CNBC: Job Growth Will Sustain Economic Recovery

The "experts":

Ironically, the labor market, which until recently had lagged the economic recovery that got under way in the second half of 2009, is seen underpinning growth in the coming quarters.

New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits surprisingly rose last week to their highest level since January in a sign an anticipated recovery in labor markets may take time, a government report showed on Thursday.. Initial claims for state unemployment benefits jumped 25,000 to a seasonally adjusted 429,000, up from a slightly upwardly revised 404,000[.]

Happy Days Are Here Again!! Geithner could cost Obama his reelection.

Speaking for me only

< Jury Acquits Two of Four Defendants in DEA African Adventures Trial | DEA Raids Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in Spokane >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Obama (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 01:44:46 PM EST
    is going to cost Obama his reelection. After all, Obama is the one who's decided to do what Geither suggests.

    And he's not gonna lose. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:41:12 PM EST
    The only thing stupider than believing Obama is liberal Democrat is believing that he has any chance of losing this election.

    Obama can very well lose this election (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Buckeye on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:56:41 PM EST
    IDK why you think he is a shoe in.

    His only hope is if unemployment starts dropping a lot (which I think is unlikely) or the GOP nominates someone that the American people simply cannot vote for.  I am sorry, but Pawlenty, Romney, Daniels, or Huntsman are nearly as bad as dubya and he got elected twice.

    The novelty of Obama has worn off.  He will now have a record to run on.  It will be virtually impossible to even match let alone beat the turnout and enthusiasm from the left.  As for the GOP base, it is hard to see them with as low a turnout nevermind lower.  They hated McCain, only half of them supported dubya by the time he left office, and there was no incumbent to vote against.  They were pretty demoralized.  Not so now.  Lastly, Obama's approval ratings with independents is at 35%.  He won 57% of this group in 2008.  They have turned against him in approval ratings and at the voting booth (Scott Brown, Virginia, New Jersey, 2010 midterms, etc.).

    Obama only got 53% of the vote in 2008 and won 28 states.  He won Indiana and NC each by less than 1% and Ohio and Florida by 3.5% each.  IOW, McCain (a terrible candidate in the worst year the GOP had in decades) was very close to winning 26 states.

    With turnout gap narrowing, falling support among independents, and serious economic headwinds ahead of him, he is no shoe in.


    Wait (none / 0) (#53)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 05:14:30 PM EST
    You actually think Huntsman could win the nomination- he worked for Obama with the "Chicoms" and backs Civil Unions- I mean sure in a sane political party his service as Ambassador to China would be a positive but he's a Republican.  

    Romney can't win anything- he has literally reversed every position he's ever had (compare his 1994 debate with Kennedy to his 2008 platform); Pawlenty while is unoffensive, he has 0 charisma and has the whole bridge and losing his home state by a wide margin thing going against him. Daniels has a real shot as a dark horse but has two things working against him-- first he's Bush's budget director and continued those policies in Indiana (which will leave a paper trail) and secondly and I admit this sounds petty- he's 5' 3".

    Additionally- I'd note that even if you flipped every single one of those states Obama would still have won- remember its electoral votes not States.  


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 05:18:37 PM EST
    it would interesting if Obama ran against Romney because we could compare who had changed positions on issues the most.

    Romney frankly reminds me a lot of Obama because they are both shape shifters.


    I know about electoral college (none / 0) (#72)
    by Buckeye on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 06:23:36 AM EST
    I was just stating a very very small change in the national vote % would make the electoral college much closer.  If the GOP takes McCain's states (which they will, if the repubs could win those as bad as things were for them in 2008, they will win them in 2012) and then add Ohio, Florida, Indiana, and NC they are very close to pulling it off.

    Agree with you completely on Romney.  Huntsman I am not so sure.  The GOP can be shrewd when they need to be.  If Huntsman could beat BO, they could get over a few things they will not like.  They did nominate McCain remember in spite of Limbaugh saying it would destroy the party.


    I think he could easily (none / 0) (#35)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:58:16 PM EST
    lose IF the Republicans nominate someone not totally insane. But that's a big if.

    Oh, they're selling this notion hard ... (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 04:19:25 PM EST
    but it's not true.  The Republicans that matter already have their candidate: Obama.

    There are 4 (none / 0) (#37)
    by Buckeye on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 04:02:23 PM EST
    Romney, Pawlenty, Huntsman, and Daniels.  Christie could pull it off but he will not run.  If one of those win, Obama will need a real economic recovery or he loses.

    Now, if the GOP nominate Trump or Palin, Obama wins 50 states (well, maybe 45, there are some southern states that just will not vote for him).


    Nah, only those first 2 (none / 0) (#46)
    by brodie on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 04:31:06 PM EST
    you list -- Milt Romney and T-Paw -- would have a fair chance.  The others, all very flawed.  Christie has very little resume to run on and anyway presents as a bully.  Obama would easily win the women vote and minorities.  Landslide 55% victory.

    Huntsman?  Smart but too tied to the Obama admin so not very nominatable.  Also too unknown.  Daniels?  Too tied, disastrously, to GW Bush's economic policies.  Also too bland.

    Multiple Choice Milt is the best bet to get nominated and possibly pull it off -- he's slick and quick and could possibly sell the GOP snake oil in the general and do it without the bully business, as with Christie and Trump.


    1st, Christie is no more inexperienced (none / 0) (#47)
    by Buckeye on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 04:40:50 PM EST
    than Obama was when he ran.  Christie is a bully though I agree and he is not running anyway.  2nd, Huntsman has a better chance of winning the nomination than Romney who is going to get absolutely caaaarushed on healthcare in the nomination process.  Daniels is tied to dubya agreed, but he was also spent the last few years as a governor and viewed as a success (not that I agree but the majority of Indiana thinks so).

    One thing I would offer is that I believe you are assuming most people who vote in the general pay close enough attention to think about what you wrote.  I do not believe they do.  If the economy sucks and they do not approve of Obama, they will look at his opponent.  As long as it is not Trump or Palin (or Ging/Huck/Bachman/etc.), they will vote for that person.  It took a whoppin 2 years to give the GOP the house back after Obama won and 4 years after dems won it.  AS unpopular as the GOP was, they still gave the gavel to Boehner and put people like Ryan in charge of committees.  Why? because the American people have short memories and will vote out an incumbent for just about anyone if they are not happy.  I do not think for example Daniels being tied to GWB is going to matter that much to them if they are looking for an alternative to Obama.


    The Dems gave the house (none / 0) (#54)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 05:16:47 PM EST
    to the GOP in 1994 and Clinton won in 1996. Reagan lost seats in 1982 and squeaked to a win in 1984- off year elections aren't strong indicators in modern times.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 05:19:28 PM EST
    but the economy is a good indicator and right now that's not in Obama's favor.

    Yep, (none / 0) (#73)
    by Buckeye on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 06:26:33 AM EST
    If I thought 2011 and 2012 were going to end up like 83/84 and 95/96, I would tell Obama to start writing his 2nd inaugural address right now.  But the economy is probably going to still stink - that is what gives the GOP a shot.

    I wouldn't rule Romney out (none / 0) (#66)
    by NYShooter on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 05:59:22 PM EST
    Let's face it, the election will be a referendum on Obama. There's no Republican out there at the present time that will enjoy a groundswell of enthusiasm. So, the Democrats will get their automatic 35-40%, and the Republicans will get theirs also. And here's where I think Obama made the biggest mistake of his political career. By discarding, so viciously, the base that got him elected he created a huge sub-base of really, really angry voters.

    And here's the catch; disinterested, apathetic Republicans will stay home, they certainly wouldn't vote for Obama. But, disillusioned (and really, really angry) Democrats would vote for a Republican.......if the candidate didn't jolt them out of their socks, like most of the present field would. Enter  Romney.

    One: he looks like a Democrat. He's handsome, comes across the opposite of the bomb throwers, he's benign, he smiles nice, has a fairy tale family, wife/children, has a successful career/history. And, he's proven he can win in a Democratic stronghold.

    As far as his flip/flops. Who hasn't? As someone here said, just look at Obama. And voters do have short memories.

    I would say, unless some really dramatic improvement takes hold, and soon, if Romney is the nominee, it would be his election to lose.


    Interesting points. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Buckeye on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 06:28:13 AM EST
    I like huntsman (none / 0) (#49)
    by loveed on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 04:49:30 PM EST
    The dems. are so giddy in facing the field the media keeps talking about.
    I think huntsman was always the choice of serious repub. the reason Obama made him ambassodor to china was to stifle his run. But in the end it was a plus.Like Hillary he protected him from the mess dems. and repub. has made. It make him bipartisan right off the bat.
    He has an outstanding resume,his approval rating in utah was over 80% when left to become ambassodor.

    The one thing the repub. want is to win. And atractive well respect candidate will win in the primary and the election.  


    I think he is the best bet (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 05:09:41 PM EST
    How can obama criticize him, even assuming criticism was his style, when he thought enough of him to be ambassador to China? Obama would probably vote for him himself over a Dem.

    Ehh (none / 0) (#56)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 05:18:23 PM EST
    the Pro-Civil Unions thing + working for Obama + being Mormon = way, way too much for the GOP base to swallow.

    sounds good to me (none / 0) (#71)
    by loveed on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 10:48:36 PM EST
    do you know the differance between a democrat & repub. repub. like to win.And this resume will do the trick.
     Utah is a very red state. And they love him. He's that knight on a white horse they have been waiting for.

    I don't see that happening. (none / 0) (#48)
    by honora on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 04:44:24 PM EST
    I actually think Trump is better than the rest of the pack.  

    As far as we know, Geithner didn't (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 02:22:04 PM EST
    nominate himself, and no one's whispering about "problems" between Obama and Geithner, so to the extent that Geithner is merely carrying out Obama's policies, I'd have to say that this is all on Obama.

    And we're not likely to see some seismic shift in the Obama Doctrine anytime soon that would have us waking up to economic policies that make sense and stand a better-than-average chance of reversing the downward spiral for the 98% of us who are already clutching at whatever we can to avoid being swept down the drain.

    Any rumors about where the jobs are coming from?  And are we talking well-paying jobs that take advantage of people's educations, or are we still talking about yes-ma'am-you-rang? do-you-want-fries-with-that? kinds of jobs?

    Oh, and aren't we all pleased to know that our very own Harry Reid has endorsed a deficit cap?

    The leader of the Democratic-controlled Senate said Wednesday that any legislation increasing the government's ability to borrow more money to meet its obligations should contain a cap on how big the deficit can be in any given year.

    Majority Leader Harry Reid said the mechanism would involve a new law binding Congress to reduce the deficit. The Nevada Democrat didn't give further details, but several proposals on Capitol Hill would trigger automatic spending cuts or tax increases if Congress can't meet spending or deficit targets.

    "You would just have a law that says we have to do it," Reid told reporters in a conference call. "There are all kinds of triggering mechanisms."

    Even the Progressive Caucus is getting behind it.

    Separately, leaders of two groups of House Democrats said Wednesday they would be open to a debt-ceiling measure that included controls on future federal spending, as long as those limits don't exempt Republican priorities, such as defense spending.

    Reps. Jim Himes (D., Conn.) and Raul Grijalva (D., Ariz.) both signaled that they and their allies could vote in favor of such a debt-ceiling deal, even though they prefer a bill that doesn't include spending-limit conditions.

    "I'm not saying I would vote against an encumbered bill, because at the end of the day we have to raise the debt ceiling," said Mr. Himes, vice chairman of the New Democratic Coalition, a centrist group of 42 lawmakers. Mr. Grijalva is co-chairman of the House Progressive Caucus, a coalition of 77 liberal Democrats who hold more than a third of the party's seats in that chamber.

    And I thought we'd gone down the rabbit hole when Bush was president...jesus.

    Warning (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:29:19 PM EST
    this won't cheer you up.  Geithner strikes again.

    From Sunday's New York Times online.

    The reason for the corporate assistance, we're told, is so that the Obama Administration can garner more friends among the corporate set.  

    I can't blame an administration for adding to its base but it would be useful if ordinary people were part of at least someone's base.  Instead, the fate of ordinary people will be to share the sacrifice; among themselves of course.

    It's clear to see where all of this ends up; a battle to win the top of society with each combatant vying for their version of distribution to the top, the two parties becoming brands of the same thing; a war between Kellogg's Corn Flakes and Post Toasties.

    We can file this under 'some things are better left untouched'


    Ugh... (none / 0) (#30)
    by sj on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:47:37 PM EST
    not a surprise.  But even so.... ugh.

    Well, let's see now (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by NYShooter on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:06:48 PM EST
    America grew to be the greatest example of what a country could accomplish when it has its priorities right. Government policies should always have as its goal the greatest good for the greatest number of its people. If that is done then democracy & capitalism can work their magic, which they did in the 19th & 20th centuries, and produced the highest standard of living for the greatest number of people the world has ever witnessed.

    So, why is it, that a simple, proven concept, "a rising tide lifts all boats,"  is too complicated for the bunch of Harvard business school PhD's surrounding Obama to understand.

    Hint: Geithner & Favreau, a couple of truly, elitist jerks, are Obama's favorite court jesters.

    It's not that it's too complicated, (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:55:23 PM EST
    it's that they don't believe in that concept; they just don't.

    It seems to be more a case of "we got ours, and that's all that matters.  If you don't have yours, that's not our fault; we aren't going to make it easier for you to get ahead because that might take away from us, so...if you can't make it, you can't make it."

    These people just make my skin crawl.


    It's even more than that, Anne (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by NYShooter on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 07:49:28 PM EST
    They hate us. And no, "hate" is not too strong a word.

    Just like Talk Left is written from a defense lawyer's perspective, I've been reading some sources written from psychological/psychiatric perspectives.

    The question anyone with an ounce of humanity has to ask themselves is, how is it possible that Paul Ryan's literally sadistic proposal is even up for discussion, let alone standing the term, "oxymoron," on its head by attaching the morbidly funny word, "brave"  to it?

    Talk about your "Death Panels;" there they are in all their glory. And just like bullies who hate their victims, these morally deficient, mentally defective piss-ants traded their humanity for a modicum of power. And having attained it the only way they can soothe their wretched souls is by inflicting unspeakable pain and suffering on those they deem "unworthy," and those they swore an oath to "preserve and protect."

    Don't be taken in by these fake, carnival barkers; this has nothing to do with "deficit reduction," it has everything to do with lust, power, cruelty, and a country gone mad.


    From the Dept. of Understatements: (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:33:20 PM EST
    New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits surprisingly rose last week to their highest level since January in a sign an anticipated recovery in labor markets may take time

    And I wonder who was really surprised?  Really?  Who?

    Hello. (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by lentinel on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:47:01 PM EST
    New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits surprisingly rose last week to their highest level since January...

    Is this one of the issues upon which Obama would like us to focus now that that silly birth certificate thing has been disposed of?

    Oh (none / 0) (#31)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:49:16 PM EST

    We are ruled (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by chrisvee on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 05:17:40 PM EST
    by idiots.

    Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

    sure. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by cpinva on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 10:02:06 PM EST
    CNBC: Job Growth Will Sustain Economic Recovery

    and rainbows and sparkle ponies will come flying out of my butt too.

    just in case, (none / 0) (#70)
    by cpinva on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 10:03:08 PM EST
    i have some A&D ointment handy.

    Option 3 (2.00 / 1) (#7)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 02:26:38 PM EST
    The unemployment slowdown is impacted by gas prices, european turmoil, the Japanese earthquake/natural disasters globally and other matters entirely outside of the control of any US government policy.

    We aren't in a silo where additional fed dollars = automatic job increases. They help but the idea that things would be A-OK if fed policy changes gives a little too much power to fed policy. I think if we had our preferred policies there would be a change but not one so large that it would impact the election at this point.  Too many other unrelated negatives globally impacting demand, spending confidence and sourcing.

    germany's unemployment, for example, stayed steady despite predictions that it would fall and its economy is really accelerating.

    I understand the arguments being made with respect to the politics and policy, but the reality is that we are very much at the mercy of the status of things globally. Doesn't mean we don't try to get our policy right, but it does mean we should be realistic about expectations.

    Remain Calm! (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 02:35:56 PM EST
    All is Well!

    I hear you ABG. I just don't believe you.

    But austerity will cure everything!


    The decline in the U4 unemployment (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Buckeye on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 02:51:16 PM EST
    rate is a big joke anyway as you pointed out a few months ago.  The decline from 9.8% to 9.0% (which occurred while 36K jobs were lost) was due to a drop of 600,000 people in the numerator (those who quit looking for work) and a 1.2 million person increase in the denominator (increases in the population estimate).

    Krugman had a good piece on this in his blog.  People feed their families on paychecks, not month-to-month calculation changes.

    Yes, the official unemployment rate has fallen. But this is the result less of job creation than of a fall in the labor force participation rate; the employment-population ratio has been flat:

    So, we should do what it is in our control to (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 02:39:21 PM EST
    do, and what makes sense to do, and that's not happening.

    What's going to change?  Are we going to be ending some wars soon - or getting more involved in new ones?  Are conditions in the Middle East going to improve and help oil prices come down, and if so, is that going to be happening really soon?  If the decrease in spending is already affecting growth, how is it that larger decreases won't mean even more negative effect on growth?  

    And how convenient that we will probably always have disasters to blame for global economic effects: this year it's earthquakes and tornadoes; what will it be next year?

    We are not helpless, ABG; we have tools to help mitigate the effect of global events, but instead of using them, we are taking the position that the best way to stop a hemmorrhage is to open up a couple more veins.


    I suspect (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by cal1942 on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:08:19 PM EST
    you're an Obama operative of some sort because so much of what you say comes down to:

    if we had our preferred policies there would be a change but not one so large that it would impact the election at this point

    (The bold is my emphasis.)

    And some variant of 'there just isn't anything we can do or this is the best that can be done, etc.

    Granted there are external problems but there are also possible actions beyond just allowing drift.

    If you believe you can change minds on this site you're wasting your time.


    Don't you know? The only thing that (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:20:51 PM EST
    matters is getting Obama re-elected; everything is seen through that prism, regardless of the effect of any policy or action on the people at whom that policy or action is directed.

    He's always essentially saying, "what difference does it make if we get the policies we prefer, as long as Obama gets four more years."  It's a license, carte blanche, for Obama to do whatever he wants, knowing people like ABG will vote for him regardless.

    It continues to just boggle my mind,

    Really, the only thing missing from ABG's comments seems to be a background chant of "O-ba-ma!  O-ba-ma!  O-ba-ma!"


    I have been thinking about how a GOP (none / 0) (#19)
    by Buckeye on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:27:37 PM EST
    contender will draw contrast between him/herself and Obama.  How?

    Fiscal policy?  National Security?  War?  Health Care?  TARP/Banks?

    All the big things that most people care about, he has been a moderate republican.

    About the only places contrast can be drawn is Kagan/Sotomayor.  I think DADT would have been repealed anyway (majority of evangelical christians supported it as well as a big majority of republicans).  Obama's stimulus was nearly 40% tax cuts.  The Deal continued Bush's fiscal policies but got things that were popular (like unemployment insurance extention and more tax cuts).

    The way Obama is securing a reelection appears to be keeping Republicans from drawing contrast with him.  For this, we need a Democratic President?


    It's not going (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:38:01 PM EST
    to be about policy. We're going to have another election where it's all personal crap like college transcripts and what kind of underwear Mormons wear etc. We haven't had s substantive policy debate in this country since '96 that I can recall. Of course, a lot of this is the media who likes to focus on stupid crap like "who do you want to have a beer with".

    Wait (none / 0) (#59)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 05:20:34 PM EST
    you actually think the GOP supports Obama's healthcare policy? Is this like how Clinton proposed a Healthcare plan in 1993 that was farther right than Richard Nixon's and thus was a Republican as well?

    You see? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by sj on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:45:49 PM EST
    I am far from the only one who says that ABG's raison d'etre is to convince us of Obama's Good Works and Inevitable Re-election.

    And ultimately he doesn't give a hoot about the Good Works as long as we help to facilitate the Inevitable Re-election.

    Amusing that he doesn't see how he has created exactly zero votes for the incumbent.  And many are going to vote for the incumbent in spite of ABG.


    I have said (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 04:09:37 PM EST
    that ABG is the best advocate the GOP has around here whether he realizes it or not.

    You forgot to mention (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:43:40 PM EST

    Money is an ARTIFICIAL thing (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 02:41:08 PM EST
    A trinket, an object, a blip, with NO value whatsoever in and of itself.  Therefore, and quite logically, we are at the mercy of nothing but our own fear, cowardice, corruption, and malignant lack of imagination.

    How is it (none / 0) (#2)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 02:01:18 PM EST
    ...claims for unemployment benefits surprisingly rose last week...

    How is it that these experts are surprised by bad news about every other week.  

    If you keep throwing rational comments in (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 02:06:29 PM EST
    it makes it very hard to dislike you

    And if he does that would be the best outcome evah (none / 0) (#3)
    by Bornagaindem on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 02:04:22 PM EST
    we could get since if we are going to have a republican in the white house any way he may as well have an R after his name. Besides the country obviously didn't learn its lesson after 8 years of Bush 2 wars , a stagnant middle class and the financial meltdown and needs to experience what it really means to have them in charge so we can get on with the real recovery.

    Seriously (none / 0) (#8)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 02:28:33 PM EST
    you guys do realize the nihilistic "burn it down and start over" approach has massive downsides right, that other than FDR its basically never worked the way people hope it would in the US, that approach is essentially prefaced on the concept that massive suffering will make people vote "the right way" rather than doing something else such as going even further right, scapegoating minorities or turing to religion (all of which have happened in other countries under the circumstances)?   I mean the whole Marxist (in a literal sense not in the moronic "Post office=Communism" sense) concept of the machinery of the the elite bringing themselves down hasn't worked out basically ever?

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 02:37:55 PM EST
    people would be basically okay but not great if Obama did nothing but say no to the craziness of the GOP. As it is right now, he's allowing them to decide the agenda and trying to work with them or maybe he really is getting the agenda that he does want.

    I know what you are saying but do you want a slow descent or a faster descent and get it all over with?


    I think he's made some improvements (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 02:59:14 PM EST
    though admittedly Health Care depends a lot on how you view it, and a lot of his other improvements are either rolling back Bush things (Mexico City Rule, ending Medicare Part D, etc), or fixing mistakes from the previous Dem Admin (DADT, Financial Regulation, etc)-- Health Care though is the big one, I know some associate with the disingenous plan that the GOP never intended to pass in the 90s (much like how Nixon's Healthcare plan was significantly to the left of Clinton's but was never really serious), but actually getting it through is a huge thing it stops the bleeding to some extent and is basically the only large scale growth in the social safety net since the end of the LBJ administration.

    No (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:29:03 PM EST
    the healthcare legislation is basically a bail out of the insurance companies. If you want to call that good legislation then so be it but it's not really going to help most people and right now looks like it might not even make it until 2014.

    I mean if you like Obama's HCR then you would like Ryan's HCR since it's pretty much the same thing.


    really? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by CST on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:34:50 PM EST
    I must have missed the part where the HCR legislation eliminated medicare.  Or the part where Ryan proposed a significant expansion to medicaid.

    But other than that Mrs. Lincoln...


    Yes (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:41:21 PM EST
    and how much of the Medicaid expansion is going to last? Obama is agreeing to budget cuts is he not? He already cut out the community health centers. Right?

    The crux of Obama's policy and the crux of Ryan's plans are those "magical exchanges" where the majority of Americans are supposed to be buying their insurance from. The only difference is that Ryan calls them vouchers and Obama calls them subsidies to help you purchase insurance.


    no the difference is (none / 0) (#32)
    by CST on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:49:27 PM EST
    Ryan is using the exchange to eliminate medicare and Obama is using it to supplement the existing personal insurance market.

    But you know, details...

    And as for the health centers:

    "Under the budget deal agreed to by Congress Thursday, the centers would see their funding slashed by $600 million for the remainder of 2011.

    A Democrat staffer on the Senate Appropriations Committee said the cuts aren't as bad as they seem. In fact, he said that under the sweeping health care legislation passed last year, the centers will actually see a $400 million increase in funding."

    In other words, the health care legislation is what has saved them.


    That news must not have reached (none / 0) (#36)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 04:01:41 PM EST
    the community health centers, then; can you explain, or can this staffer explain, how $600 million in cuts is in reality a $400 million increase?

    Maybe it has something to do with this:

    But a spokesman for the agency that oversees the centers said money from the health care bill comes with restrictions, and the centers will have to make adjustments to their programs as a result of the cuts.

    Magiv math - my favorite!

    And, oh, yeah - what exchanges?  And aren't the existing insurance companies going to be offering their products on these exchanges?  How is that a supplement?

    Come on, you can do better than this.


    1 billion in funding - 600 million in cuts (none / 0) (#38)
    by CST on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 04:06:35 PM EST
    = 400 million increase

    It's not rocket science.

    So yes, that 1 billion may come with "strings" but it's still a net increase of 400 million.


    When will the $1 billion in funding (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Anne on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 05:53:28 PM EST
    actually be handed out to these centers?  I'm guessing not in the next fiscal year, because nowhere have I read that community health centers are breathing a sigh of relief that they're actually going to get more money; they are all trying to figure out how they can provide care to more people in need - because there are more people in need than ever - with less money.

    And the whole exchange thing, with subsidies to allow people to buy insurance?  Since it's unlikely that the subsidies are going to cover the entire cost of private insurance, how is it different from what Ryan wants to do to Medicare?  It's not: "here's $X,000 to go buy insurance on the private market.  What's that?  The cheapest policy you can buy is going to cost $Y,000?  Oh, gee...that's too bad."

    And there is still no guarantee that when the time comes for the exchanges to be up and running, that the government won't decide that it simply cannot afford subsidies, or can't afford them to the level where premiums are going to be - thanks to the lag time in the legislation, which is giving the industry lots of time to ratchet up baseline premium levels.

    Smoke and mirrors.


    you'd guess wrong (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 09:58:27 AM EST
    They passed a budget, and multiple bills.  That money gets spent.  Do you want the receipt?

    That doesn't mean they are breathing a sigh of relief, obviously everyone is hurting now and they could have really used the other 600 million.  But 11 billion in new funding was provided under the health care bill (over 5 years).

    "The budget deal relies on funding provided in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to backfill the cut proposed in this Continuing Resolution (H.R. 1473). ACA established a Health Center Fund for 5 years that would have put the Health Centers program on a track to serve 40 million patients by 2015. This cut, in Year One of the Fund, will force the Department of Health and Human Services to redirect these resources to maintain existing operations instead of expanding services to millions more Americans through improved access and quality, and reduced costs."

    Emphasis mine, the money started going out this year...

    The difference is, and I don't know how many times I am going to repeat myself here, Ryan eliminated medicare, Obama supplements the existing personal insurance market.  Pretending they are the same thing is like saying the existing medicare program is irrelevant.


    Ryan eliminates Medicare by supplementing (none / 0) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 10:34:00 AM EST
    premiums for senior insurance in the existing personal insurance market.

    yea i know that (none / 0) (#77)
    by CST on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 10:42:33 AM EST
    that's not the same thing as not eliminating medicare.

    Obama's health insurance legislation (none / 0) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 10:53:28 AM EST
    by design also forces many people (non Medicare) with existing private insurance coverage to accept lower value coverage and more out of pocket expenses for actual health care. They sold adopting the excise tax on insurance with good coverage as a method of reducing cost by forcing people to pay more out of pocket for actual health care.

    How about if we also show the (none / 0) (#80)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 11:45:41 AM EST
    two paragraphs that preceded the one you provided?

    Late last night Congress published the details of the budget deal struck between the White House and Congress over the weekend. The deal would cut roughly $38.5 billion from current funding levels, including $600 million from the Community Health Centers program. Unless rectified, this major reduction will -- in this year alone -- negate the ability to provide basic health care services to over 5 million of our most vulnerable Americans, and will seriously undermine the ability of health centers to provide services to 40 million people by 2015 -- a cornerstone of the health reform bill passed last year.

    "While we understand the difficult choices facing Congress and the President, we also understand the difficult choices facing millions of people in this country who, today, cannot access basic primary and preventive health care services in their local communities. This cut is especially perplexing at a time when our nation and the Congress are focused on reducing health care costs. Clearly, Congress, on a broad bipartisan basis has consistently supported growth of the health centers program over the past several decades, precisely because of their strong evidence and history of improving health outcomes and substantially reducing health care costs and emergency room visits. Simply put, health centers save money and save lives. We are disappointed that the final funding level undermines the ability to serve the millions of people who need our help," said Tom Van Coverden, president and CEO of the National Association of Community Health Centers (NACHC).

    Bold is mine.

    I don't read anything in that press release that suggests this isn't really a cut - it most certainly is - and "backfilling" it from the ACA funding is just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

    As for Paul Ryan and Medicare v. Obama and the ACA, the end game is the same: putting people into the private insurance market where their ability to have access to affordable care is going to be hamstrung by the private industry monolith, and will depend in no small part on someone else's idea of what the government can afford - in any given year - to provide in the way of vouchers or subsidies.  As structured, the subsidies for buying private insurance on the exchanges will not be sufficient to make that insurance affordable, so the only real benefit is going to accrue to - guess who? - the insurance industry.

    The end game is the same, CST; you are comparing varieties of apples, not apples and oranges.  "Apples and oranges" would be the case if Obama, instead of seeking to solve the crisis by going to the industry primarily responsible for it, had put his energy and efforts into reform that would begin moving all of us to a single-payer system.  In that case, you'd have Ryan trying to end a single-payer system and Obama trying to build on one.

    The sick, sad feeling I have is that the real difference here is that Ryan's just trying to get somewhere that Obama may end up going eventually.


    without the ACA (none / 0) (#81)
    by CST on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 12:29:21 PM EST
    there would be no money to cut.

    Bottom line.  Being mad that they got cut in the last budget doesn't negate that fact, and it doesn't negate the fact that 400 million is still being spent that would never have been spent if it weren't for the ACA.

    Look I get it, the exchange is insufficient to revamp the private health care market.  But I'm not gonna sit back and let people pretend that it's the same thing as dismantling a federal program that has been helping seniors for decades.


    the supplement (none / 0) (#40)
    by CST on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 04:09:08 PM EST
    would be the voucher/subsidy whateveryouwannacallit

    next question?


    The problem (none / 0) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 04:07:43 PM EST
    is that Obama never made the argument that single payer or a medicare expansion was a preferable situation during the HCR debate so he's offering the Ryan Plan for the rest of us.

    Wow I thought (none / 0) (#60)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 05:22:41 PM EST
    the difference is that one created new federal support for Healthcare while the other eliminated existing federal support thats been established for nearly 50 years?

    No (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 05:33:35 PM EST
    The Ryan plan is essentially Obama's plan. Ryan wants to exchange Medicare for Obama's plan.

    Once again (none / 0) (#63)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 05:38:23 PM EST
    there's a distinct difference between one plan- which extends subsidies to people who currently get no federal assistance whatsoever and thus could be seen as a step forward towards a Bismark style system as is used in most of the developed world (and which actually is shown to be both more cost effective and have a higher efficacy than a medicare-for-all single payer approach) and a plan which takes a system which has extended federal coverage to Seniors for nearly half a century (and was supported by the Health Insurance industry when it passed in the mid-60s) and replaces that coverage with vouchers- namely the former is a step forward while the latter is a step back.  

    Well (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 05:41:03 PM EST
    then you agree with Ryan if you're saying that Obama's plan is superior to Medicare.

    Not really (none / 0) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Fri Apr 29, 2011 at 10:59:48 AM EST
    Ryan's plan creates federal support to force seniors to purchase insurance through the private health insurance market. Obama's legislation creates federal support to force non-seniors to purchase insurance through the private health insurance market. Neither plan creates federal support for actual health care only federal support for private health insurance.

    Thank you, socraticsilence (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by christinep on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 04:51:00 PM EST
    for your observation...the downsides of "burning down the barn to kill the rat." As you point out, it has never worked in this country. Yet, some non-compromisers or people who are tired of waiting, from time to time, throw up their hands, take everyone down around them, and turn the keys over to that which they purport to oppose. What to say...other than advise as to reading political history over the past 100 years or so. Or, ask them to listen to themselves as they express concern about, say, the most marginalized in society; and, then (almost in the same breath) go on to chance pulling the total rug out from under those they profess to want to help in the ideological belief that a great, spontaneous uprising will ensue.

    I believe in dreams. I encourage dreaming,planning, aspiring.  What is difficult to look at though are the ideologies of those who actually put old-never-working-theory ahead of those they would profess to help.


    Seriously (none / 0) (#61)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 05:27:39 PM EST
    I don't think it would happen here but I would note that perhaps the most common way that Authoritarians seize power on both the left and the right is by capitalizing on extreme socioeconomic distress.

    Gee don't know where you live (none / 0) (#15)
    by Bornagaindem on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 03:04:10 PM EST
    but we are already going to hell in a hand basket. Ben Vernake and all of them accept the fact that at the rate we are going it will take 10 years to get back to full employment - I guess you don't understand what that will do to the people of this country when all these people never get jobs again.

    Geitner/Obama policies are republican policies and very few dems in the house or senate are going to go against their so called fearless leader even as he is leading us off a cliff. They are all buying into the" we must fix the deficit mantra" instead of real Keynsian  stimulus so there really isn't any difference between these guys at all.

    My point is it is burning down already so it really doesn't matter if a few people are spraying it with water - it won'y do any good. And we will never stop it if we keep these appeasers in office.


    It's time (none / 0) (#5)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 02:09:58 PM EST
    It's time for some deficit reduction, I say.... <snark>.

    Slapping head.

    Fabulous! (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 04:10:50 PM EST
    The toothfairy will save us all.

    But first (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 04:14:33 PM EST
    you gotta lose a lotta teeth.

    first (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by CST on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 04:16:13 PM EST
    your teeth have to be "too big to fail"

    Funniest headline ever (none / 0) (#51)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 28, 2011 at 05:03:04 PM EST
    Thanks, I needed that.