the other side of the debate. You're obviously a sharp guy with a tremendous amount of experience and insight, and I can certainly appreciate that.

On this last quote referenced immediately above, I think this probably best represents the fundamental difference between our points of view. In my view, it is not any government's function to address the "gap between the richest and everyone else," as you put it.

Poverty is relative, but folks tend to think of it only in today's terms. The poorest folks in this country today have it far better than most of the richest folks a few hundred years ago. Flush toilets, electricity, movies, cell phones, video games, etc. Etc. -- and yes, even our poorest can afford these things with minimal effort. Even if you divorce the temporal component, our poorest have it far better off than most of the middle class in a country like Argentina (to the extent a middle class exists there) I don't feel sorry for the wealthy who lived 200 years ago because they didn't have our modern luxuries, and I don't believe our government has any responsibility to try to equalize the gap between our poor and Argentina's middle class. (We may provide aid to an array of countries around the world, but that doesn't make it our [I]responsiblity[/i] to do so.

Likewise, I just don't believe that it is government's role to try to narrow the gap between rich and poor in this country. Instead, government's responsibility should be to try to encourage everyone to generate more wealth to pay for the minimal interference that government inflicts on its people. If it can't do that, it should just get out of the way. That's a bit of an overstatement, but it's not far from my point of view.

At any rate, I enjoyed reading your point of view. I may not agree with it, but it's good to hear it articulated.

I kid you, of course, because we can guess who would be yelling at me "socialist". "nazi". "senior killer" (self-euthanasia I guess! And I'm sure I could scare someone up to call you a "capitalist pig!"

We obviously approach these issues from different philosophies and therefore we read history, statistical interpretation, measurements of beneficial outcomes, etc, differently.

I am an unabashed liberal - a lower middle class or upper lower class Boston Irish Catholic who grew up in JFK's congressional district and met him as an impressionable youngster - whose fairly deep study of economics and history has yet to uncover much countervailing evidence to shake his and my belief that government can and should play an ameliorating role in society.

I lived what I believed for a few decades. Working in government along side hundreds of dedicated, intelligent, honest and honorable people who shared my values. Whether we delivered well what we tried to can be debated.

I also worked a few decades in the private sector and saw how hard work, vision, creativity and the good old profit motive put bread on the table of workers (and caviar on the menu for the owners) I ran a $28 million dollar business with over 100 employees and know all the challenges of meeting a payroll and making a profit.

I admit it did gaul me when my successful efforts increased profits thereby adding millions to the net worth of some fairly despicable owners! That included Leona Helmsley - who made her money the old fashioned way - she sucked and fucked a horny old billionaire and inherited his $$$ when he passed!

What I did find in my years in both is that business is a lot less complicated than government. Getting to the bottom line has fewer moving parts than satisfying a myriad of constituencies wanting contradictory results. That is not a moral equivalency argument. Just a life experience observation.

I am certain you came to your beliefs in some similar fashion testing what you have seen against what you believe.

One other thing I learned first hand is that government is not inherently evil and private business is not pure and clean. Both are designed and operated by human beings and therefore equally susceptible to human-derived attributes such as stupidity, inefficiency, corruption, good works and high achievement.

My villains in the global meltdown range far and wide. At the base level is the intellectual conceit of economists who sold a theory of human behavior which on its face was demonstrably false. Ask any monger about negotiating with chicas and you will quickly dismiss the idea of self-correcting markets.

On a grander scale I think the debt habit is what killed the golden goose. The habit was fed by individuals. Corporations and governments who borrowed more than they should have to pay for things they didn't really need and ignored common sense. This profligacy was accelerated by new technologies that blinded everyone to predictable risks and allowed everyone to blithely ignore any and all warning signs, because the music was playing so loud all everyone wanted to do was dance.

My reading of history teaches me that an activist government under FDR came to the rescue of a devastated national economy and put in place a host of structural economic pillars that prevented the kind of excesses that caused the initial crisis. Those pillars worked pretty damn well for half a century and when we began to dismantle them we ended up back in the soup.

Now as we look ahead things are far more complex, as globalization and technological advances will make any efforts at systemic controls very difficult, even if we can figure out what to control and how to control it.

I also think we are living in a economic time when no one - no one - fully understands how the pieces fit together anymore. That is exciting - as it permits lots of experimentation and possible brakthroughs - but it is also very, very dangerous.

The "new normal" in the global economy that will emerge as the crisis recedes is going to disappoint many people around the globe and it will be interesting to see what new paradigm in economic beliefs wins the day.

These days - even after the Obama victory - I am concerned about the direction in the US. Assuredly for different reasons than you may be - or maybe not.

I fear the country is becoming "Argentinized" - to coin a word - meaning it will blame others for its receding good fortune, allow its institutions to wither, turn insular and inward, dumb itself down and continue to let false military adventures create an environment of fear and lose the good old American habit of getting on with making things better.

Jackson--explains that the posting personas of many on this board are very different than they are in person. Don't let any of the ranting and raving deter you.

I was really surprised about the ranting about Teddy Kennedy. REgardless of your point of view--this guy during the last 20 yaers of his life was a very effective senator--passing CHIPS--childern's health insurance when Bill Frist ran the Senate and W was in the White House--that is political know how and savey. History will remember him well and John McCain will also be remembered as an effective senator. This is even though they both are imperfect human beings, who both rose at times to demonstrate true courage in the senate. Teddy failed as a younger man in many ways, but that does not negate his achievements during the last 20 years of his life.

[QUOTE=Bame Mata]

CNN / OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION POLL.

August 28-31

Obama's Health Care Plan.

Favor Oppose.

60% 39% 18-34 years old.

41% 56% 35-49 years old.

46% 53% 50-64 years old.

38% 60% 65 and older.

The poll has a fairly large sampling error of +/-8% , but the trend is still unmistakable.[/QUOTE]The trend is definitely unmistakable. People over 35 (During the period of time where the prime earning years and accumulation of wealth take place) OVERWHELMINGLY reject the proposed healthcare plan. During the 18 - 35 period I drank a lot and chased women. Oh wait, I still do at 46 so nevermind.

Ricardo,

I've never been to El Alamo, but I'd love to grab a pint or three to hash these things out. I doubt we'd solve anything, but it would be fun trying. If "capitalist pig" is the worst thing someone called me, I'd be doing well. I suspect you may feel the same way about a "socialist" jab.

We do approach things from different perspectives, but I appreciate your demeanor and your ability to articulate, and it's the different perspectives that make discussion forums like these go. I actually like a lot of what Obama is doing -- predominantly in the international arena. Sid would definitely disagree with me, but I also like much of what he's done domestically, such as letting some of the car companies go BK and cutting some of the bailouts off. I just object to much of the regulatory and tax issues.

Good to see you posting. I usually get back there every quarter or so. But, I was just there two weeks ago, and I have no fixed plans to return at the moment. A lot seems to be happening for one of my company's customers in Brazil right now, so I'm there more often now. That country also has its charms. If you're still in Buenos__Aires, I'll PM you to check whether a beer is an option next time I get down there. Being Irish and hailing from Boston, I'll bet you don't let silly little political differences get in the way of a good quaff.

Stan,

Next time you are in town we can make the Alamo serve as a faux White House where we channel Teddy and Reagan or Reagan and Tip O'Neill, my old political mentor. We can quaff a few as we debate our philosophies, tell a few jokes and outrage Sidney (who is a really good guy despite his leanings) We can invite Walleye along, if he promises to behave!

I promise not to make everyone sing "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling" unless we meet on St. Patrick's Day.

I do hope you never were a shoe salesman (reference - Teddy's Oval Office meeting with "the Gipper" on shoe imports where Ronnie only talked of his salesman experience and ignored the agenda topic of cheap shoe imports killing the domestic manufacturers. That was intentional and shrewd on his part no doubt.

Good luck in Brazil. I have yet to decide who are the hottest - Portenas or the Cariocas - but that comparison is a lot more fun to ponder than whether the world is better off with more or less regulation of global markets.

By the way when we get together, maybe you can help me understand how the advocates of free trade are unfazed when it leads to "massive domestic job losses - as manufacturers move production to cheap labor countries." Then those same free traders go ballistic when unions act to protect their members (who are all good, solid, taxpaying citizens) claiming the unions and their Democratic Party allies are the villains whose actions ostensibly lead to "massive domestic job losses as manufacturers move production to cheap labor countries." As Henry Higgins might say: "It's a puzzlement!"

There are some violently anti-union members who post here and rail against Obama, the D's, et al. Maybe in their time here they have come to confuse Peronism with the American labor movement?

Stay well!

[QUOTE=Ricardo]By the way when we get together, maybe you can help me understand how the advocates of free trade are unfazed when it leads to "massive domestic job losses - as manufacturers move production to cheap labor countries." Then those same free traders go ballistic when unions act to protect their members (who are all good, solid, taxpaying citizens) claiming the unions and their Democratic Party allies are the villains whose actions ostensibly lead to "massive domestic job losses as manufacturers move production to cheap labor countries." As Henry Higgins might say: "It's a puzzlement!"[/QUOTE]Now you're just baiting me. It's Labor Day weekend here, and I plan to celebrate my union-free weekend, so I'm not going to take the bait just yet. ☻ Have a good one!

Enjoy the weekend!

Sidney. I don't get it either.

In 1974 the Supreme Court of the United States forced the President of the United States from office for abuse of power. His name was Richard Nixon.

As far as I know not many nations around the world demanded Nixon's return to power.

Now Hondorus does the same thing. The Supreme Court of Hondorus forced out the President of Hondorus for abuse of power and every fucking fruitloop in the world follows Chavez's chirping that it was a coup.

If we had a president with balls or brains, maybe our president has neither, we would have told Chavez to stick it up his filthy ass.

If we had told Chavez to shove it where the sun doesn't shine the number of countries listening to that idiot Chavez could have been counted on one hand.

In fact, we once had Presidents who defended democracies and supported the oppressed living under brutal dictatorships. Apparently not now.

I never thought I would see in my lifetime another president as confused and ineffective as that idiot Jimmy "shit for brains" Carter. However, it appears Obama may give Carter a run for his money. Frightening when you consider that it took us 4 years to figure out Carter was a complete and total idiot while it has only taken 6 months for Obama to live up to that description.

"In 1974 the Supreme Court of the United States forced the President of the United States from office for abuse of power. His name was Richard Nixon."

Is this true? I thought he resigned to avoid being impeached, nothing to do with the Supreme Court.

[QUOTE=Sidney]Wake up people. It is so obvious![/QUOTE]Not that obvious. Its OK preaching to the converted, but care to explain why to the people who don't see it? They're the people who should be told.

Sidney and Alamo. Usually I prefer reasoned responses. This time, however, all I can say is you guys (who I like personally) are out of your fucking minds.

Obama by taking a careful stance on the Honduran impasse (which is less clear cut than you describe it Sidney) is far better than the idiocy of Reagan's Nicaragua debacle and Bush I's Panama fiasco.

Honduras is the least of problems back in the homeland. Any student of European history may look back to the Weimar Republic and get correctly concerned at tactics the opponents of Obama are using to try to nullify the 2008 election. That's something to worry about.

And if you think its because of his stimulus spending (40% of which was for middle class tax cuts) or health insurance reform proposals rather than because he is black, you may think that the BA chicas actually like sucking geezer dick!

The U. S. Political scene is being polluted by savage and vicious ranting of the talk-radio thugs. Their irresponsible and dangerous venom is spewed out every day to a significant number of people who mindlessly absorb the lies and distortions. Rush Limbaugh draws 14 million listeners per day, Michael Savage 12 million, Sean Hannity 10 million, Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck about 3 million each. The total number of listeners to these poseurs on a daily basis is something like 28 million or more.

The mainstream press covers their calls for anti-democratic behavior and violence as though it was legitimate political discourse, which just magnifies its effect. Much of the press totally ignores the blatant, provable lies and fantasies that are being put into the minds of ignorant and angry people.

When you see gun-toting protesters at Obama events, somehow the mainstream press forgets to look back to how thousands of non-gun toting anti-Bush protesters were arrested and herded into fenced enclosures for hours during the 2004 Republican Convention in New York.

Mostly the talk show charlatans spread hatred, racial resentment, and a form of victimhood for their listeners who are no longer in charge of their fates, their families or the nation's politics and are fucking pissed about it. Most of the Obama-haters kids think they are fucking whack jobs.

(Three of my family members are card carrying nutters. We hardly speak any more and their kids can hardly tolerate them.

In reality the "talkers" do what they do to get ratings and make huge bucks, not to fulfill some commitment to civic duty. These guys commitment to democracy is the same as Bernie Madoff's commitment to safeguarding his investors' hard-earned money.

They are like the TV evangelists who preach Christianity on Sunday, run to the bank on Monday with the bags of money their poor flock sends them and spend Tuesday to Saturday in their mansions living a life of a Raj (many diddling young acolytes female and male)

The change in the tenor of talk show programs since the Obama election should be more of a concern for the future of American democracy than Obama's refusal to embrace the Honduran military.

(Sidney if Rush lived in Honduras, the military guys you like would have put under him under house arrest or exiled him (or worse) years ago)

Rush and company demonize as "socialists" and some evil lower life form - all Democrats (like me) and even moderate Republicans - none of whom are any farther left than they were for the past fifty years that the union survived fairly well.

They scream at their audience on a daily basis NOT to engage in reasoned discussion and debate, but to engage in "direct action" against "the enemy." They urge them to engage in mob violence, to disrupt meetings, to threaten public officials with bodily harm, to support and raise money for extremist paramilitary group, etc. Even when the anti-Iraq anti-Bush fever was at its' height, it was nothing like this.

Idiocy rules - think of the poor fool who yelled at his Congressman at a town meeting - "keep your stinking government hands off my Medicare!"

This may not end well. There are many people who want Obama dead and say so.

Take a minute and think of what will happen in the US if someone on the right takes Obama out. You can kiss the good old USA goodbye. What happens across the country will make what happened after King was assassinated look like tail gate parties when the hometown team loses a game. The entire black, brown and yellow populations, most women and educated men, as well as a generation of young people will turn away in disgust at what was fostered and by whom.

Obama haters I caution you to be careful - you may get what you wish for and then heaven help us.

Sidney. I fear all that pussy chasing has warped your thinking.

Obama may have delusions, but one is not to be a dictator. He certainly was delusional to approach the quest for bipartisanship.

A leader with dictatorial instincts would impose central control over every aspect of government, not allow committee chairs in the legislature to write the laws.

The health insurance reform has become chaotic because the legislative process dealing with major and complex issues is always chaotic. It has been 79 years and 18 Presidents since universal health insurance was first proposed by - that old socialist, I mean - Republican President Teddy Roosevelt.

And the US constitution - God bless it - guarantees that any President with dictatorial instincts will come a cropper. Case in point - Mr. Tricky Dick Nixon.

You are categorically wrong in your statement that "in 1974 the Supreme Court of the United States forced the President of the United States from office for abuse of power." That is not what happened. I know. I was there.

Now a true statement would be "In 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States abused its power and forced the ascension of George W. Bush to the Presidency of the United States." They issued the first ever decision that only applied in a single case. Mind-fucking-boggling as we Bostonians say!

In 1974, the SCOTUS didn't force Nixon from power, but it did require him to obey the law. The nine court justices didn't accuse him of abusing power, they just told him he coudn't.

From 1973 through 1976 I was a chief assistant to US Senator Inouye from Hawaii. I worked for him on the famous Watergate Committee. That entity investigated the myriad crimes committed by Nixon and his top aides. Our investigations led to criminal trials which ended up putting the numerous Nixon aides and his Attorney General in jail.

When Nixon refused to turn the famous secret tapes of his Oval Office conduct to prosecutors as material evidence in a raft of felony cases, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the President had to obey the law and provide that evidence. They ruled "no man is above the law." Pretty good idea if you ask me.

Nixon knew the tapes proved he had been at the center of a criminal enterprise and he was toast. His ordering of breaking and entering, his money laundering, his suborning perjury, his running an unlawful cover up of a long string of crimes, his cheating on his taxes while he was President, etc. Were documented, on the public record and undeniable. He had to go.

A delegation of senior Republican leaders went to the White House to inform him there were only a small handful of Senators who would not vote to impeach him and remove him from office. Those Republican leaders forced his hand, not the Court. So he resigned the Presidency.

As Walter Cronkite would say "And that's the way it was!

As a coda, many Nixon apologists claim he only did what other Presidents had done. That is bullshit, of course. There is scarce evidence to support those claims. But in the nation where free speech rules, you can say anything. Just ask Glenn Beck!

And if you think its because of his stimulus spending (40% of which was for middle class tax cuts) or health insurance reform proposals rather than because he is black, you may think that the BA chicas actually like sucking geezer dick! - Ricardo quote

Sidney, I think you have hit a nerve. Although the Hondorus situation may be a little more complicated than we realize, it probably is not that much more complicated.

Ever since this Hondorus situation began I have been hoping that Obama was really just too clever for Chavez. Maybe Obama was giving Chavez and his looney tune dictator friends a little lip service, but fighting them behind the scenes. Hondorus has not returned their wantabe dictator and it doesn't appear they will. There is a possibility Obama is on top of things.

There is also the possibility that Obama could not cross the street by himself, even with the aid of a pack of seeing eye dogs and a squadron of eagle scouts helping him. This should not be too surprising because the sad fact is Obama never accomplished a fucking thing in the real world before being elected president.

And Ricardo, I am not sure what you mean by the above quote. I hope you do not mean that anyone who criticizes Obama is by definition a racist. In my opinion, the President who was treated the harshest while in office was Clinton, and I don't think there was anything racial about that.

In my opinion the criticism Obama is receiving has little or nothing to do about race. It has to do about Obama.

Conversely, if Obama starts acting like a Colin Powell, a lot of people, like myself, who are a little concerned about Obama will become big Obama supporters.

Alamo. No, not all critics of Obama are racists, just a lot of them. Just track the age, race and regional demographics of who spout the over-the-top comments, listen to the language and make a reasoned judgment and you will have a hard time making the case race is not a factor in much of the vitriolic opposition to the man.

It is unfortunate that so much venom is aimed at our political leaders. Opposition and criticism is fair, some deserve our disdain, but the tone is pathetic.

For example, with all due respect I don't think you are the arbiter of what the "real world" consists of. In reality the real world is a pretty complex place with lots of moving parts, not just some enclave where only business owners and entrepreneurs are worthy of respect. Writers, professors, artists, priests, laborers, community organizers, bar tenders, waitresses, and chicas and on and on all make up the real world.

Obama's achievements don't need my elucidation and don't warrant your silly insult.

If you can get Powell's email address get in touch with him and ask him what he thinks about how Obama is doing and what is being done to him. I bet you would come away with a different attitude than you articulate today.

As for Honduras, Obama is a little busy with other priorities and I don't quite see Latin America slipping into the abyss because his instinct has been to react to an internal political dispute in a sovereign nation with deliberation and tact.

0

His policies even have the potential to consign the US to a similar fate as Argentina, which suffered a painful and humiliating slide from first to Third World status last century, the paper says.

There are "troubling similarities" between the US President's actions since taking office and those which in the 1930s sent the US and much of the world spiralling into the worst economic collapse in recorded history, says the new pamphlet, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs.

In particular, the authors, economists Charles Rowley of George Mason University and Nathanael Smith of the Locke Institute, claim that the White House's plans to pour hundreds of billions of dollars of cash into the economy will undermine it in the long run. They say that by employing deficit spending and increased state intervention President Obama will ultimately hamper the long-term growth potential of the US economy and may risk delaying full economic recovery by several years.

The study represents a challenge to the widely held view that Keynesian fiscal policies helped the US recover from the Depression which started in the early 1930s. The authors say: "[Franklin D Roosevelt's] interventionist policies and draconian tax increases delayed full economic recovery by several years by exacerbating a climate of pessimistic expectations that drove down private capital formation and household consumption to unprecedented lows."

Although the authors support the Federal Reserve's moves to slash interest rates to just above zero and embark on quantitative easing, pumping cash directly into the system, they warn that greater intervention could set the US back further. Rowley says: "It is also not impossible that the US will experience the kind of economic collapse from first to Third World status experienced by Argentina under the national-socialist governance of Juan Peron."

The paper, which recommends that the US return to a more laissez-faire economic system rather than intervening further in activity, has been endorsed by Nobel laureate James Buchanan, who said: "We have learned some things from comparable experiences of the 1930s' Great Depression, perhaps enough to reduce the severity of the current contraction. But we have made no progress toward putting limits on political leaders, who act out their natural proclivities without any basic understanding of what makes capitalism work."

The authors of the pamphlet, Charles K. Rowley and Nathanael Smith, give their views.

Mr. Obama will not be relevant for much longer, as his foolish socialist policies have already made him the president to lose his popularity more quickly than any other in history. He will be reading off his teleprompter to a Republican congress in only 15 more months. And the second coming of Ronald Reagan (my guess is General Petraeus) will sweep the second coming of Jimmy Carter out of office in only 3 more years.

There is little or no chance that Mr. Obama will able to do what Mr. Clinton after he lost Congress to the GOP in 1994 - tack to the center in order to get reelected. First of all, Clinton was a capitalist while Obama is clearly a socialist. Second, Obama's inflated self-opinion of messianic status makes him unable to realize the error of his ways. Third, Obama's governing style, derived from Saul Alinsky, relies on demonizing and attacking strong opponents rather than working with them to reach a middle-ground compromise, the way Clinton was able to do with the Republicans 15 years ago.

We haven't even gotten to the inevitable international crisis when Mr. Obama's foreign policy of "if I apologize for America enough times, they will learn to love us" leads to a humiliating episode that exposes Obama's elemental weakness, much to the disgust of the American electorate.

[QUOTE=Ricardo]In reality the real world is a pretty complex place with lots of moving parts, not just some enclave where only business owners and entrepreneurs are worthy of respect. Writers, professors, artists, priests, laborers, community organizers, bar tenders, waitresses, and chicas and on and on all make up the real world.[/QUOTE]A brilliant example of obstrufication through wordsmithing.

The fact is that Obama did not run for a job as a writer, professor, artist, priest, laborer, community organizer, bar tender, etc. He ran for a job as the chief executive officer of the largest organization in the world, a position for which he is woefully unqualified. The reality is that Obama has never actually managed so much as a lemonade stand.

For those of you who would cite his education as a sufficient job qualification, I would suggest that only someone with an education and no experience could possibly believe that education is a substitute for experience.

Still don't get it, then think of it like this: Who would you want piloting your next 747 flight? An aeronautical professor who has never flown so much as a Cessna, or a senior captain with 20 years experience and 5,000 flying hours?

I've been communicating with old classmates in the DC area who have risen to various medium level government positions over the years. They all relay to me that from their inside vantage the Obama administration is an organizational joke, from the constant vetting mistakes, the bureaucratic inefficiency of all these Czars, and the leadership stumbles in their attempts to pass a health coverage plan (now he's decided to write his own bill?)

Ricardo, I appreciate your presentation of the liberal perspective, but there's a big difference between your DailyKOS audience and this forum: Most AP have brains and can see right through your eloquence.

Thanks,

Jackson

==============================================

For the record, I am [u]NOT[/u] a Rebublican, and I am [u]NOT[/u] a conservative.

- I am [u]against[/u] the death penalty.
- I am [u]against[/u] [u]any[/u] government support of religious organizations.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of drugs.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am [u]for[/u] a woman's right to choose.
- I am [u]for[/u] comprehensive sex education.
- I am [u]for[/u] a foreign guest worker program.
- I am [u]for[/u] a universal flat tax on [u]EVERYONE'S[/u] income.

I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent.

Jackson. Maybe you missed it, but some of your fellow members are in my camp, as witnessed by their comments. In any case I am certain you welcome opposing points of view on issues beyond whether to negotiate with the chicas or not.

Later in the week I will address the Metkim posting on the recent paper issued by conservative economists, supported by the Nobel Prize winning Professor James Buchanan, which questions Obama's use of government spending to rescue the economy from collapse. Suffice it to point out a very opposite view is argued by other Nobel Prize winning economists including Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz.

The dueling Nobel winners' arguments go back over eighty years to the whether the New Deal worked. Over many years and hundreds of books and studies, neither side has ever decisively won those debates. Now the same issues and arguments are being debated as relates to Obama.

In many ways, the conflicts are semi-religious in nature - like Jews saying Christ was a great prophet and Christians claiming he was the Son of God. Neither can prove the point. In economics, however, the claims are buttressed with charts, tables and brain-numbing statistics.

This post addresses Sidney's error-filled claim of Obama as a serial violator of the US Constitution.

Whoever was the source of your claims, my friend Sid, needs to do some serious research on the evolution of constitutional law – especially the concept of "implied powers." As a former professor of constitutional law, Obama knows what the Founding Fathers wrote and meant and what has evolved as that document has been interpreted over 220 years.

Using Sidney's framing method – one can say "No where in the U. S. Constitution does it give the government the power to create an air force." That is true. Perhaps because, as smart as the boys from Philadelphia were in 1787, they didn't know man would fly. No bother though, because Congress has the power to raise and support the armed forces. In constitutional law that translates into an "implied power" to create an air force.

Similarly, under the same construction, each of the things denied under the Constitution according to Sid that were carried out by Obama are completely legitimate. They are "implied" - derived from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

US courts have taken an expansive view of the implied powers – specifically related to commerce - since the earliest days of the republic. The courts have given full sanction to a wide range of business-related actions of the federal government and in so doing allowed the US economy to grow, prosper and become the envy of the world.

If the complaints made by Sidney had any basis in constitutional law, rest assured AG Eric Holder would be a very busy boy handling cases brought by the aggrieved victims of the dastardly deeds of Obama's constitution busters. As far as I know no such cases are awaiting adjudication anywhere in the US.

Sidney states:

"No where in the U. S. Constitution does it give the government the power to fire private company employees." True.

In fact:

The Obama Administration has NOT "fired" a single bank or automotive executive. As a condition of being provided with taxpayer funds to help them survive (a time honored tradition practiced by prior administrations and an implied power of the executive) Obama's team, as a condition of future funding, required the boards at the finance-seeking institutions to institute changes in failed management practices to better protect the government investments (a prudent step that is standard practice among investors when entities seek new financing)

The boards of directors at these entities acting, in their capacity the ultimate deciders on personnel, a handful of senior executives go, whose failures had led to their firms need for government assistance. They were not fired by Obama, nor were their failures rewarded with taxpayer funds.

Sidney states:

"No where in the U. S. Constitution does it give the government the power to own private companies. Technically true.

In 1979, the US government bailed out Chrysler using an agreement with a wide range of provisos. In a similar manner the GM bailout was structured by the Obama team in order to keep a critical company afloat.

The GM deal included a proviso that the US taxpayers receive an equity stake in the renewed GM. The equity deal protects the taxpayers' interests, assuring a return on the public investment when the company returns to profitability (a prudent step that is standard practice among investors when entities seek new financing)

Nothing in the constitution precludes government from providing financial assistance to private companies, nor from structuring loans that require repayment through equity, direct payments, etc. These have been deemed implied powers for decades.

Sidney states:

"No where in the U. S. Constitution does it give the government the power to set salaries in the private sector, as Obama's administration is currently doing in banks that have taken TARP money."

The Obama team has NEVER set salaries for TARP recipient banks. What it did was to agree that TARP supported companies can pay their executives as much as they see fit. For salaries in excess of $500,000 compensation would be issued as stock. The only restriction is that the execs cannot sell their new holdings, until the companies pay back the money they borrow from the government. Nothing unconstitutional here, rather it all seems both wise and fair.

Sidney states:

"No where in the U. S. Constitution does it give the executive branch the power to appoint Czars to make rules governing private industry, that role is reserved for the legislative branch of our government."

The word "Czar" is journalistic shorthand and has NO official status or standing under Obama, nor did it under any of the "Czars" (for Drugs, etc. Appointed by previous Presidents.

The so-called Obama Czars, like their predecessors, have no extra-legal or unconstitutional powers. Any regulatory or executive power they exercise is derived from the authorizing legislation passed by Congress that precisely defines the scope of those powers.

Sidney states:

Nowhere in the U. S. Constitution does it give the President the power to set aside contracts.

The Obama administration has NOT "set aside" ANY outstanding GM or other company contracts. GM itself amended contracts of all sorts as it has worked its way out of the threat of closing down and prepared to accept government funds.

It is completely legal for entities to renegotiate and restructure contracts. It happens every day. When GM restructured its business, prior to getting government funding, it negotiated with ALL of its stakeholders. Management, bondholders, the unions, et al, ended up with a raft of amended contracts on compensation, etc. Everyone made sacrifices. No one group was "shafted" at the expense of another. Nothing done by the Obama team or GM was illegal or unconstitutional.

I apologize for being pedantic, but the massive amount of misinformation that shows up on blogs including this one needs to be refuted.

An informed citizenry is the only true guarantor of freedom!

I think Jackson and Hunt99 have hit the nail on the head.

If those people who have spent a lifetime feeding at the public trough only knew how much we want them to get a real job I. E. one that we are not paying for.

As starters I say we give Barnie Franks a yearly staff allowance of twenty-five cents. Of course Barnie can keep his unlimited access to free Big Macs which it appears he is already taking full advantage of.

P.S. if Barnie has an office in a building that you and I own, he will, of course, have to pay rent.

P.S. for those who think Bernie Franks is so stupid he doesn't know he is stupid, think again. Bernie recently had a IQ contest with a dining room table and Bernie ran a close second.

[QUOTE=Sidney]In paticular this is right on, ''But we have made no progress toward putting limits on political leaders, who act out their natural proclivities without any basic understanding of what makes capitalism work."

Sad Sid[/QUOTE]When I was at the University of Michigan, Baylor School of Medicine, Texas Heart Institute, and the University of California at San Diego, I was always told that of you can't say what you want to say in 250 words you have nothing to say.

Here goes.

I have read Obama's words for our school children. I am impressed. Obama has a heart of gold. I can see why people follow him.

However, at the end of the day, government, at every level, is a cancer and if you let government grow it will kill the patient.

I am not sure Obama, as sincere as he appears to be, understands this.

For Ricardo - less than 250 words

You are a medical doctor and you make an inane, generalized statement like "government at every level is a cancer and if you let it grow it will kill the patient!" Then you expect people to take you seriously?

Given your foolish observation, first I shudder at your diagnostic skills and then I worry if you are self-medicated. No wonder malpractice insurance is so high.

As for your 250 word limit, maybe that had to do with your esteemed mentors' capacity to absorb complex information.

Warmest regards!

By the way, did you ever treat Jackson? Michael that is?

[blue]Ricardo,

There is a fine line between a spririted debate and a personal attack.

Your comments to El Alamo clearly crossed that line.

Thanks,

Jackson[/blue]