American Politics during the Obama Presidency

Esten, the most elegant arguments against the current healthcare plan in Congress are provided by the Democrats themselves:

(1) Medicare / Medicaid – perfect example of the government running healthcare; inefficient, inflexible, not to mention bankrupt. When the population flips in a few years with more retirees than workers how much worse will it get, much worse. A shrinking income base for an expanding expense base.

(2) Look at all the "special deals" in play for different states to advance the legislation to the total exclusion of Republican input – how is this "leveling" the playing field. It only creates more confusion within the system, makes nothing equal, creating greater discrimination within the healthcare system between the have and have not states.

Regarding MA, Ted Kennedy held that seat for the Democrats for 47 years. Considering independents comprise 51% of the MA electorate, Democrats and Republicans split the remaining 49% at 3 to 1 respectively, if I were the Obama administration I would at least take another look around the political landscape. There has not been a Republican Senator from MA since 1972!

Obama won because of the independent vote and he has lost much of this support. The country is angry and rightfully so as the "Changes" he promised have not come to pass; an end to partisan politics (I still remember Robert Gibbs telling Republicans – "we won get over it we will do what we want") transparency in government (his has been even more secretive than the Bush Administration he despised) he is still in campaign mode and I don't think he has a governing mode and the country needs leadership –something he has yet to display. Riding into office with majorities in the House and Senate his presidency has still been paralyzed except when it comes to throwing away money we don't have in programs which are questionable at best in their effectiveness, punishing success (Ford, JP Morgan-Chase, ect) while rewarding failure (AIG, Chyrsler, GM, unions et al)

While I don't think Obama is "evil" I do believe he, like Jimmy Carter, is simply in over his head. He is unable to deliver on the grand promises which got him elected and people were foolish enough to believe.

Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, are only the first glimmers of the storm to come. The country is not interested in healthcare they are interest in the economy – remember Bill Clinton's campaign slogan "It's the Economy Stupid". 2010 will be a blood bath for the Democrats; I can only hope the Republicans coming into office will be the ones of old who were for smaller government, lower taxes and fiscal responsibility.

Perhaps Obama faced with a new House and Senate will, as Bill Clinton before him, move to the center from the far left. If not he will be a lame duck president for his remaining two years in office, which from my perspective isn't a bad thing.

[QUOTE=Sidney], thousands without food and water, no law and order, few being treated, diseases festering, mas! Disgusting! ----------j.

''[/QUOTE]If you have ever been to Haiti you would probably think the situation after the earthquakes is pretty much the same as the situation before the earthquakes.

One thing I can guarantee you - if those phoney baloney, birdbrain Hollywood frauds are in Haiti they are living with a lot of discomfort I. E. Steaks, lobster, $1000 bottles of wine, 2000 thread sheets and goose down pillows. They feel your pain. Just make sure a slimming mirror is always within 30 inches of their bloated egos

[QUOTE=Esten]I haven't yet read a convincing argument why the proposed health care reform is not a significant improvement over the status quo[/QUOTE]I could give you one trillion reasons but, I will give you just a bunch off the top of my head.

First let's get some of the facts straight. The proposed legislation in all of it various forms does not do any of the things that it was initially "designed" to do, nor does it do any of the things it is currently purported to do.

The initial premise upon which this mess is founded is utterly false. We were first told that there was a healthcare crisis in the US and that 47 million AMERICANS [footnote to Schmoj for that nifty emphasis thing] don't have health insurance (insinuating that means they can't get care) people are dying in the streets because they are being denied care, costs are soaring out of control, and the "healthcare system" will go bankrupt if we don't do something.

The Democrats have ironically defined this "crisis" in terms of the simple medical definition of crisis, which is: "the point in the course of a serious disease at which a decisive change occurs, leading either to recovery or to death." The implication being that inaction will result in 'death' or in this case cataclysmic failure of the 'system' resulting in horrible circumstances for everyone, of biblical proportions (cats living with dogs, etc) and immediately thereafter the world will end.

That is a pretty grim picture. I am so glad that the Right is the only group using scare tactics. Could you imagine the above picture if the Left used scare tactics? They probably tell us that the polar caps will melt and we're all going to drown.

The truth (anyone remember what that is? Is that there is no healthcare crisis in the US. This bears repeating, there is no healthcare crisis in the US. I am not saying that healthcare in the US is perfect but it is pretty damn good for a huge majority of Americans.

The facts ares: there are not 45 million Americans without healthcare coverage; there are approximately 15 million Americans who either cannot get coverage and / or cannot afford coverage; every man, woman and child regardless of race, nationality, immigration status or financial means can get excellent health care, anywhere in the US twenty four hours a day, 365 days a year; costs of providing healthcare are rising due in large part to government regulation and interference; affordable private health coverage is not available to everyone because of governmental regulation. There is no "healthcare system." There is one sixth of our economy (primarily private businesses) participating in healthcare products and services employing tens of millions Americans.

We were then told that this legislation will fix all of these problems forever, by the very people who didn't write it, didn't read it and didn't participate in the details, including Obama and every senator and congressman who has opined in favor of this plan. Somehow, these people are going to magically reduce the cost of providing care (I. E. Treatment for a heart attack will cost the provider less to deliver so the patient will save) via increasing the efficiency of one sixth of our economy all while improving the quality of care. That is incredible considering it was written by special interest groups who know nothing about doing any of those things.

What is worse, these same snake oil salesmen (and women) don't tell you about the nefarious elements of the legislation the byproducts of which will do great harm to the nation via attacking the Constitution, the economy and our personal liberties.

Here are a few things that the current legislation does and does not do:

The propose legislation does not:

- provide all Americans with healthcare coverage (by their own admission, Dems say 15 million will be left out)

- lower healthcare costs.

- improve efficiency in the delivery of care.

- allow all individuals to maintain their private insurance.

The proposed legislation does:

- Transfer billions of dollars of personal property from one portion of society to another.

- increase taxes on all American tax payers.

- fines all individuals who choose not to buy insurance.

- provide US tax dollars in a sum greater than $600MM in payoffs to Louisiana and Nebraska (6.2MM people in the aggregate or ~2% of the US population)

- violates several provisions of the Constitution (which by the way still is the law of the land. For now)

- Cut medicaid and medicare by ~$500B while adding tens of millions of people to the system.

- guarantee rationing of care.

- deny individuals freedom and liberty in making their own healthcare choices.

Up until last night, the current 'bill' to which you refer wasn't really a bill in the traditional sense (as in one piece of legislation moving towards the president's desk) It is at least two bills (one House and one Senate version) The Senate bill was just a place holder for a different piece of legislation to be dropped onto the president's desk by Pelosi and Reid, without any public scrutiny. That hypothetical 'comprise' version that Reid, Pelosi and Axelrod were creating out of whole cloth is now hopefully dead.

[quote=]and am hoping and expecting it will soon be signed into law. It is unfortunate there will not be a public option, but they just don't have the votes. [/QUOTE]You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. There is a public option in there, you just have to know where to look for it.

[quote=]The right is fueling and surfing a wave of anger / discontent among some voters, but continue to fail in communicating convincing arguments why their ideas are better for the country.[/QUOTE]The "right" is doing what? Hey genius, Massachusetts is the bluest of blue states with a 3:1 ratio of democrats to republicans. This latest electoral event has nothing to do with the right, it has everything to do with Americans across the political spectrum (with the exception of the hardcore left, where you dwell) refuting the neo-marxist agenda of this administration and the business-as-usual burning of our tax dollars for personal and political gain by the congress.

[quote=]I'll acknowledge Obama and Dems have not done a great job in communicating why their ideas are better either.[/QUOTE]Obama and the Dems have done just that, communicated their vision for America and it makes most Americans sick.

Americans as a whole are not stupid, despite the left's opinion that all Americans that live in between the coasts are stupid. There are plenty of stupid and gullible Americans (69.5 million of them by last count, which was taken in Nov. 2008) that are now coming to their senses.

[quote=]I expect we will see more effort on this.[/QUOTE]We can only hope

[QUOTE=Sidney]Slow response, thousands of military and navy are late, simple bottlenecks are not relieved, acres of medical supplies, water, food, etc are parked at the airport, thousands without food and water, no law and order, few being treated, diseases festering, mas! Disgusting! ----------Typically late---Bloomberg today--''Gates Sends Ships.

"You cannot fully meet the needs of over 2 million people just using helicopters," Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in New Delhi today after signing deployment orders for harbor- clearing ships and other vessels to help restore Port-au- Prince's devastated shipping facilities. ''[/QUOTE]Sydney, while I will gladly criticize Obama for all that the things he is doing wrong (including his current politicizing the crisis in Haiti) the logistics of rescuing a country of two million people in less than a week is something only God can do (the real one, not the false prophet in the White House)

Rescuing the Haitian people from this crisis is a very complex and massive undertaking further complicated by the international sovereignty wrinkle and the fact that Haiti is on an island some 700 miles off the US coast.

As for the immediate response, creating an infrastructure through which aid can be administered, the distant second choice behind God is the US military. There is no third choice, although as gracious as we are we will allow lots of other groups to take credit for our actions and expenditures.

Once there is some infrastructure and capability, it is time for private organizations (primarily funded by the private donations of Americans) to do the heavy lifting.

While the federal response to Katrina could have been more efficient and merited constructive criticism, the primary failures were at the state and local level and have been well documented. The political and personal attacks on Bush for his response to Katrina were without any basis in fact.

I suspect that you will not hear the same kind of attacks on Obama for his handling of the Haiti crisis even though you could make all most all of the same arguments made against Bush. That is because the opposition in this case is not left which knows no bounds of decency.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]...He is still in campaign mode and I don't think he has a governing mode and the country needs leadership...[/QUOTE]Unfortunately, Obama doesn't have a "governing mode" because he's never actually governed so much as a lemonade stand.

Obama only has a "campaign mode" as evidenced by the fact that all he's ever done is run for office. In fact, as soon as he was elected to any office, he immediately embarked on a campaign for his next office, which explains why he's never actually completed any term for any office to which he was elected.

[size=3][I]Obama: the [strike]dumbest[/strike] most inexperienced President ever![/i][/size]

[QUOTE=Jackson]Unfortunately, Obama doesn't have a "governing mode" because he's never actually governed so much as a lemonade stand.

Obama only has a "campaign mode" as evidenced by the fact that all he's ever done is run for office. In fact, as soon as he was elected to any office, he immediately embarked on a campaign for his next office, which explains why he's never actually completed any term for any office to which he was elected.

[size=3][I]Obama: the [strike]dumbest[/strike] most inexperienced President ever![/i][/size][/QUOTE]On the Obama plan Scott Brown will be qualified to be president sometime next year.

If Obamacare was a chica in Bs As she'd look like this [url]http://www.altoserver.com.ar/altosite/default1.htm[/url] and cost US$1,000 per night. If you survive the strap-on session, you only get one shot on net (remember the clause to punish hospitals that readmit patients that had been discharged? And your taxes would go up.

I aint bailing on Obama. Small setback. We will learn from our mistake. Keep your moral majority, bible thumping, born again Christian right wing Republican Party. Lou Dobbs was looking very Presidential when interviewed.

Mongers-

Yes, Obama allowed this attempt at healthcare reform to become so worthless and convoluted that it serves no purpose. This bill will now be filibustered and will die (as it should, see my earlier post) However, the right-wing Jesus freak crowd should hold their tongue a little longer in writing off Obama's Presidency after only a year in office. I seem to remember a young, brash President, with a similarly low class upbringing and high class education as Obama, stumbling in his first year or two in office at the end of a recession and turning it around enough after a mid-term congressional ass-whipping wake up call to be re-elected by a wide margin. If that same President hadn't got caught with his pants down (literally) he would and may still be regarded as many as one of the finest Presidents since WW2. November 2012 is still a long ways away.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

[QUOTE=Rock Harders]Mongers-

Yes, Obama allowed this attempt at healthcare reform to become so worthless and convoluted that it serves no purpose. This bill will now be filibustered and will die (as it should, see my earlier post) However, the right-wing Jesus freak crowd should hold their tongue a little longer in writing off Obama's Presidency after only a year in office. I seem to remember a young, brash President, with a similarly low class upbringing and high class education as Obama, stumbling in his first year or two in office at the end of a recession and turning it around enough after a mid-term congressional ass-whipping wake up call to be re-elected by a wide margin. If that same President hadn't got caught with his pants down (literally) he would and may still be regarded as many as one of the finest Presidents since WW2. November 2012 is still a long ways away.

Suerte,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]Perhaps, but remember the former President you speak of didn ’t get reelected from the far left, he did it by moving to the center, and I think he is smarter than Obama.

Obama and the boys will either move to the center or they will be joining Jimmy Carter.

But I actually think Obama is too arrogant to move to the center, so I suspect he will crash and burn!

But as you say 2012 is a long way off and a lot can happen between now and then.

Perhaps this just slipped past you Obama freaks, but the Dems in the Senate are now set to take up another bill to raise the debt ceiling another $1.9 Trillion, raising it above $14.3 Trillion to cover all the bailouts, handouts, down turn in tax revenues (even as they raise taxes) and expanded government spending on other "entitlement" programs and extensions of unemployment / Cobra benefits.

Great going guys you have even outspent your own projected costs of your programs by a factor of nearly 100%. Damn you guys are good – and you only have 10+% unemployment, a near stagnant economy, your Home Land Security guys are telling Congress – Yea TSA is gonna drop the ball again on something different so don't be surprised, and how about all that infrastructure spending that went out but never got built (you know bridges, roads and stuff like that)

Man what a bargain for a three ring circus!

I vote to reinstate Ricardo in the forum, you guys are having too much of a love-fest here. Reminds me of betters trying to cash in their tickets after the 1st quarter.

It's like a riveting soap opera. What drama! What will happen next?

Doppelganger- Thank you for your civil response. As you probably can guess, I just do not take it as a given that government involvement will be wasteful. To the extent that it is, efforts can and should be made to make it more efficient. But the alternative is a private sector that fails in expanding coverage and treating people fairly. This is an inherent difference between the two sides on this issue - skepticism of government efficiency vs. skepticism of private sector effectiveness. As far as the "deals", I wish they could have got it done without them. I won't say it justifies scrapping the bill. I'm going to be following what happens with this as the reform effort moves forward. On the fiscal side, I've said before there will be a major focus on jobs and deficit reduction initiatives this year; if they don't follow through I will change my tune but I believe they will.

Walleye- First off let me say I've long considered you to be one of the more helpful posters on the board when others have posted questions. I'm therefore surprised at the derogatory comments you have included in your responses to Schmoj and I.

Many of your "facts" are just opinion. I'm more inclined to believe the CBO assessment on coverage and costs before I believe yours. And whether the word 'crisis' or some other word is used, does not strike me as particularly relevant. Both sides agree on the need for health care reform.

Of course I know the House bill has a public option. I was referring to the fact it had been conceded. I know you were eager to portray me as a dummy. You misread my statement on anger as well.

Yes, I am a genius. And stupid and gullible. Thank you. LOL

The anger is real but not of the scale nor necessarily all directed the way Republicans would like to portray it. Obama is going to call Republican's bluff and burst this bubble of BS they have been inflating. Both sides need to be seen as working together, not just Dems. If Republicans continue to be seen as obstructionist, their strategy could backfire.

Good Lord man your party just lost a seat it held for 47 years, a seat they thought "belonged" to the Democrat Party, in the bluest state in the union and you are still in denial?

Sidney,

I doubt Senator Brown will have much impact on the situtation. As one of the Democratic senators said when asked about the bill to raise the debt ceiling - "We have already ordered and eaten the meal, now it is a question of paying the bill'. The money is for the most part gone and the nation as a whole must now pay for the party regardless of the hangover. The only alternative is to default - something which will not happen. I can only hope the spending stops here with Brown's election and the 2010 elections later this year.

[QUOTE=Black Shirt]I vote to reinstate Ricardo in the forum, you guys are having too much of a love-fest here. Reminds me of betters trying to cash in their tickets after the 1st quarter.[/QUOTE]Hi Black Shirt,

You just don't get it, do you?

"Ricardo" was a pseudonym for a Liberal Democrat drone sitting behind a computer screen who was given the task of going out onto the blogosphere to join as many forums, blogs and chat rooms as possible, with the specific intent of posting whatever talking points he was provided with.

In fact, it's doubtful that "Ricardo" was actually a single individual, but more likely a multi-user pseudonym that would be activated by whomever was on duty in the virtual office these drones shared.

Didn't you ever notice that "Ricardo" never actually responded to any questions posed to him, but merely continued to post daily liberal / dem talking points disguised as "reports".

Anyway, if you want to read what "Ricardo" would be posting in this forum were I to permit his spam, all you have to do is visit the daily kooks or the HuffingtonPost websites.

With the exception of Sidney, everyone else here is expected to post only their original opinions, which virtual "Ricardo" never had.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]Good Lord man your party just lost a seat it held for 47 years, a seat they thought "belonged" to the Democrat Party, in the bluest state in the union and you are still in denial?[/QUOTE]Yesterday, Obama said in an interview that Scott Brown was swept into office by the same "disenchantment with government" movement that got him elected to the presidency a year ago.

Talk about being in denial!

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson]Hi Black Shirt,

You just don't get it, do you?

"Ricardo" was a pseudonym for a Liberal Democrat drone sitting behind a computer screen who was given the task of going out onto the blogosphere to join as many forums, blogs and chat rooms as possible, with the specific intent of posting whatever talking points he was provided with.

In fact, it's doubtful that "Ricardo" was actually a single individual, but more likely a multi-user pseudonym that would be activated by whomever was on duty in the virtual office these drones shared.

Didn't you ever notice that "Ricardo" never actually responded to any questions posed to him, but merely continued to post daily liberal / dem talking points disguised as "reports".

Anyway, if you want to read what "Ricardo" would be posting in this forum were I to permit his spam, all you have to do is visit the daily kooks or the HuffingtonPost websites.

With the exception of Sidney, everyone else here is expected to post only their original opinions, which virtual "Ricardo" never had.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Your post knocked me down for almost a full count! Your theory has no credence whatsover. And I am not trying to demean you, but in another lifetime, you could have been Joe McCarthy. Before you get too carried away, the comparison is only in the blind evangelical zeal that he displayed.

It is very unfortunate that the health reform bill is a poor shadow of what it could have been. In this particular case, Obama did not display enough leadership plus american politics do not truly represent the people anymore. So, expect continued fiascos in the coming years. I did not agree with Bush when he went to Iraq, but I supported him once the decision was made. Obama could do with more support in the first term, but then, it's up to you.

Much of the post-election news coverage has cited multiple reasons people voted for Brown. And if you had to thread together a common denominator, it would not be healthcare. It would be discontent with government. I think Obama got it just about right. Republicans have attempted to frame the MA election as a referendum on healthcare, declaring Brown's 52% win means "The American People do not want this bill". That's an exaggeration and you guys know it. And even though it was not a referendum, Obama and Dems have already signalled they could change course. I call that reacting not denying.

BTW, Brown seems like a decent guy. Let's see how he does in Washington.

I was listening to the Fair and Balanced network this evening, and heard a segment on how Democrats are in "turmoil". There was an audioclip about 2-3 minutes long composed of individual clips of various Democrats speaking on current events. In the middle of this I hear a 10 second clip of some obvious kook calling conservatives vulgar names and claiming certain FOX commentators were involved in 9-11. This short clip did not sound like the others, and did not have any reference to current events. It sounded like it had been spliced in from an audio archive. When I heard it I thought "what the hell was THAT?". BTW this was on O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone".

So what was that? An attempt to make Dems sound kooky by splicing in a kooky clip? A form of psychological programming or association?

Would hate to be stuck in a foxhole with some of these spineless democratic Senators. Turning on my man Obama left and right: Bernenke confirmation. To use a phrase coined by a member "cocksuckers."

[QUOTE=Esten]I was listening to the Fair and Balanced network this evening, and heard a segment on how Democrats are in "turmoil". There was an audioclip about 2-3 minutes long composed of individual clips of various Democrats speaking on current events. In the middle of this I hear a 10 second clip of some obvious kook calling conservatives vulgar names and claiming certain FOX commentators were involved in 9-11. This short clip did not sound like the others, and did not have any reference to current events. It sounded like it had been spliced in from an audio archive. When I heard it I thought "what the hell was THAT?". BTW this was on O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone".

So what was that? An attempt to make Dems sound kooky by splicing in a kooky clip? A form of psychological programming or association?[/QUOTE]Esten,

Your complaint is that the montage of sound bites was lacking "balance" in that it was inaccurately slanted to make the Leftist / Liberal / Democrats look bad.

In fact, your complaint in itself represents the same type of bias that you are complaining about.

I saw the segment. The montage was a setup for the immediately subsequent interviews Bill O'Reilly did with two avowed liberals, Dr. Marc Lamont Hill and another prominent Dem who's name I do not recall at this time. The interviews were entirely dedicated to allowing said avowed liberals to espouse their reaction to the montage. In fact, there were no Conservative / Republicans participating in the discussion.

The subsequent interviews provided the balance that you are claiming was not provided.

Next time, please relay the full and balanced story yourself.

Thanks,

Jackson

Most americans have been raised (with the exception of the third, fourth and fifth generation welfare recipients) to have big dreams, and big plans and big ideas. With hard work, a lot of luck and an understanding of the concept of delayed gratification accumulating wealth has been an attainable goal.

I would hate to be the person trying to accumulate wealth under Obama's vision of America. After the tax burden passes 50% , 60% , 70% or 80% surviving becomes questionable and accumulating wealth an impossibility.

Of course the sixth generation welfare recipients are oblivious to the ever increasing tax burden. Paying taxes is a concept they have never had to deal with.

Maragaret Thatcher said it best with her observation that the problem with liberals is that sooner or later they run out of other peoples money to spend.

P.S. I forgot. Accumulating wealth is a selfish concept. Much better that we work 80 hours a week to provide welfare checks for those who choose not to work.

[QUOTE=Esten]Much of the post-election news coverage has cited multiple reasons people voted for Brown. And if you had to thread together a common denominator, it would not be healthcare. It would be discontent with government. I think Obama got it just about right. Republicans have attempted to frame the MA election as a referendum on healthcare, declaring Brown's 52% win means "The American People do not want this bill". That's an exaggeration and you guys know it. And even though it was not a referendum, Obama and Dems have already signalled they could change course. I call that reacting not denying.[/QUOTE]With all due respect, Esten, if you don't think this was a referendum on health care, it's only wishful thinking on your part. Democrats in the House and Senate already have concluded that, in fact, it was. That's why they're trying to reunite around a stripped down health care bill where they can at least engage in a charade that they tried to get bipartisan support -- something they didn't do with the last version.

In the immediate aftermath of Massachusetts, there was talk of having the House pass the Senate version unamended, and then having the Senate just give them back some of what they hoped for via amendments that would only require majority (51-vote) support. They have since abandoned that discussion. Why? Because too many House Democrats concluded that it would be political suicide, and they now know that they are quite far down the plank already. If they truly believed that this wasn't about health care, they would pursue that tack. As matters stand, enough House Democrats have come out and publicly stated that they understand it was about health care, so any effort to pass an unamended Senate bill is a non-starter for them.

I said this six months ago on this board: If they don't pass health care by Thanksgiving, it's dead in the water. They got close, but with elections around the corner, they simply can't pass something that: (a) the majority of Americans don't want; and (b) will cause high numbers of opponents to go to the polls to oust them from office. That's what all this is about now: Massachusetts demonstrated that health care will greatly increase voter turnout of its opponents, particularly among independents. When something like this happens in Massachusetts, every Democrat who expected to have even a mildly difficult re-election became nervous.

The trick now will be for Obama to pivot away from health care (without looking like he's abandoning it or licking his wounds) and focus on other things, while convincing enough people that he can genuinely bring change in the post-partisan way he promised. That last bit will be tough, and it's his own fault. He's shown Republicans that they can succeed simply by resolutely standing against his left-leaning agenda, especially when the Administration's response was "*&!*% them, we'll do it without them." He's going to have to modify that approach to have any hope of succeeding, and he's going to need some small victories to convince Republicans that their strategy will not always pay off. It can be done. His "tough" talk on banks is a good first step, but it's going to take some time.

Republicans predicted that health care would be his Waterloo. Obama did more than anyone else to prove them right. When all's said and done, it will be acknowledged that Waterloo was in Massachusetts.

Obama is already making the pivot to the economy and jobs but has already shot himself in the foot with investors with his "tough talk" on the banking and investment industry.

Check the market lately? Worst week since Nov. '08, market dropped 400 points, the start of the reaction to Obama's anti-business "tough talk" and the uncertainty in the Federal Reserve.

What happens when investors and corporations get nervous, they pull back, ie banks don't make loans, companies don't buy capital equipment or invest in new technology, the job market continues to shrink since no one is hiring.

Obama is not leading he is jumping from one issue to another trying to please everyone and pleasing no one. He just does not have a "vision" he only has campaign slogans which is short term and produces nothing.

I agree some of the Democrats are getting the picture and many will just bail out rather than face being turned out by the voters.

Employment is not going to get better before the midterm elections regardless of what the Democrats do now, the crushing debt burden is coming into play (see earlier post on Dems raising the debt ceiling another $1.9 Trillion) and now the market is tanking again on Obama's "tough talk" to those bad old business people. Can anyone say Titanic come November?

[QUOTE=El Alamo]Most americans have been raised (with the exception of the third, fourth and fifth generation welfare recipients) to have big dreams, and big plans and big ideas. With hard work, a lot of luck and an understanding of the concept of delayed gratification accumulating wealth has been an attainable goal.

I would hate to be the person trying to accumulate wealth under Obama's vision of America. After the tax burden passes 50% , 60% , 70% or 80% surviving becomes questionable and accumulating wealth an impossibility.

Of course the sixth generation welfare recipients are oblivious to the ever increasing tax burden. Paying taxes is a concept they have never had to deal with.

Maragaret Thatcher said it best with her observation that the problem with liberals is that sooner or later they run out of other peoples money to spend.

P. S. I forgot. Accumulating wealth is a selfish concept. Much better that we work 80 hours a week to provide welfare checks for those who choose not to work.[/QUOTE]I whole heartedly agree with your narrative and agree we are in over our heads with debt. However, blaming Obama for the 10 - 15 trillion dollar deficit is a stretch for this Gomer. The numbers are mind boggling. Since Obama has taken office, about two trillion has been added to the sickening debt. The primary culprit for Obama's two trillion is the country is in a deep rescession. Revenue loses are the primary culprit for the debt incurred during his time in office. Furthermore, this recession was in the works long before Obama took office. This does not let him off the hook, but the deficit spending for this physical year was in the pipe before he was even elected. Obama has not even submitted his first budget proposal yet.

For reigning in deficit spending: today. The bank bailout money ($700,000,000,000) was approved by the prior idiot's Congress (Republican) and for the most part shall be paid back, I hope. And the stimulus package money, which is Obama's deal ($800,000,000,000) is largely un-spent. Think there is about five hundred billion remaining. Whatever. I will give you the cash for clunkers BS gimmick as a waste, and some of the other BS. However, it is chump change in the scheme of things when considering the national debt. The deficit, real time, now, today, this very moment, is not the present administration's excesses. Please point the finger where it belongs: Republicans.

Being labeled a Liberal with connotations of irresponsibility pisses me off. How in the hell can I / anyone vote, support a bunch of irresponsible fucks that got us in the fix we are in today. Lying, cheating Republican bastards.

Thanks

Jackson- I provided an accurate description of the segment I listened to. After the segment ended I changed the channel.

Your attempt to re-frame my post glosses over the specific point I had an issue with. This was the deliberate inclusion of a ridiculous kooked-out clip in the middle of otherwise fairly standard fare.

This would be comparable to a series of clips of Republicans speaking on current events, and then including in the middle a short clip with a Republican saying "Obama is the devil, and Democrats were responsible for 9-11".

Such a practice is highly questionable, regardless of what follows in the program to provide "balance".

Surely you don't defend such practices. I would not if I saw them on other networks.

Danman, check the facts - while the initial legislation was passed under Bush the majority party in Congress was the Democrats not the Republicans, they lost that durning the midterm elections two years before.

Also the Obama "Stimulus Package" funds are being spent and at an ever increasing pace, within six months or less most of that $800 Billion will be gone - don't you remember all the news reports about the Republicians bitching about the Democrats using the "Stimulus Funds" as a slush fund for pork? Now the Democrats are talking about another "Stimulus" package for "job creation" after the roaring success of "cash for clunkers" you really think that will fly. What about all that infastructure repair - the money is gone but where is the work?

How many years did it take to run up the deficit? - 8 years and Obama has added over $2 Trillion in less than one year. Do the math and the associated projections on spending at this rate.

Looks like the democrats might be able to get the health care bill passed. The house can pass the Senate bill, so it just goes to the president, no way to filibuster. Then they can add a few change to the health care bill and add it to a budget bill, which cannot be filibuster, so all they need is 51 votes.

This will satisfy the house Demarcates so they will pass the senate bill unchanged. The Senate bill will not go back to the senate, but right to Obamas desk.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/23/us/politics/AP-US-Health-Care-Overhaul.html[/url]

Doppelganger,

If you want to talk about the market, don't forget how well it recovered last year.

Here are some facts. Bush inherited a record budget surplus, and turned it into a huge deficit after cutting taxes and not properly funding his initiatives. When Obama took office in January 2009 the CBO was projecting a deficit of $1.2 trillion for the year.

The $787B Recovery Act is considered by economists to have been a worthy step to address this recession. The website recovery.gov was set up to provide transparency on the spending. Roughly a third spent or in process, a third in tax cuts, and a third unspent to date. I've seen and benefited from the infrastructure (highway) improvements myself. And Cash for Clunkers was successful in providing incentives to stimulate a key industry at a critical time, and get fuel-inefficient vehicles off the road.

I agree with Damman. The economic downturn and current deficit is largely (not solely) a Republican gift to the country. Obama and the administration have taken responsible steps, proportional to the severity of the downturn, to stabilize things.

Unfortunately the right is only interested in scoring political points and getting in the way of progress on this issue.

Yes, Bush took a surplus and turned it into a deficit after 8 years of war, I assume you recall that little dust up on 9/11? The fault I have with Bush was not the war but funding it with debt and not paying as we went.

Depending on the economists you talk to the bailout either worked or failed to have a significate effect but only resulted in pork barrel spending in Democratic districts. So it is easy to shop for an economists with your point of view, just as it is for me.

I am not sure how I am expected to be grateful for a market which fell from nearly 15,000 to 6,500 then hobbled back up to 10,600 to begin dropping like a rock again this last week.

Both the Democrats and Republicans are at fault but I see the Democrats getting a big chuck of it due to the housing debacle "lets make housing affordable" bullshit which led to this mess. The Republicans deserve almost as much blame for spending and acting like Democrats after they came to power. Had they acted in concert with their avowed principals of smaller government, lower taxes and less spending we would not be in the mess we are no with the Democrats in control and Obama in constant campaign mode.

We need a leader, which Obama is not, lower taxes, less government programs and meddling in business. The one thing that always floors me is if something goes wrong politicians think we need a new law. What we need is to simplify and reduce the number of laws and ENFORCE them. The Fed and SEC could have stopped this in its tracts years ago by enforcing EXISTING law.

Today a huge commercial real estate development in New York City went into default. They bought an apartment complex for 5.4 billion dollars a few years ago and today it is valued at 1.8 billion. They gave it back to the lenders who will have to eat the loss.

This is the start of the second shoe everyone has been worried about. The wave of commercial real estate defaults coming down the pike.

I am getting on the bus and moving to that cabin in the mountains.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]The one thing that always floors me is if something goes wrong politicians think we need a new law. What we need is to simplify and reduce the number of laws and ENFORCE them. The Fed and SEC could have stopped this in its tracts years ago by enforcing EXISTING law.[/QUOTE]We have had 200+ years of law making. There are plenty of laws and very few new developments that require special law making. The Constitution is very clear on all men being created equal and other blanket protections. There is no need for most of the legislation that has been enacted over the past 20 years. Governmental interference was certainly the largest force in the economic calamity of 2009/2010 and continued governmental meddling threatens the economy's ability to pull us out of this funk. Government policies driven by the executive branch deepened and exacerbated the Great Depression. Revisionist history incorrectly gives credit for ending the GD to people who made it worse.

Review my aged posts and you will find that I am a proponent of going back to the model that the Founders envisioned of a part-time, citizen legislature. In that model the members of congress are citizens that work for a living in the private sector and spend part-time in Washington addressing pressing legislative issues (not diverting billions of confiscated citizens' wealth to their districts)