home

Obama's Town Hall Meeting

By Jeralyn, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 10:52:31 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

President Obama is holding a Town Hall meeting. Here's a thread to discuss it.

< Hillary Clinton, the Drug War and Drug Treatment | It's Really a Blizzard >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's Town Hall Meeting | 89 comments (89 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Universal healthcare doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:08:15 AM EST
    have to be single payer?  AT LEAST HE'S SAYING UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE.   We have legacy institutions though.  Yeah, we do right now but as things continue to crater and the insurance companies have to deal with their own "bad investments" they made are we really going to have these legacy institutions to deal with?

    IIRC during the election Obama (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:57:20 AM EST
    called his healthcare plan UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE and also condemned mandates. Healthcare is not universal when some people opt out.

    Sorry if I'm skeptical about what he mean when he says universal healthcare now.

    Parent

    I'm skeptical too (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 12:01:55 PM EST
    The pressure is on though as people get more and more desperate and he's revealed himself openly today.  He has identified who else he considers that he has to play ball with......the LEGACY INSTITUTIONS.  Bring on the arguments during this economic failure that the insurance companies are part of in suffering from as well as creating :)  He's really done it now :)

    Parent
    Well, you know he has to make sure (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 03:22:05 PM EST
    the campaign contributions spigot stays open and on and gushing money - it's one of the reasons he's also playing so nice with Wall Street, and why we are never going to get the kind of reform that we so desperately need.

    I have more or less given up hope that Obama is going to improve things on the health care front; I know that's terribly pessimistic and some here will accuse me of not planning to be happy with what he comes up with no matter how good it is.  I would, frankly, love to be surprised by a really good plan for reform - but looking at how he is going about things on other fronts, I just don't think that's likely.

    Parent

    Universal health Insurance (5.00 / 9) (#26)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 12:21:48 PM EST
    Obama is pushing health insurance, not healthcare. And, just like his commitment to propping up a failed financial system, he is committed to propping up a failed for-profit health insurance system.

    Having insurance does not guarantee one will have decent healthcare. Just talk to the multitude of people who are forced to fight the insurance companies over payment for healthcare services.

    Profit and healthcare are a bad mix. Profit will always win, and the people will always lose.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 12:36:59 PM EST
    Insurance premiums are going through the roof for coverage that demands more and more out of pocket expenses and limits treatment.

    Obama is promoting more access to health insurance. Having access to an insurance plan does not mean that you can afford the premium,  the additional out of pocket expenses or that you be to have the treatment that your physician recommends.

    Parent

    All the pols were pushing insurance instead (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:31:21 PM EST
    of healthCARE.

    All your warnings are very accurate. Another thing to beware of with health insurance is the companies that claim to be not-for-profit.

    PREMERA Blue Cross tries to claim that status, yet they sure don't behave like a NFP. In fact, they attempted to go public a couple of years ago without success.

    State Farm is a NFP company and they share any profits back to the insured. I used to get a month of premiums back when they had a profitable year as a "shareholder". PREMERA spreads their profits to already overpaid employees rather than rebate premiums or paid for procedures.
     

    Parent

    And healthy people opting out (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by sallywally on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 12:47:44 PM EST
    is unavoidable without mandates.

    This one really gets me MAD! I'm about to go on a Medicate Advantage plan when I turn 65 next Jan. 1.

    Grrr.....

    Parent

    Be careful with Medicare Advantage (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 12:58:45 PM EST
    Those plans are NOT traditional Medicare. They are run by traditional for-profit insurance companies. Their goal is to make money off you, not to provide you with healthcare. Read the policy carefully.

    Many people have found, after the fact, that these plans are bad. They aren't covered when traveling, even within the USA. Services they thought were part of the package aren't really.

    Also, these plans cost the government quite a bit more than traditional Medicare. The government is not going to keep paying the extra $$$. So, people on these plans will see their costs go up and services go way down.

    Parent

    You're so right! It's my pension fund (none / 0) (#42)
    by sallywally on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:33:13 PM EST
    that requires we go to Medicare and that has chosen Aetna Medicare Advantage on our "behalf."

    Those plans were the Repubs privatizing Medicare under the radar. I hate them!

    I don't know if I'll have a choice to do traditional Medicare or not, or what they have done to traditional Medicare to make the Advantage programs more money, maybe forcing us into those programs because regular Medicare doesn't cover what it used to.....not sure. But it's BAD.

    Parent

    Question: (none / 0) (#34)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:20:15 PM EST
    should healthy people pay for people who choose not to lead a healthy lifestyle?  

    Parent
    "Profiling" for health care, too (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:32:22 PM EST
    is what that would mean -- and it would, the way that data collection and use works, become economic class profiling, educational profiling, gender profiling, age profiling, regional profiling, as well as ethnicity and race profiling.

    So: No.

    Parent

    The new "personalized health care" (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by sallywally on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:38:01 PM EST
    which requires you to follow their rules to stay or get healthy and which does say you'll pay more if you don't do that, is gaining a lot of ground now.

    Ohio State, where I worked began that program right at the time I retired. It infuriates me! One thing to offer counseling, help, cheaper exercise sites, etc, and another to demand people adhere to your rules.

    Parent

    And of course, gender-orientation profiling (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:36:11 PM EST
    is something we -- as a gummint -- already tried, if based on bad data or mythology or religion or all of the above and more against a group in which only a few partook in what others saw as an "unhealthy lifestyle."

    See: Reagan and AIDS.  See also: the result, an epidemic that reached everyone.

    Parent

    Reagan and AIDS.........shudder (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:37:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Should People Pay (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:37:03 PM EST
    For other's bad genes? Sounds like this kind of thinking was attempted in Germany, WWII.

    Parent
    Question (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 02:00:01 PM EST
    Should everyone else pay for those who consider themselves too healthy to need healthcare and refuse to pay for it when they get sick or get in an accident?

    Other things like genetics play a significant role in who has major health problems.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#90)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 05:26:23 PM EST
    emergency room then out the door with them.

    Parent
    We already do (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 02:04:59 PM EST
    Where do you think the health insurance premiums paid by people who aren't at the doctor constantly are going?


    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#65)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 03:24:48 PM EST
    Between my employer and I, we pay at least 500 a month for my single person health insurance. I have never been to a doctor for anything other than a yearly physical and mammogram. And I'm 51, so I've been paying in for many years.

    Parent
    What is an unhealthy lifestyle? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:21:24 PM EST


    Parent
    One (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by hookfan on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:38:10 PM EST
    which someone else doesn't like. . .

    One can diet or exercise oneself to death also-- just ask an anorexic or Bulemic caretaker.

    Smoking or overeating has a case for it. But what about work pressures and stress related disorders. Maybe corporate america requires an unhealthy lifestyle to make a living. Good luck trying to get that changed. Nah, much easier to pick on Obesity or smoking.
       By the way, guess what is one of the leading health issues for the non fat in later life? Osteoporosis. those heavier in earlier life have significant less problem with it. Maybe we shouldn't pay for those with weak bones either.

    Parent

    Obama smoking (none / 0) (#50)
    by Amiss on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:43:24 PM EST


    Parent
    we would have a problem if we start basing (none / 0) (#74)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 06:50:19 PM EST
    decisions upon health...

    we'd have to cut out anyone who eats at a Fast Food joint more than a couple times a month...

    we'd have to cut out anyone who eats red meat more than once or twice a week...

    we'd have to cut out anyone who drinks more than a soda or two a week (considering one soda has MORE sugar than the government would recommend for a daily portion if the Sugar lobbyists actually let the government put Sugar on the label)...drinking too much soda leads to diabetes...and I don't want to pay for someone else's diabetes when they wouldn't have it if they just ate healthier...

    we'd have to cut out anyone who drives too much....
    we'd have to cut out people who work in dangerous jobs...

    I could go on and on...

    it only works if all persons are involved...

    Parent

    So really (none / 0) (#89)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 05:25:36 PM EST
    think that if we get universal health care, the gov't will not make decisions on the cost of the care and then ration the care?  

    Parent
    I listen, hope, but wait for actions to verify-- (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jawbone on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 07:11:52 PM EST
    Obama often says the good things, then does something else. There's always wiggle room.

    I cringed when he referred to Big Insurance as "legacy healthcare." I think I'm not going to like the word "legacy" much after he gets through his time in office.

    Legacy assets
    Legacy BushCo power grabs
    Legacy healthcare

    Parent

    How can you insure that our Veterans (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:16:17 AM EST
    are successfully transitioning into civilian life?  Another notion that makes my teeth itch and now Obama is waxing patriotic, which is sort of nauseating.  Can we talk reality and facts?  You don't recover from PTSD, it can be managed in some cases but not every case.  It is absurd to even promote this idea that you can bring people home from such life altering experiences as wars and then "provide services" that insure these people return to "normal".  Hoping for such fairytales to be real also promotes notions that Wars can be used outside of last resort scenarios.  PTSD is forever, War must be a last resort because it is going to cost you.  If War is a last resort also, those who suffer PTSD from it never need also bear other shames as well!

    The VA is being run so poorly right now (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:43:05 PM EST
    that I can't see how we can trust the gov't to oversee health insurance.

    My dad is a WWII veteran (disabled in the battle of Peleliu). He lost his right arm just below the shoulder. His VA benefits were unquestioned when he elected to use them over these decades. Until a month ago, that is.

    They have stopped sending him his medications and keep coming up with weak excuses (printer is down) for not renewing his expired prescription benefits.

    The people in charge of this system now want to take over healthcare/insurance for all of us!


    Parent

    I can't speak to the VA, (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 04:03:34 PM EST
    but I am on traditional Medicare. And it is a very well-run program from my perspective. Part A and Part B claims are paid promptly. The administrative costs are very low, which is another good argument for passing HR 676 (Medicare for All).

    Now, Medicare Part D, the prescription drug program, is pretty awful. It is run by for-profit insurance companies. These companies set the premiums and the co-pays. There is the dreaded "donut hole" where once your med costs reach a certain amount you must pay the entire cost yourself until you have paid an even higher sum. Then the benefits kick back in. It's a little accounting scam BushCo inserted to make the program look like a better deal cost-wise. Many people get caught in that donut hole and can't afford to pay for their medications. So, they never get out of it. And the whole thing starts over every January 1. Oh and, the government is forbidden from negotiating prices with the companies.

    The only problem with traditional Medicare is that the amounts paid to doctors are too low. This means there are doctors who won't take Medicare patients. If the whole country was on Medicare, though, the larger pool would allow for higher payments to doctors while at the same time disallowing outrageous charges.

    Parent

    We weren't talking about Medicare, but (none / 0) (#68)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 04:20:42 PM EST
    you are correct in all you say about it.

    There are doctors who refuse to take PREMERA Blue Cross insurance because they pay way too low against the billings, as well. Physicians are getting active in fighting some of the worst private insurance carriers, and with the help of the subscribers lobbying their employers to change carriers, we might be able to effect some positive changes in the existing system.

    Premera probably has some of the highest premium costs in the state. I worked there for a year and was appalled to see the wasteful spending.


    Parent

    I was responding to kdog's (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 04:30:13 PM EST
    comment that expressed scepticism that the government could run a program better than private insurance companies. I was pointing out that the government already runs a healthcare program much better than insurance companies could or would.

    Parent
    I thought I was agreeing with you (none / 0) (#71)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 04:35:12 PM EST


    Parent
    You did. (none / 0) (#72)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 04:39:19 PM EST
    I was just trying to clarify my comment because I thought I wasn't clear about what it was responding to.

    Parent
    I hear that comment a lot (none / 0) (#75)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 07:01:59 PM EST
    that a private company is less wasteful than the government...

    but I have yet to see it work in reality...

    can anyone point to any industry where there is a comparison that favors private companies?

    to my eyes, private companies can be just as wasteful as the government if they're given the chance...greed wins out 100% of the time...

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 08:51:00 PM EST
    Not one comment has said private is better.


    Parent
    Hear Can't Be From Here (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 09:15:14 PM EST
    Unless of1000Kings has a text to voice function operating on his or her computer. IOW s/he hears the comment a lot but s/he has not seen it here save for kdog doubting that the gov could run a efficient healthcare program better than a private co.

    Parent
    Inspector, please see comment #52 (none / 0) (#85)
    by caseyOR on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 01:20:17 AM EST
    in which kdog expresses some doubt about the idea that the government could run a better healthcare plan than private business. I was responding to that.

    Parent
    caseyOR, use the [Parent] (none / 0) (#87)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 12:34:09 PM EST
    button to see who is responding to whom.

    Parent
    Thank You Inspector... (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:46:59 PM EST
    for questioning the liberal dogma that the government can't possibly do worse than the crooked health insurers...they can.

    Parent
    Veterans Administration (none / 0) (#79)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 07:17:12 PM EST
    appears to be woefully understaffed in relation to needs.  If you go to USAjobs and look at openings just in NYC, there are dozens in the healthcare area and probably other areas as well.  Compounding this is the small budget for the V.A. in comparison to its needs.  

    Parent
    They have just learned from the antics (none / 0) (#82)
    by Amiss on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 07:34:51 PM EST
    of such companies as BCBS in how to avoid payments.

    Parent
    Thanks to your father for his service. (none / 0) (#55)
    by coast on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:51:04 PM EST
    Did they identify why they were questioning his benefits?  I would send them a picture of your you father with nothing more than "Enough Said" written on it.  How despicable!

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 02:02:41 PM EST
    they aren't questioning his benefits. They are pretending the administrative problems are in their way, not returning phone calls, etc. He finally had to pay for his latest refill because they left him no choice.

    They are doing this and much, much worse to our younger veterans from some of the awful stories that have been told.


    Parent

    Terrible (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:51:24 PM EST
    And we are hearing many stories from those newly retiring about many of their legit past injuries that have been documented being questioned now, and documentation being "lost".

    Parent
    I submitted the "Jon Stewart Question" (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:31:23 PM EST
    The one he asks every economist who comes on his show. Which is, instead of bailing out the big banks and AIG, why not give the same money to the home-debtors to pay down their mortgages? Then all the toxic assets will be made healthy and everybody wins.

    Homeowners aren't worth the risk. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:34:33 PM EST
    They might just take the money and run.  Oh, wait...

    Parent
    You mean (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:45:57 PM EST
    Take the money, write an op-ed in the NYT about how badly you are treated, and then run.

    Really though - make the check payable to the homeowner's mortgage company in the name of that mortgage holder, if they are afraid the 'little people' won't give the money to the banks. We're cutting the banks checks anyway - make them on behalf of some unfortunate's mortgage. Start with veterans and the disabled and unemployed.

    Parent

    Because if they pay down their mortgages (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by sj on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 04:43:57 PM EST
    The banks don't get to make all that lovely money in interest.  They don't consider that winning.

    That's the thing that makes me crazy about this conversation when people start worrying about the losses the banks will take if the principal of a loan is renegotiated to a lower amount.  The bank is getting their investment back no matter what.  They would just be getting less interest than they expected.  

    Now granted, I don't know how those funds are booked. And I don't really care, either.  I, too, am making less money than I expected.

    Parent

    The banks are making zilch (none / 0) (#81)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 07:18:42 PM EST
    right now on the non-performing (defaulted) mortgages and other loans.

    Parent
    Different deal (none / 0) (#86)
    by sj on Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 09:20:53 AM EST
    ... than what I'm talking about.  

    But related -- depending on the reason for the default.  For many loans, if the loans were negotiated to a manageable deal then everybody wins.

    Parent

    Instead of an outright gift (none / 0) (#62)
    by ding7777 on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 02:48:24 PM EST
    just model it after the "Student Loan" program with a generous repayment schedule.

    Even the problem of owing more than the house is worth could be resolved by forgiving the price difference after 10, 15, 20 years

    Parent

    Yup, that would be fine too (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 03:26:21 PM EST
    Better in fact.

    Parent
    the government could have given (none / 0) (#76)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 07:06:49 PM EST
    low interest, or no interest long-term loans (15-30 yrs) to homeowners to pay for mortgages...

    the homeowners use the money to pay off the mortgage, and then have all that money from the monthly payment to use in other ways...

    the banks once again have capital (which they don't have now, even with the bailouts) and money is available to boost small businesses (which Repugs act like they are so interested in) through the available income of homeowners who spend the money....

    it's too late now, though, as the bailouts have already been made and we the people are investors in the banks whether we wanted to be or not...

    Parent

    Most of this "money" is just paperwork (none / 0) (#69)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 04:26:11 PM EST
    Not a dollar needs to change hands. Do a logical rollback of debt across the board.

    Most regular workers haven't improved on their earnings in 12 years, and many have slid backward.  

    Parent

    no marijuana yet (none / 0) (#2)
    by Lil on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:10:59 AM EST


    he says no, it won't help the economy (none / 0) (#3)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:13:01 AM EST
    and is not the solution.

    Parent
    He is attempting to (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:18:27 AM EST
    "shame" the public that wants this legislation using his wording and tone.  As if we are bunch of loser stoners laying around all day with the munchees.  I don't like that either.

    Parent
    yes, (none / 0) (#10)
    by Howard Zinn on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:33:20 AM EST
    he framed the issue, yet again, as saying, "no, you potheads don't get your weed."  By not reading the question completely, the audience didn't get to read the valid economic reasons why legalization makes sense.

    There's no way, IMO, that the president can force legalization.  It would be a disaster politically.  However, he can keep the issue open while reducing funding to federal enforcement behind the scenes, in the name of cutting ineffective programs.

    He had to address the question due to the number of people asking it, but any perceived acceptance would have been bad.  This was a strategic decision.

    Parent

    I think he needed to pick a different (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:41:34 AM EST
    strategy.  Bill Clinton would have talked about how this country as a whole is not ready to legalize it.  Too many people have "issues" with it.  Obama could have used that strategy, let's tell the truth about the issue and not project "pothead" hypocritical thinking.

    Parent
    I think that would have (none / 0) (#20)
    by indy in sc on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:46:26 AM EST
    been the right response, but I disagree that Clinton would have said it.  It's difficult for any president who has known pot smoking in their past to explain this and be taken seriously.  That's partly why Obama won't do it and why I don't think Clinton could have.  

    Parent
    Agreed. (none / 0) (#14)
    by indy in sc on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:38:12 AM EST
    He was dismissive of it and didn't even make any reference to the valid arguments in favor of it, which he should have done.  

    That said, there is no way, particularly as the first black president, that he is going to take up legalization of marijuana as an issue to press.  

    Parent

    See, I don't consider the "black" thing (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:43:27 AM EST
    Should we consider the "black" thing?  Do we need to consider that when it comes to Obama just being able to level with the people?

    Parent
    I don't think (none / 0) (#21)
    by indy in sc on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:48:00 AM EST
    the black thing excuses his not addressing the issue--I'm just saying that it explains it in part.  I would argue the "democrat" thing and the "past pot user" thing also weigh into why he won't press this issue.

    Parent
    Most likely (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:51:06 AM EST
    I wish he was braver!

    Parent
    leave it up to the states... (none / 0) (#77)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 07:07:46 PM EST
    we are the United States of America, are we not?

    Parent
    He lies.... (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 12:25:20 PM EST
    did he keep a traight face?

    It would help the traditional market economy, help raise tax revenue, and crush the black market economy....Buy one get two free.

    And it is a partial remedy to out of control law enforcement costs, court costs, prison costs, drug test costs, and probably half a dozen other costs I'm forgetting.

    He lies...did he keep a straight face?

    Parent

    Another book recommendation (none / 0) (#32)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 12:55:52 PM EST
    for ya kdog :)

    Parent
    Thanks NJ... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:28:56 PM EST
    So many titles, so little time...especially when our fine hostess, contributors, and commenters are always writing such interesting things here, it's hard to pull yourself away from TL:)

    Parent
    Exactly - how could it NOT (none / 0) (#53)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:48:21 PM EST
    help the economy?

    Parent
    Yeah, (none / 0) (#60)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 02:30:40 PM EST
    it's not like our Founding Fathers were hemp growers or anything.  Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence on hemp paper fer cryin' out loud!  

    some fun stuff here

    Parent

    Buwhahahahaha (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:22:22 AM EST
    He almost said Mickey D's.  Whew, he caught it, McDonalds would have been pissed at that french fry cook slam :)

    Obama behind closed doors (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:23:34 AM EST
    talks like I do!

    Parent
    I'm sure they (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by indy in sc on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:39:59 AM EST
    still picked up on it and watch the "news" media make a stink about it.  I thought that was hilarious the way he caught himself before finishing the phrase.

    Parent
    His job related (none / 0) (#8)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:28:01 AM EST
    economic ideas are great...as is his leadership and confidence there.

    It seems to me like Geithner and co. are their own separate mini-presidency.  Obama needs to take control of their sh*t with the same mindset he is bringing to jobs and job creation in the future.  

    Perhaps, but the simpler (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by dk on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:32:15 AM EST
    theory is that Geithner works for Obama and is doing what Obama wants him to do.

    Parent
    The buck stops with Obama (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by aeguy on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:34:10 AM EST
    Geithner's plan = Obama's plan

    Parent
    yeah, I know (none / 0) (#13)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:36:54 AM EST
    but the mindset Obama has about job creation seems fundamentally different from the mindset he is bringing to the financial crisis.  Job creation = "government control good!"  Finance crisis = "market control good!  Government control bad!"

    I know that is ridiculously simplified but there it is.

    Parent

    Well, actually, I'd take (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by dk on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:43:20 AM EST
    issue that he is a true believer in government control as a positive force in creating jobs.  Look at his ideas about healthcare.  

    Parent
    Not just simplified (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 12:44:09 PM EST
    but quite wrong.  I'm not sure how you can say they believe "government control bad" for the financial system when Geithner is forcefully advocating for vastly increased government power to both take over and regulate financial companies.  They clearly do think that some parts of this are better dealt with by some semblance of a market and some by strong government authority/control.


    Parent
    The devil is in the details on the (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 12:49:52 PM EST
    regulation front.  Yes they are talking about it, but their talk lacks any definition that would allow one to accurately gauge the actual value of said regulation.

    I'm waiting.

    Parent

    I didn't put it well (none / 0) (#38)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:31:17 PM EST
    but for instance, as far as the government asking for new authority goes, they had tons of regulatory agencies anyway.  As Yves Smith points out, "And AIG, poster child of insufficient regulation, was overseen at the parent level (which is where the black hole creating Financial Products unit sat) by the Office of Thrift Supervision (no joke), which is an agency of the Treasury! So the Treasury is acting like it needs more authority to prevent future AIG's when its own agency was responsible for the doomsday machine part of AIG."  And meanwhile, it seems to me that Obama only wants the government to have so much control over resolving the financial crisis - and he is leaving bailed out companies like Citigroup room to take the money and run.

    My idea wasn't that coherent.  But Obama is certainly showing more deference, and conservatism, when he talks about the financial crisis, than when he talks about the budget, or green jobs.


    Parent

    Except for healthcare. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by dk on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:50:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Deference (none / 0) (#61)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 02:39:49 PM EST
    or cold-eyed realism?  When you say he's "letting Citi take the money and run," you're falling back on  morality.  The right-wingers call it "moral hazard" when they argue to just let Citi et al crash to the ground.  Same idea.

    As Pearlstein at the WaPo keeps pointing out, it isn't fair.  None of this is fair.  But at where we are right now as a result of all that unfairness, you can either keep the financial system from collapsing or you can have what's fair, but not both.

    I'd argue that what the Obama/Geithner/Summers/Bernanke team is doing is trying to fix this with the least damage to the people who bear the least responsibility for the mess-- ie, you and me-- while at the same time laying the groundwork so that we come out the other side eventually with a far better balanced and more rational system.

    It is, after all, a capitalist system.  I don't like capitalism. At all. Once you get beyond small-scale entrepreneurs and neighborhood business, to me it's immoral on its face.  But since we're not proposing to throw it over for socialism anytime soon, they're doing what seems to me to be pretty smart and using a lot of capitalist tactics to push capitalist system levers.

    Perhaps their judgment about how to do that is flawed.  Surely they won't get everything precisely right because we've never been here before and they're trying to thread a truly mind-boggling number of needles here, some of them only half-seen or even completely invisible.

    But the kneejerk assumption that they're some sort of evil, cackling cabal of fat cats plotting away about how to rob the public and shovel wads of cash into the pockets of their fat cat buddies is just nuts.

    Parent

    Re: (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 03:12:39 PM EST
    I'd argue that what the Obama/Geithner/Summers/Bernanke team is doing is trying to fix this with the least damage to the people who bear the least responsibility for the mess-- ie, you and me-- while at the same time laying the groundwork so that we come out the other side eventually with a far better balanced and more rational system.

    But it appears that even optimists re: Geithner's plan think it's not going to be enough.  So why isn't Geithner's plan just viewed as a waste of taxpayer money?  Is spending that money really a necessary step in the dance between Wall Street, Obama, and Congress?  Why aren't the stress tests sufficient to determine whether nationalization of certain banks is necessary?  If the Geithner plan is truly just a prelude to nationalization, well, maybe it is easier to take it slow on that road, but it's not clear to me that it's worth the dough.  Ezra Klein basically sums it up as far as the politics goes.

    But the kneejerk assumption that they're some sort of evil, cackling cabal of fat cats plotting away about how to rob the public and shovel wads of cash into the pockets of their fat cat buddies is just nuts.

    I don't think the Treasury is some sort of "evil cabal."  They just seem passive when it comes to the hijinks of the big market players.  They're letting the banks' worst tendencies prolong the problem.  I suppose you could say those tendencies should self-correct.  But they're given a lot of time to self-correct, because now they're using our money.

    Look...I'm (clearly) not an economist.  Maybe the fears about "nationalization now" are valid.  But if pretty much everyone thinks we WILL eventually nationalize some banks, why not just do it now?

    Parent

    I like one point you mention in your post (none / 0) (#80)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 07:18:05 PM EST
    about capitalism working on a community-based scale...

    I think the one thing we've learned about our economy through this crisis is that no company should be too big to fail...none (well, other than the government, maybe)...

    we need to get back to community-based capitalism...maybe prices rise a bit considering there won't be super companies that can order/sell product by the millions/billions but then we won't have the issues we are facing now...
    and things are always better when they are more personal...

    Parent

    MT singlehandedly (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:34:23 AM EST
    Liveblogs townhall!  Did you also help select the questions?

    What the "bleeping" heck are you doing (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 11:45:08 AM EST
    letting that little "bleep" Timmy "bleep" the heck out of everyone?  That would be my townhall :)

    Parent
    Now, THAT'S a town hall (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 12:00:20 PM EST
    I would pay money to see/attend!

    Parent
    that was more or less the question I submitted (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 26, 2009 at 01:28:38 PM EST
    Didn't go back to check and see if it got any votes though.

    Parent
    Obama's Town Hall Meeting | 89 comments (89 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment