Obama's Plan: Spare Me the Tax Cuts, Give Me My Medicare

I'm finally learning the meaning of hope and change. Three years ago, hope and change seemed like a slogan to roll your eyes at. No more. Now it's becoming something to strive for. But it's not the hope and change Obama can bring us, he's already failed that test. It's the hope for change we have at the thought of him leaving and taking his ineffective administration with him.

Onto last night's speech. Obama is so transparent. His speech was all about construction workers, teachers, and veterans, and instilling fear of China and South Korea, because they are out to take our jobs. He went for the "heartland." As if all he has to do is proclaim South Koreans should be driving Fords and it will be so.

More importantly, as always, his plan leaves those on the fringe out to dry. And that includes seniors (who according to Obama are causing the health care system to implode by their sheer numbers), those who don't own businesses, and those who need affordable health care more than they need a $1,500 tax break. [More...]

I could care less about a $1,500 tax break when it's going to be funded by delaying Medicare eligibility. For a paltry $1,500, he's ensuring I will have to continue to pay $15,000 a year in insurance premiums and deductibles for an extra two years (65 to 67), even though I held up my end of the bargain and paid my required share in medicare and social security taxes for 45 years. And these are the premiums for healthy people -- they are age driven. For those two years alone, he's offering me $3,000. but costing me $30,000. What a deal. And it's not an entitlement he's denying, it's money I've already paid in which the Government always told me I could count on receiving back in the form of Medicare at age 65.

And what if we get disabled between 65 and 67? Disability policies end at 65 (probably because that's when people start receiving Medicare)and even though some policies can be extended, the premiums for doing so this late in the game are so exorbitant, it makes little sense. If we become sick or disabled and unable to work at age 65, and we have no Medicare or disability insurance, how do we survive? On social security? That's a laugh. I'd rather Obama asked me to donate $1,500. to someone already needy and left Medicare alone. I would have been glad to do it.

Obama's health care law was a bust. Premiums just keep going up. It will be another two years before insurance companies can stop charging extra for adults with pre-existing conditions, but already premiums are going up in anticipation of the extra expense to health insurance companies.

I noticed last night in his speech, Obama said his "modest reforms" to Medicare and Medicaid won't mean cuts for "current beneficiaries." Obviously, that excludes those of us on the precipe of eligibility.

I'll be curious to see how he implements this. If it starts in 2013, as was mentioned a few months ago, he's earned my ire for good. No coming back.

I may not have an economic background (other than for white collar crime) but as a "small business owner" for 35 plus years, here's what I think. How many people approaching age 65 can save an extra $15,000 a year for two years to cover the cost of continued private health insurance until they reach age 67, while staying current with income taxes, especially if they have to prepare for the possibility of being laid off, unemployed or disabled? How will they also be able to pay for their kids' college educations, which Obama thinks is so important? As he's so fond of saying, you can't do both.

There will be a lot of people shifting to Medicaid with Obama's plan, and it's just going to cost the country more. It may shift the spending, but it won't reduce it or cut the deficit.

As for creating more mortgage money for refinancing home mortgages, unless the mortgages are offered free of credit checks, how many will qualify, given the struggles most homeowners have faced the past few years? Only the people who could have gotten them anyway.

What business owner struggling to stay afloat is going to hire new workers for the promise of a tax cut? How does that help those who are struggling to meet their existing payrolls? The best way to cut payroll taxes is to have fewer not more employees, and pay less and owe less.

Obama is as fixated on tax cuts as the Republicans. If you don't have income, tax cuts don't do much for you. If you can't afford the employees you have, hiring more to get a tax cut makes no sense. Especially in a downturn economy where consumers aren't spending and either can't get or are afraid to take out more loans or incur more debt.

Every time Obama comes up with a new plan, I feel more marginalized. More set up for disparate and unfair treatment. If I feel that way, and I'm neither poor nor sick, and my business is doing fine, I can only imagine what those who are afflicted feel. If they aren't furious, it's probably because they have no time to pay attention, they are too busy trying to survive.

What's astonishing to me is that Obama is so willing to throw seniors under the bus, when he's facing a re-election. Seniors vote in huge numbers, even those in nursing homes. The youth vote never materializes to the extent predicted. Short of promising marijuana legalization, which Obama won't do, it won't be any different in 2012. So who is going to vote for him? Construction workers, affluent business owners in need of tax breaks, teachers and veterans? That's not enough to win him an election.

< A New Specific Terror Threat for 9/11 | Obama in 2009: Medicare and Social Security "Entitlements" Must Be Fixed >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Frustration with Obama's incompetence (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by ding7777 on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 06:12:24 AM EST
    can be summed up with a Bushism...

    Barry, you're doing a heck of a job

    The L.A. Times (none / 0) (#58)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 11:04:31 AM EST
    Newt's Medicare "Death Spiral" (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Pacific John on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 11:04:56 AM EST
    ...has arrived, and it's name is Obama.

    The negotiation now ranges between slashing retirement programs to the point that we kill public and financial sustainability (the "Democratic" position), and ending them all together. Like a retired Navy hospital corpsman told me, "that's like going into a negotiation over how much of my d!ck to cut off, just the tip, or the whole thing."

    What about (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:52:12 PM EST
    the fact that Obama appointed 4 Republicans to all 4 of the US Attorney positions in Texas? And the one in Utah?

    How about the fact that there remain 103 federal judicial vacancies under Obama?  Teh argument that poor Obama has been obstructed by the big, bad Republicans is more apologista hogwash.  There are nominees to fight for, nominees to forcde the Republicans to look like idiots for opposing, and a little thing called recess appointments.

    The argument of "The Supreme Court" is the biggest reason to vote for Obama is kind of a joke, don't you think?  

    I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by CST on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:56:26 PM EST
    Oculus, or many other people for that matter, consider the Supreme Court to be a joke.

    You're right, of course (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by sj on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:18:48 PM EST
    I don't think ...Oculus, or many other people for that matter, consider the Supreme Court to be a joke.

    Neither do I.  But that isn't what jbindc said.  S/he said the argument was a joke.  That has rather different implications.


    The Supreme Court (none / 0) (#125)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:22:23 PM EST
    As a reason to vote for Obama is kind of a joke. It assumes that a) there will be an opening if a Republican gets in the WH and b) that Obama is so concerned that he is diligently working to fill lower vacancies with good liberal judges and US Attorneys, which obviously has not happened.

    It's just a credible argument at this point.


    Obama's Opportunism (none / 0) (#137)
    by norris morris on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 09:44:16 PM EST
    There is no reason or possible rationalization for this knd of betrayal. It's unsupportable.

    Obama is a practiced faker who is taking his positions and aware of how he will benefit.

    I deplore the speechifying, fan celebrity, and the strokers who carry water for him on MSNBC who pretend to be progressives.  Occasionally they criticise Obama, but when the WH  wrings arms,   the taking heads are back blaming the Republicans for Obama's outrageously blatant sellouts and abuse of the trust placed in him.

    Obama's hubris is spellbinding.  The collapse of the moral center of the Democratic Party enabled Obama to scam his base and feel entitled to do so.

    I have been watching political malpractice and political prostitution and am sickened by both. Obama is wreaking havoc on us all and in no way can be re-elected.


    Robert Reich's verdict (4.75 / 4) (#45)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 09:40:52 AM EST
    Cheers for tone and words about the seriousness of the problem. Jeer for substance and strategy. Again the plan is geared to try to get Republican support, but it is not a big enough proposal to be a campaign issue when the GOP rejects it.

    That's (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 09:45:09 AM EST
    pretty much what I think. Since he's probably not going to get anything of substance at all, why not go big? Politically it's pretty smart but then you have to realize that we're dealing with Obama here who is very afraid of what the GOP might say.

    J, your $1500 "tax cut" (4.67 / 3) (#17)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 07:45:58 AM EST
    is coming out of the Social Security funding, making even that less likely to survive a concerted effort to starve the beast.

    We will be begging for GWB's privatized accounts by the time they are done with us.

    That is the plan IMO (none / 0) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 07:57:41 AM EST
    We will be begging for GWB's privatized accounts by the time they are done with us.

    I believe so (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:15:36 AM EST
    by hook or by crook(s).

    I'm not sure I would be begging (none / 0) (#29)
    by ding7777 on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:21:48 AM EST
    for privatized accounts.  Just look at the loss of principal since 2008 in privatized accounts.

    Well, I sure don't (none / 0) (#33)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:42:29 AM EST
    want to keep putting into SS either if it is going to be undermined. Even with the recent losses my 401k is up over the last 5 years.

    Of course your 401(k) (none / 0) (#136)
    by ding7777 on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 07:56:24 PM EST
    will be up if you're still contributing to it but if you had rolled it over to a retirement IRA you probably lost some money, especially  those who were already taking distributions to live on (just the way an SS account would function)  

    I read over on Naked Capitalism (none / 0) (#90)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:05:20 PM EST
    that written into the new bill will be a clause that the tax break will be reimbursed to SS from the general fund. Which I suppose will then be made up for by the Medicare cuts. Genius!

    Is that news? (none / 0) (#95)
    by sj on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:24:44 PM EST
    The reimbursement from the General Fund is how SS can now be starved.

    Now I'm wondering if I already knew that, or if I assumed that.  


    It makes no sense (4.67 / 3) (#23)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:06:12 AM EST
    When the age for Medicare is raised, S.S. will follow suit. Corporate retirement ages will also be raised.

    How does this help our unemployment crisis? We'll be forcing millions to remain in the workforce. Just what the job market needs right now.

    If the Medicare age is raised, (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:33:57 AM EST
    how many older people will be allowed to keep their jobs? Maintaining an older population on the payroll will substantially raise the cost of employer provided health insurance. It will also force many premiums over the range allowable under the wonderful new excise tax imposed by Obama's health insurance legislation making it even more expensive to keep older employees. Believe me corporations have many creative ways to get around the age discrimination laws and many will use them.



    We'll pay (none / 0) (#34)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:47:50 AM EST
    They'll just continue increase the employee's cost! I have no doubts that the corporate world will not suffer. (Especially with all of DC in their pocket)

    I have no doubt that the corporations (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:56:18 AM EST
    will just continue to increase the employee's cost but I also think that many corporations will reduce the number of older employees on their payrolls as well. Corporations who provide subsidized health insurance IMO won't even consider hiring an older person who has lost their job. Lot of older people are going to find themselves in limbo without a job and little prospects of getting a decent job in the future. It is happening now and will only get worse if they raise the Medicare and/or retirement age.

    digby on raising the Medicare age (4.67 / 3) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:27:27 AM EST
    Well if the rumors are true that they are going to propose raising the eligibility age for Medicare, it's not going to be there for people who are 65 when they need it, is it? I don't know if that's what they've finally decided, but that's what has people up in arms about this proposal. Now, hopefully that horrible idea will not see the light of day. But it's been leaked and considering the past behavior of the administration and the Democrats in congress, it's not wise to just "trust" that it's not going to happen. (And the idea that it will serve as some sort of an "example" to the Republicans to force their billionaire base to fork over some tip money is ludicrous.)

    Moreover, on what planet is it a good idea to take away the best argument the Democrats have in 2012 by proposing this? Candidates all over the country are being told to run on Medicare and hang the Ryan plan around the neck of every dumb Republicans who voted for it. I guess that's not going to be operative going forward.

    It's bad politics and it's bad policy and for the life of me I cannot figure out why they would insist on doing it unless they truly believe the policy of raising the Medicare age is worth sacrificing a huge campaign advantage (much less the lives of many people.) ....link

    Medicare and Obama (none / 0) (#138)
    by norris morris on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 09:59:49 PM EST
    The "they" you mention is really Obama who has sunk as low as possible in his caveins and hypocrisy and lies.

    Obama has set his sights on harming Medicare and it's seniors, and his allusions in his speech are a sure sign  he's willing to harm Medicare and Medicaid recipients.  He is going along with the Republicans on Medicare and if any one is delusional enough to believe Obama is anything but a sellout.....

    Hopefully he will not be re-elected and the natives will become restless enough to protest and create political opposition once more.

    The naivete of believing in Obama's hope and change act was a form of wishful thinking. We must become engaged in reality and face the fact
    that social change is hard work and there are no heroes without fully committed action from the people.  We have to wake up and realize Obama is a hoax.


    I Never Thought in a Million Years.... (4.67 / 3) (#42)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 09:32:01 AM EST
    ... I would be backing republican obstructionism, but damn, if it means leaving SS alone, here's to Boehner & McConnell doing what they do.

    The best hope right now is pure gridlock.

    They will pass that part (none / 0) (#54)
    by waldenpond on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 10:57:39 AM EST
    The Republicans are not going to pass up an opportunity to destroy SS.  If they get to save MCR with a little tweaking (killing people off) they'll do that too.

    I read a sarcastic response to a post noting that there could be a push for suicide by the moochers and looters... it'll no longer be immoral, it'll be patriotic!  If you're no longer contributing to a corporations bottom line?...


    IMO, the likely scenario (none / 0) (#60)
    by cal1942 on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 11:06:25 AM EST
    is that the GOP will go along with the business tax cuts (including stiffing the Social Security Trust Fund)and reject the actual job creation provisions.

    That's the bill that will come out of the House and pass the Senate.  Obama signs.  Mission accomplished.

    Meanwhile the Super Committee will make more drastic cuts to non-military discretionary spending to pay for it all.


    What Democrat? (4.50 / 2) (#8)
    by koshembos on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 06:08:14 AM EST
    One cannot consider Obama a Democrat. At best, he is a moderate Republican. But he is also incompetent, lacking values, empty suit.

    His energetic speech yesterday proposed to rob SS of a lot of money for some jobs he believes will help him be reelected.

    If I'll vote for him, I'll feel dirty and disgusting; cannot do it.

    More like (none / 0) (#62)
    by cal1942 on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 11:07:54 AM EST
    a moderately conservative Republican.

    Obama Must Go (none / 0) (#139)
    by norris morris on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 10:03:55 PM EST
    I cannot bring myself to vote [again] for a
    man of no moral substance, no competence and certainly no ability to keep his word.

    you've NAILED the i$$ue (4.50 / 2) (#20)
    by seabos84 on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 07:53:54 AM EST
    and the i$$ue ain't about big sentences and big paragraphs and big tomes that will get ya a sinecure at the Kennedy School Of Government, College of Good Living Excuse Making Rich Pig Toadies

    the i$$ue is 3 grand that is going to cost me 30 grand when I'm MOST vulnerable to health problems, when I'm LEASE marketable in the job market -

    so you don't allow cursing, you'll have to look at what I think about this ... @#$#$@#%$#%$ on Stars Hollow Gazette or dailykos.

    phuck him AND the boat he came in on


    who is going to vote for Obama? (4.00 / 4) (#2)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:12:43 AM EST
    George W. Bush had his hardcore cult, & Obama has his

    Bush also seems to have had some interesting voting-machine software

    we'll see what Obama has, since caucuses won't be an option for him in 2012

    Media's marching orders (none / 0) (#57)
    by waldenpond on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 11:02:02 AM EST
    I guess we'll have to wait and see who the media (and their blogging stenographers) tell people who to vote for.  Will the media give Obama every advantage or will they want to just have fun seeing if they can take him down.  When you live in gated communities and have job security, it's just fun to see if conservatives will completely eff over the country.

    well (none / 0) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:05:18 AM EST
    "So who is going to vote for him? Construction workers, affluent business owners in need of tax breaks, teachers and veterans?"

    I'm "none of the above" that you mention, and after going over the republican field I feel quite confident I'm voting for the Democratic candidate for President. It's not even a close call for me.

    I'd never vote for a Republican (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:23:04 AM EST
    as I've said 100 times. But I may just vote down-ticket and leave that space blank. If enough of us did that would a Republican win and do even more damage? Yes. But it also might mean that in 2016, we get our party back and a real Democrat in the White House, who can at least turn things around for the next generation. I fear it's already a lost cause for those of my generation.

    Would I rather have a chance to effect change across the board for those I consider most vulnerable -- those accused of crime -- which is impossible with Republicans in the lead? Yes. I'll just have to settle for  trying to save one client's life at a time instead of advocating for groups of them, which will be pointless before another Democrat gets elected. I'm not happy about it, but given Obama's failure to implement meaningful criminal justice reform, on top of getting back-stabbed on Medicare, I can't see rewarding him with my vote. If he wins, so be it, but it will be without my vote or endorsement. And I'll continue to rail against Republicans and their ill-conceived policies and values.


    I lean that way as well, (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 07:42:36 AM EST
    4 years of GOP insanity/cruelty v. 4 years of more of the same with Obama followed by 4-8 more years of GOP insanity/cruelty.

    Neither party has the economic solutions to today's problems so a change of party in 2016 is, in my view, a near certainty.  Maybe it is better to have that change be from the GOP to a more progressive Dem.  I do think voters will be ready for any change after five more years of this disastrous economy.

    Some choice we have in 2012.


    If a Republican wins in 2012 (none / 0) (#21)
    by Politalkix on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 07:54:19 AM EST
    the country would move so much to the right in 4 years that a Democrat like Steve Beshear will be considered a liberal in 2016.

    If a Republican wins in 2012 (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by smott on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 09:04:01 AM EST
    There will be actual resistance by a Dem Senate (and hopefully House).

    I think the choice boils down to:  Obama in 2012, more rightward movement, and then Repubs in the WH for the foreseeable futuree, or

    A Democrat (hopefully a real one) in 2016.



    Seems the choice in 2012 is between (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 09:31:55 AM EST
    continuing to move ever more rightward with Obama or to move ever more rightward with a Republican president.

    No good choices IMO. The government is currently a government by the rich and for the rich and will remain so until such time as ordinary people find some way to get the money out of the elections and
    force it to represent the people.


    How much resistance did Senate Dems give GWB? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 09:36:58 AM EST
    Not much, as I recall. Dems did not resist until they took back the house in 2006. That is not likely to happen in 2012.

    The one place that the Dems did (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 09:44:29 AM EST
    successfully resist was on Social Security. In 2005 they stood united and successfully proved that Social Security was not in crisis and made the Republicans pay the price for trying to dismantle the program. Too bad that Obama wiped out all that effort in a very short time. Too bad he is bound and determined to shield the Republican Party from their vote in support of Ryan's plan. That could very well mean the difference between the Dems taking back the House and keeping the Senate in 2012.  

    Never fear. Obama's here (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 10:32:53 AM EST
    to help the Republicans achieve their objective on the safety net programs when he delivers his plan to make "modest adjustments to health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid" and direct the Cat Food Commission to adopt his grand bargain.  

    And the President putting out a plan that Republicans can point to makes that more likely. It also gives a talking point that will last for decades: "Even liberal Barack Obama supported raising the Medicare age..." That will haunt Democrats for a long time, and may have immediate consequences. link

    You assume, of course (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 09:38:43 AM EST
    That the Senate doesn't also flip.  That's a pretty big assumption considering the Dems are defending something like 20 + seats and the Republicans only around 8 or so.

    thanks, you beat me to it (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by NYShooter on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 11:21:48 AM EST
    If the national revulsion towards Obama's failed, or rather, damaging policies leads to his ouster, at least he won't be lonely. Many of his Dino accomplices will be joining him

    That's not a necessary assumption (none / 0) (#124)
    by Romberry on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:21:25 PM EST
    Even if the Senate flips, the Republicans do not make it to 60 seats. So if Dems act like Dems, 40 votes are enough to resist and nothing passes with Dem acquiescence. (Or are super majorities only an excuse for use when Dems have control?)

    I think you discovered the reality (none / 0) (#129)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 04:01:08 PM EST
    super majorities only an excuse for use when Dems have control

    I disagree (none / 0) (#94)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:23:02 PM EST
    A GOP win in 2012 will be more about disgust with Obama than a genuine desire for more conservative policies.

    That said, more conservative, read nutjob, policies are what we'll get but thos epolciies will fail even more miserabley than Obama's in addressing the needs of most voters.  I do not fear a move rightward by voters, I actually think in this scenario 2016 will see an even greater revulsion of the GOP than existed in Nov 2008.

    And a greater awareness of the need for a real change in direction and avoidance of phony progressives.


    We Have No Choices in 2012 (none / 0) (#140)
    by norris morris on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 10:09:18 PM EST
    We will only have a more progressive Dem and Dem party if we have the courage to starve the beast.

    There is one party out there.  Unfortunately.


    what republican could be worse? (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by loveed on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 09:56:52 AM EST
     Forget the crazies(especially Rick Perry). You would rather have Obama?
     I think were all American, vote for what's best for the country.
     My Obama world.
     1. my husband was laid off in April 2008, making 35.00/hr. He was hire in 20010 through a temp agency for a large company at 17.00/hr. He works Mon-fri, 10-12hrs. On Sat. 6-8/hrs..The position starts at 27.00/hr with Paid family healthcare(I pay about 300.00 a month for the 2 of us). He gets no paid days off(not even for the death of my mom). He's 59yrs old.

     2. I work for a health care company that has a tech. training program ( sometimes I teach these classes). When I started working for this company in 1992 starting pay was 12.00/hr. You had to have a nursing degree or at least an associate degree. My last raise was in 2005. My work load has increased. The demand for overtime is overwhelming.

     3. The training program has been hijacked by these tax incentives. If you apply,and have been out of work for over 6 months starting pay 8.00/hr. The company bends over backwards to keep these people, for the tax incentive. They don't come to work, the company changed the attendance policies, failed there test,passing scale was reduced. Once one of the instructors gave the answer, to meet his quota. Were required to provide a certain amount of new techs. I can't tell you how hard it is working with these people.
    They will always be paid less, the company cut there raise in half. I don't begrudge any one a job. Some of them are outstanding. This is unfair to those who really want to work.

     4. Why the difference in pay? Most of the new techs have children. So the government still pays for there health insurance. And they still receive food stamps.
     5. Normal starting pay is 11.00/hr while in training. They will attend the same classes. Required to do same work. But make a whole lot less.
     6. My 401k match was 10%,now it's zero. My health insurance has changed 3x in the last year(I was informed now I will have to pay for lab work)
     7. Medicare will be the retirement insurance for the majority of Americans soon. Most companies no longer offer health benefits to there retiring employees.
     I can't survive another 4yrs of Obama. Soon I will be leaving the healthcare profession (don't know what I'm going to do). I loved nursing, it help shaped me into who I am today. But it has become a business. The bottom line is money.


    A most accurate and excellent comment (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 10:53:58 AM EST
    The two things that would help the economy:

    1. Drive down energy prices.

    2. Enact a national healthcare program based on the Medicare model.

    is not even being discussed. I feel like I am watching a fool's game played by both sides.

    are not being (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 10:59:21 AM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 11:16:16 AM EST
    the solar panel manufacturers are going great guns according to my husband that sells to them.

    Think how solar San Diego should be (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 11:22:59 AM EST
    Having lived there until recently, I can assure you the sun shines more than enough to justify solar panels everywhere you can put them within reason. Forget "America's Finest City" they should be "America's Solar City."  Just inane.  The maintenance and upkeep alone could provide some permanent employment -- until the sun burns out, that is.  Still boggles my mind that SoCal isn't as solar as humanly possible.

    Thinking of yesterday's blackout, of course (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 11:26:03 AM EST
    correct me if I'm mistaken (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by NYShooter on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:12:58 PM EST
    but, my understanding is that American solar panel manufacturers are going broke in droves. We have two in my locale, both having been given grants worth many millions of dollars by the government, and both having recently filed for bankruptcy. As a matter of fact, one of them was singled out, and visited by Obama on one of his "learning" photo ops. The WSJ (or, maybe it was the Times, can't remember) also, recently ran a feature story on the recent decline in American solar manufacturers.

    The problem, it seems, is that China has designated solar panel manufacturing as a key strategic growth industry and is undercutting us in the marketplace.

    I would appreciate knowing who manufactures the panels your husband sells, but please don't misunderstand my interest. I am very happy for your success, and good fortune, but as an investor, I wonder if you might share a bit of insight that you, and/or your husband might have about this field. (And, no, I'm not talking about insider trading tips.  lol:)

    Again, good luck, good fortune, and I hope it continues for you and husband for a long, long time.

    (I just love to hear of someone I "know" doing well, against the odds, in this lousy economy. You'rer an inspiration)


    Solyndra was Obama's posterchild (none / 0) (#135)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 06:10:40 PM EST
    solar panel producer.  It was given a half billion dollar loan guarantee by the DOE in 2009, declared itself belly-up two weeks ago, visited with search warrants by FBI early this week.

    Connections.  Gotta have 'em.


    Well, you have managed to change the subject (none / 0) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 06:07:43 PM EST
    And yes, the green industry is going broke as fast as the government grants run out....

    In the meantime what Loveed pointed out remains true and my two solutions remain true.


    Exactly! (none / 0) (#68)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 11:24:02 AM EST
    I guess it's too simple a solution for the complex brains in DC. Or more likely this solution would step on too many rich toes.

    What Republican will be worse? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Politalkix on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:10:33 PM EST
    All of them!

    Your husband was laid off in April 2008 when a Republican was President. BHO became the President in Jan 2009. So even during a Republican Presidency, your husband was without a job for 9 months and had become a long term unemployed person.

    Are you suggesting that the government should not help the long term unemployed (with children)with foodstamps or training?

    I could not help noticing the hypocrisy of people who gave you a "5" for your comment. These are the same people who will criticize the Obama administration for apparently not trying to help the unemployed.

    I have sympathy for your situation. However, it is not clear to me why you think that having a Reublican President will solve your problems. I saw John Huntsman's and Mitt Romney's job creation plans. They are extremely friendly towards businesses at the expense of the middle class.

    If you feel that your company is misusing the program, can't you complain to the government?


    That a republican will be more ineffective & (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:26:39 PM EST
    awful does not mean Obama will be effective,  he won't.  And so we will get 4 more years of Obama style ineffectiveness followed by a throw the ineffective Dems out 2016 election and 4-8 more years of exactly what you fear for 2012.

    This is where Obama has led us.


    Obama more effective at cutting SS & (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:30:34 PM EST

    What she is pointing out is that the road (none / 0) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 06:09:37 PM EST
    to hell is often paved with good intentions.

    Why not try what I suggested?


    I want you to know I was not (none / 0) (#141)
    by loveed on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 10:56:54 PM EST
    complaining. We were a lot more fortunate than a lot of our friends.

     The points I was trying to make.
     1. The people being hire, are  not really qualified for the jobs. The wages are lower for people who have not worked in 6 months for the same job(3.00hrs less). They take the same classes, the same tests. Their raise are half of what the other tech make. This drops wages for everyone, hired in the last 2yrs.

     2. I want you to remember were talking about a healthcare facility. They don't come to work, this increases everyone work load. There late all the time.There entitled to 8 sick days a year, in 3 months there all gone, while there still in training. My job gives them 4 more. in 3 wks there all gone. This goes on for at least 18 mon. until the tax breaks stop.

    1. My job probably hire at least 300 techs a year. So the job saves money on there healthcare and wages. An we pay for their healthcare and food stamps. When there wages should cover these benefits.

    2. The company has cheap labor, but they no longer contribute to my 401k.

    3. My point with my husband is, he's working for 1/2 the wages the job pays. Mandatory overtime 6 days week. He's been there a year, and they could let him go tomorrow. No benefits. He also falls
    into this tax incentive.Why is the company not hiring?

     I don't have a problem with people receiving food stamps or health care. I am a flaming liberal when it comes to this issue.

     I was pointing out how companies are using the tax incentives to lower wages.

     I don't feel Obama has any long term job growth plans.It's all gimmicks. It not just my companies
    doing this.

     I could live with a flat tax.


    No excuses (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 11:06:54 AM EST
    There are people that continue to belittle the progressive community for their lack of support for Obama. We're considered fools that don't understand the realities of the real world.

    Polls seem to dispel this theory. Obama's approval rating is in the tank across the whole Democratic and Independent spectrum.

    Whether he wants to accept it or not, he was elected by Democrats to represent the Democratic party.

    If he loses in 2012, it will be because of him, not us.

    When you try to please everyone, you please no one.


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 11:53:48 AM EST
    Obama's approval rating among Dems according to Gallup, in the year prior to running for a second term, is nearly identical to Clinton, Johnson, Kennedy, and Truman with all four between 76% and 78%.

    Also according to Gallup, (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:27:55 PM EST
    the percentage of voters who identify as Democrats has dropped to a 22 year low in two years under Obama.

    From 2008 to 2010, according to Gallup, the fastest growing demographic party label was former Democrat. Obama took over the party in 2008 with 36 percent of Americans considering themselves Democrats. Within just two years, that number had dropped to 31 percent, which tied a 22-year low. link

    He could actually receive a 100% approval of the voters who chose to stay in the party and still lose the approval of more voters.


    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:38:16 PM EST
    but the number of self identified Democrats has also declined under Obama according to Gallup.

    I'm just stating a fact (none / 0) (#82)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:16:33 PM EST
    to correct a factual error in a posted comment. You are welcome to read into it as you please.

    Here are the numbers. I stand by them being nearly the same as the highest experienced by recent Dem Presidents the year prior to an election:

    Truman 76%
    Kennedy 77%
    Johnson 63%
    Carter 37%
    Clinton 77%
    Obama 78%


    My (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:11:37 PM EST
    point was that you were implying that the 77% means the same thing every election year. It does not. Obama has 78% but it's only 31% of the electorate so that nets out to 24% of the electorate is Democrats AND approve of him. Clinton had 36% of the county identified as Democrats and with 77% approving which nets about to 28% who approved AND were democrats.

    Do (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:20:40 AM EST
    you think the GOP is going to get any better in the next four to five years? They aren't in my opinion and we are going to be dealing with what you are afraid of in 2016 instead of 2012.

    Same with me (none / 0) (#28)
    by Politalkix on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:18:49 AM EST
    I am none of the above in J's list but will happily vote for BHO.

    A democrat that (none / 0) (#131)
    by Madeline on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:34:58 PM EST
    still craves the audacity of Barack Obama. How quaint.

    Jeralyn, try Goofy. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:37:36 AM EST
    I voted for Goofy the second time Bush ran in 2004.

    (Yes in answer to your unvoiced question, I did vote for Bush in 2000.)

    In 2008, I must confess I just gave up and stayed home. I thought that Obama was just a young know it all fool and McCain was a doddering old fool.

    This time will be interesting but Obama isn't in the equation, at least for me.

    My problem with the speech (none / 0) (#7)
    by Slado on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 06:00:57 AM EST
    Is similar to Jeralyn's even though we view it from different political perspectives.

    Obama is yet agin trying to have it all.  He wants a partial rerun of his stimulus and he wants to cut the deficit.  What?

    Either your a small government conservative or a follower of Krugman but trying to be both at the same time just makes you look silly.  Republicans don't believe he's sincere when he talks about the deficit and liberals think his stimulus is too small.

    What is his real pan?  To borrow more money we don't have to fund short term projects while doing nothing about the real drags on the economy which are regulation, taxes, debt and housing?   Never mind his terrible healthcare law.

    This guy can't be taken seriously anymore.  He wasn't even bold from the liberal perspective.  Just more of the same with lots of talking points to make him seem reasonable to the "middle" for the next election.  They must be convinced at team Obama that what the country wants is a reasonable grown up in the White House who is ineffective over a bold president who leads.

    Why the economy sucks (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by koshembos on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 06:18:39 AM EST
    The US has less regulation than Germany; the taxes we pay are dwarfed by the taxes Germans pay. Our debt doesn't drag anyone - just look at the low interest on government bond. Those complaining about the burden of taxes and regulation are professional whiners who live in the 18th century.

    We are doing badly because we screw our workers and enrich our CEOs. We do badly because our system is an oligarchy. Our rich live in complete socialism and are supported by the government. Our agriculture is run by heavily subsidized big companies.  

    Socialism doesn't work even if it is limited to the rich.


    What you describe should properly (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by observed on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:54:10 AM EST
    be described as fascism.
    We also have the bellicose, expansionist military of a fascist country as well.

    You're right to be angry, you are wrong (none / 0) (#12)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 06:58:32 AM EST
    that you personally will have to wait an additional two years if you are as close to 65 as your comments indicate.

    I am sure, as with the 80's  SS fix, any increase in eligibility age will be phased in.  I have seen one month per year.  So 24 years for the full two years to be phased in.  If you are 60 now maybe at most you wait 5 more months, which sucks and should not be the case and should definitely not be a position advocated by a Dem President.

    AS a 49 you I am looking at pretty much the entire 2 year delay.  TO think I gave $$ to this guy's 2008 campaign.  Arrghhhhh!

    Here's a plan.  Take the $125 billion OVER 10 YEARS this is suppose to save and cut it from DoD and Hmoeland budgest each and every year for a 10 year savings of $1.25 TRILLION.  Then let the Bush tax cuts expire.

    How hard is that?

    I think you're misreading the whole speech (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 07:37:56 AM EST
    Not a single piece of the proposal is likely to be enacted. Now, I'm with you on fighting a 65-67 increase on Medicare, but he didn't specifically propose that either.

    yes he has, and he will again next week. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 07:43:14 AM EST
    As part of this package, anyway (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 07:47:34 AM EST
    As for the deficit deal, I don't think we'll be getting it there, either.

    Stupid politics too, but that almost goes without saying for this Administration (except for the speech last night, which I thought was good politics).


    That's what drives me crazy (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:14:43 AM EST
    The speech was good politics, yes. Most of his speeches are.

    Yet, no good policy ever follows.


    We're past that, especially (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:17:43 AM EST
    when it involves getting anything through Congress.

    So, what do you hope for now andgarden? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 10:02:47 AM EST
    Re elect Obama and take back the House (none / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 10:58:22 AM EST
    As usual, try to keep things from getting worse. Because with Perry or Mittens in the WH and Congress under Republican control, things would be worse. We'd be pitched into the fire.

    As long as Democrats in the House (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:03:42 PM EST
    and the Senate are taking their marching orders from a conservative who carries a (D) behind his name, re-electing Obama assures that the march continues on its rightward path, the lives of ordinary Americans will continue to suffer, the gap between the rich and the poor will continue to widen, privacy and civil rights will continue to erode, the security state will strengthen with a lack of oversight, and I have to believe there will be a war or two in there we will "have no choice" about getting involved in.

    And the definition of "Democratic" will be forever changed - away from what Democrats have long stood for, have long fought to stand for.  That Obama is the head of the party now does not mean, in my opinion, that we have to accept his definition - in fact, it is proving to be the worst thing we could do.

    Obama is not going to morph into a liberal leader, so I say it's time to abandon efforts to help him keep destroying the meaning of "Democrat," and put our focus on keeping real Dems in the House and Senate, and supporting challenges to Obama Dems wherever they exist - and there are more of them than ever now, which is going to be the problem in the last year of Obama's term, and will be more of a problem if he is re-elected.

    I say all this knowing that "real" Dem or not, the real power is in the money that's coming from special interests; we aren't going to have a hope of having any kind of real voice until we get all that money out of politics.

    In the meantime, I know all the old arguments for why we "must" keep a Democrat in the WH, but once you understand that we don't have one now, those arguments pretty much evaporate; once you accept that there isn't going to be a primary challenge to Obama, and start treating him as if he were the Republican he has been governing as, it rapidly becomes clear where the focus needs to be.


    I disagree in full (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:12:27 PM EST
    It's easy to say that Obama is a functional Republican now. My perspective is that we will know the difference as soon as we have a real one.

    I'm sorry, but I just don't think you're being realistic.


    Yes, me too (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:54:16 PM EST
    In my moments of frustration I think like Anne, but then I listen to the declared Republicans running for pres and I do find Obama superior to any one of them. The religious wingnuttery brings me back to reality every time.

    I wish the choices were better and will work to make them better by supporting real progressives, like Nicholas Ruiz III who is running in my House district (FWIW - probably a lost cause).  


    While there is an element of frustration, (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:33:24 PM EST
    certainly, the reality is that Obama has been marching us farther to the right, and there is no reason to think that will stop once he is re-elected - in fact, I would expect the pace to pick up.

    I hope no one thinks I put even an iota of stock or support in any of the Republicans running, or even those who are not; even dressed-up in religious nonsense, disguised as populist - even with doses of xenophobia, and based on stuff they just make up, their ideas are still the tired, old responses that don't ever work, and there is no reason to vote for any of it.

    My belief is that if we want a responsive Democratic caucus, we have to game plan around Obama, not with Obama; a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress going up against the patently insane Republican policies of Perry, Romney or Bachmann, has a much greater chance of success at keeping those policies out of our lives than it does in going up against a Democratic president whose policies are rooted in the conservative school of Reagan and Gingrich.

    For reasons that escape me, we seem to have a Democratic caucus that can only recognize bad Republican policy when it is comes from an actual Republican - kind of like the Obama cheerleaders whose heads were exploding when Bush was president can now find excuses for why it's okay now that Obama's not just doing the same things, but expanding on them.

    Frankly, I think we're screwed no matter who ends up in the WH.


    Truly (none / 0) (#84)
    by sj on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:27:03 PM EST
    It is easy to say that O is a functional Republican now.  I grew up in a rural, GOP dominated community.  It is not hyperbole to say that O would have been exceedingly comfortable in that community.  I liked most of my neighbors very much, but their politics and world view was just completely alien to my young hispanic, democratic self.

    And I'm telling you that is not hyperbole.  If you think we mean he is a crazy Republican, I agree with you.  He's not one of the crazies.  You're fairly young and most of the politics that you have observed have been of the Rush Limbaugh era. My memory goes back farther.  I tell you without hyperbole, and with near despair that Obama is not a politician who takes seriously many (if any?) of the planks of the Democratic Party platform*.
    * It occurs to me that I need to check the party platform soon and see if I recognize it.


    There have always been Blue Dogs (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by ChrisO on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:33:09 PM EST
    and other assorted conservative Dems. I think you're looking at the past through rose colored glasses. I loved Bill Clinton, but he infuriated liberals with things like welfare reform. I'm far from an Obama fan (I wrote in Hillary in 2008, but I'm in Massachusetts so it wasn't like I was going to cost Obama the election) but I think you're ignoring one of the primary arguments for electing a Democrat -- the Supreme Court. Do you honestly think a Republican President would nominate Sotomayor or Kagan? I'm very angry with Obama, but to suggest that his policies and those of a Republican President are virtually identical is overreaching by a lot. This is definitely a hold your nose vote, but I don't see what we gain by responding to Obama's conservative positions by enabling the election of a wildly more conservative Republican. Nader tried to teach both parties a lesson in 2000, and where did that get us?

    Yes (none / 0) (#75)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:21:06 PM EST
    Do you have any hopes for good policy, specifically, though anymore?

    Sigh (none / 0) (#76)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:27:10 PM EST
    If I had no hope, I'd look into finding a different country. I think it's going to take some hard work.

    Andy are you willing to put in the work? (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by sj on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:26:59 PM EST
    Because many of us who have dedicated years to that effort no longer are.

    There are a lot of comments here about retaking the Democratic party from within.  Other than Donald in Hawaii, I don't know of a single one who has actually taken that call seriously enough to become even a precinct captain.  I know that there are others like me who have spent years doing that work and are ... not... anymore.

    I'm more willing to look into finding a different country.  The problem is that I have a very large extended family with very deep roots.  Not easy to turn my back.


    I don't really have any choice (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 01:33:18 PM EST
    I'm going to keep voting and keep participating.

    I'm not really suited to running myself, but there are other things.


    Oh I know you'll keep voting (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by sj on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:02:51 PM EST
    So will I.  And I didn't mean to imply that you should be running for office.  As you say not everyone is suited -- myself included.

    I was actually referring to those other things.  The boring ones -- becoming a precinct captain, attending party meetings, volunteering for party tasks.  Helping that unknown candidate to get visibility (because I guarantee that the candidate had better already be active in the party).  Hosting events.  Trolling for attendees for others' events.  Following up on the cards that are filled out at those events.  Making phone calls, preparing mailings.  Making posters, sweet talking businesses into posting them.  All that stuff*.  

    I used to spend about 12 hours/month during on off cycle years and about 20-50 hours/month during election years on those types of activities.  

    And voting is the result of all that effort.  By the time voters hit the ballot box the heavy lifting is already over.

    That's a lot of work over years with no payoff.  Because I can tell you this:  every time there was a candidate with a more outspokenly liberal world view, someone who maybe needed a little more help to get some traction, that candidate was tossed aside for someone who was more "electable".  And yes, translate "electable" into "already has a pile of money".

    So.  Anyway.  I'm not doing it anymore.  Are you?  I know that you've been devoting your time to your law studies.  But the problem is that most people have strong demands on their time.  Legitimate demands.  But reclaiming the democratic party means adding demands to one's time.  It's not going to happen by itself.  
    (Wow, no wonder I have more time for art these days.)


    I think there's a lot to what you say here (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:25:38 PM EST
    A few weeks ago a met a guy who chained himself to the WH fence to get DADT repeal moving. And you know what, it worked. I'm not sure if civil disobedience is ever going to be my calling, but I'd like to try and stand up for/support those for whom it is.

    I think it's more (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by jbindc on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:54:57 PM EST
    than civil disobedience, which is extreme.

    But sj's point is is going to take more than voting for the "right" people. Especially from people of your generation.


    I think one of the biggest differences (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by CST on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:09:41 PM EST
    in approach here is based on age.

    There are a lot of people who are throwing up their hands and are just "done", because they've been fighting for years and are supremely discouraged.

    And there are those of us who are just now getting our toes wet.  I think I view things a lot the way you do, which is of course we keep fighting and keep pushing, because this is a marathon for us, we are in it for the long haul and we don't have any other choice.  This is my future at stake, whether I like it or not.

    In a way it makes you more forgiving of incremental progress as well.  Because the things threatening us are long term, strategic issues, not the immediate benefit cuts.  That doesn't make me okay with immediate benefit cuts, it just means I am going to weigh in differently when those cuts come with some long-term positives vs. those cuts coming with long-term negatives.  And while I don't think it's okay to throw seniors under the bus for anyone, I also don't think it's okay to throw my future under the bus to teach Obama a lesson when seniors are more likely to get screwed that way too.


    One thing (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:30:23 PM EST
    I think that "young people" miss in the whole big picture of elections is something that most of us older posters have experienced is that electing a feckless leader is worse than not winning at all. Now what if Gerald Ford had won reelection in 1976? We wouldn't have the rabid fundamentalism we have right now that Reagan brought to power would we? We wouldn't have had 12 years of GOP rule would we have?

    Another thing to think about is: 1. the GOP is not going to get less crazy anytime soon. 2. They are going to win an election sooner or later. 3. Even if Obama gets reelected, it is highly unlikely that a Democrat will follow him into office. This rabid fundamentalism that is infecting the GOP is going to have to be soundly rejected by the voters. It's like a virus that is going to have to run its course. Obama has been enabling this virus too which is infuriating in itself.

    Everybody here realizes how bad the GOP is but if you look at history sooner or later they are going to win. So what's the best way of dealing with things: now or later. It is going to be dealt with unfortunately.


    I don't agree at all (none / 0) (#101)
    by CST on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:33:52 PM EST
    I think Bush was significantly worse than Obama.

    Everything you mention seems like playing a high stakes game of chicken.  And that's not a bet I'm willing to take.

    We had 8 years of rabid fundies running things and they only got worse.

    If you deal with it now, you STILL end up dealing with it later.


    Your (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:39:20 PM EST
    last sentence is kind of my point. Obama has done nothing to destroy the virus so we are going to get hit with it in 2016 if Obama is reelected. Heck Obama is giving the virus a petri dish to live in.

    Better than Bush isn't really saying much is it? I'm not even sure you can say that on a lot of issues he's even worse than Bush unfortunately.

    The Dems stopped Bush from his plan to eliminate social security but they are going along with Obama's it seems.


    as opposed to (none / 0) (#108)
    by CST on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:45:33 PM EST
    being hit with it in 2012?  I'd rather put it off 4 years.  That's 4 more years of not being run by fundies.

    I can not think of a single issue where Obama is worse than Bush.  Not one.  And I can think of more than a few that are the other way around.

    Talk to me when anything has actually changed to social security.  It still hasn't.  I don't think the Democrats in congress will stand for that even if it is Obama.  I think the only chance that happens is if we get creamed in November.

    Speaking of social security, Bush actually had a plan that he put out there to eliminate social security.  Obama has not.  The idea that it's Dems in congress who make Bush better than Obama is laughable to me.  Especially since we will most certainly lose congress if we lose Obama.


    Civil (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:54:25 PM EST
    liberties he's actually worse than Bush because he signed an executive order to kill an American citizen.

    Well, I hope you're right but Obama seems determined to get his "Grand Bargain" on "entitlements". So far the record of congress standing up to him has not been good.

    Actually Obama with his approval ratings has a great chance of lessening the chance of taking back congress because he will tend to drag the ticket down. The only way things could change is if it is a huge anti incumbent year but that still makes it hard to take back congress.


    his record on civil liberties is atrocious (none / 0) (#117)
    by CST on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:11:13 PM EST
    but would you rather have the guy who doesn't stop doing all that stuff that's in place, or the guy who puts it all in place to begin with?  I'm not sure how you define the former as "worse" than the latter.

    I'm not trying to excuse Obama here, he had a clear choice to make and he made the wrong one.  But we wouldn't be here to begin with if Bush was never president.

    And we did (officially) stop torturing people.  So there's that.


    That's (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:14:14 PM EST
    a distinction with out a difference. It somehow makes it worse that that someone started it than someone continued it and expanded it?

    I'm just tired of the fecklessness. The economy and health care have always been my number 1 issues and Obama has failed on both accounts. I even have had my first experience with the ACA to make me dislike it even more.


    jaw :: floor (none / 0) (#126)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:28:58 PM EST
    only (none / 0) (#103)
    by CST on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:35:41 PM EST
    it becomes more entrenched, because you have more kids growing up under this rule.

    It's a cultural issue that's not going to go away by giving them all the power just to show people how crazy they are.  They end up using that power to consolidate and expand influence.


    Well (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:41:41 PM EST
    at lot of kids grew up under liberalism too so that kind of undercuts your point. Obama isn't making the case that these people are a problem. He thinks people like you are just as bad as the fundamentalists because of his false moral equivalency on every issue in the book.

    it's a law of averages (none / 0) (#109)
    by CST on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:50:24 PM EST
    you have to win the average, not just a few.

    Obama doesn't need to "make the case" to have an impact.  We need him in there so that more Democrats than Republicans are involved in the federal government - which is a massive beurocracy that involves many people that control a huge part of our lives.

    It's not just about Obama, it's about Hillary vs. Condi, and Kagan vs. Roberts, and Joe Blow Democrat vs. Joe Blow Republican in whatever agency.

    And I really don't give a cr@p what Obama thinks of me personally, I don't think he thinks that but it really doesn't matter.  What matters is what get's done at every level of government.


    Well (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 02:58:06 PM EST
    I would feel better about that if he hadn't kept so many Bush appointees on. As far as I know, the justice department is still stacked with the losers Bush put in there. Yeah, Obama gets to pick the heads but then what? They are kind of ignored. Maybe they are changing things but maybe they aren't. There's still a lot of judgeships open that Obama hasn't filled.

    yes (none / 0) (#115)
    by CST on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:00:22 PM EST
    but just listen to what you are saying.  The problem with Obama is Bush appointees that he isn't replacing enough of or fast enough.

    So the solution to that is to give another version of Bush more appointees?  I just don't get that kind of logic.


    My (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:09:01 PM EST
    bottom line is deal with it now or deal with it later and longer. Would you rather have four years now or 8 to 12 years later?

    Obama is almost every bit as feckless as Jimmy Carter. Definitely as feckless when it comes to the economy.

    I think Obama's odds are even AT BEST for getting reelected and then you have to think should the voters reward Obama for 9% unemployment? The "things are gonna be worse" if you vote for X stuff has been tried in a lot of elections but mostly it doesn't work. Look for Obama to repeat Bush's 2004 reelection campaign.

    It's all going to depend on who the GOP nominee is I imagine.

    My ideal would be for Obama to have a primary opponent but since that's not going to happen and we're stuck with him, this is where we are.


    and my bottom line (none / 0) (#120)
    by CST on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:14:48 PM EST
    is if you deal now, you still end up dealing with it later and longer.  That's HOW you end up dealing with it later and longer because it just becomes more and more entrenched.

    Who is to say it's only 4 years now?  Bush was re-elected in '04.  That's 8 years of solid damage.  I don't know why you would assume next time would be different.  And here we are how many years later still having the same debate?

    I think you are presenting a false choice.


    My feeling is (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:59:11 PM EST
    eight years of solid damage takes 16 years to fix. Anyone that thought the damage of Bush would be fixed overnight is dreaming (We haven't finished fixing the Reagan damage yet). I'm not a fan of bubbles, so the fix will be long and tedious and circumvented only by those that want bubble fixes or another GOP President.

    I would (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:18:10 PM EST
    agree with you if Obama was doing something to change the trajectory. As it is, he is enabling them to become more powerful. He could have stomped on their graves in 2008 but chose not to.

    Unconvincing (none / 0) (#118)
    by Politalkix on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:13:09 PM EST
    Jimmy Carter did not make Mondale promise to impose more taxes or ask Dukakis to release Willie Horton or ride a tank wearing a helmet.
    Please stop blaming President Carter!

    No (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:15:50 PM EST
    he didn't but his fecklessness "ruined the party brand" for quite a while. I can't tell you how many people I've met who vote for the GOP simply because they hated Carter so much. He's kind of like Bush in that respect.

    Then you should also accept (none / 0) (#127)
    by Politalkix on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 03:41:12 PM EST
    that Gore and Kerry lost because of Clinton- because Clinton destroyed the "honor and dignity of the WH".
    You can't blame Mondale and Dukakis's loss on Carter but absolve Clinton from the blame of Kerry and Gore's loss.
    You have a big problem. Your opinions (however strong they are) are just opinions, they are not really facts.
    Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry lost because they somehow did not connect with the larger electorate. That is all there is to it.
    This "brand" thing that you people keep repeating over and over again is utterly unconvincing.

    Heheheheheheheh .... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:32:45 PM EST
    Then you should also accept that Gore and Kerry lost because of Clinton- because Clinton destroyed the "honor and dignity of the WH".

    Riiiiiiiggghhhtttt.  Arguing that Carter damaged the Democratic brand after leaving office with a disastrous approval rating (34% - tied with GWB), means you must accept the premise that Clinton is responsible for Gore's (and now Kerry's!) loss, despite the fact that Clinton left office with the highest approval rating of any POTUS ever.

    Seriously funny stuff.


    Actually (none / 0) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 05:37:43 PM EST
    the reason Gore and Kerry even got close was because of Clinton. If we had not had a successful President with a D behind his name it would have not even been close. Compare the 2000 and 2004 EV's to the 1980, 1984 and 1988 EV's to see the change.

    Mondale was Carter's VP for heaven's sake as was Gore and look at the difference in the election with Gore even winning the popular vote.

    The number back up what I'm saying. Carter lost in a landslide and then the next two elections were a landslide loss. Yes, the candidate does play a part but you obviously don't understand branding. If Clinton had been a repeat of Carter the EV's would have gone right back to where they were in the 80's.


    There comes (none / 0) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:40:57 PM EST
    a point though where you have to not reward poor decision making.

    In the end though, it's Obama's responsibility to get people motivated to go to the polls and his behavior certainly won't motivate a lot of people.


    He won't propose that until his talk with (none / 0) (#16)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 07:43:37 AM EST
    the Super Committee next week. That is part of the deficit reduction plan, not the job creation plan.

    IF he proposes it at all, as you say. I hope some real Dems will get to him before then.


    What difference does that make? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 07:49:08 AM EST
    I don't care if it is part of his parks & recreaiton plan, he has proposed it in the past and will again.

    I know, just a point of timing (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:14:42 AM EST
    My systems engineering brain takes over sometimes...

    You're being as disingenious (none / 0) (#51)
    by Towanda on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 10:26:10 AM EST
    as Obama and buying into Obama's typical deferral of specifics, which he said will come next week.

    We know, AP knows, every media outlet knows and is reporting how he will, as he said, "pay for" the jobs plan:  Continuing the hit to SS deductions and more hits to Medicare.


    It's like he's (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 08:24:24 AM EST
    not concerned about 2012 at all. But then, he seems to have done everything he could possibly do to enable republicans every step of the way the past 2 1/2 years, so maybe his ultimate goal is to give them the white house next year too, and himself a nice well paying job with a corner office on wall street?

    Hugh breaks down (none / 0) (#38)
    by smott on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 09:04:32 AM EST
    Romney's Better than Obama on Medicare (none / 0) (#39)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 09:04:52 AM EST

    "The Republican presidential candidate proposed some good ideas for spurring job growth, but he provided few specifics on the crucial issue of entitlement reform. "

    "But on one of the biggest problems on the economic front -- ballooning federal obligations to Medicare, in particular -- Romney issued a plan to have a plan, making sure to note his plan would differ from that of U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. "

    This is opposed to Obama who support both Ryans' plan and goal to cut Medicare.

    For those who support Medicare, Romney's looking better than Obama.

    "Romney issued a plan to have a plan" (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 09:53:05 AM EST
    Well that has to be classified as one of the strangest lines from an editorial ever.

    If you read one more line you would notice that the editorial states "the Romney plan to have a plan" and the Paul Ryan plan have the same objective.

    Here's Candidate Romney, whenever in doubt as to how to answer a debate question from here on out..."Tonight I come before you to let the American people know, I have a plan to have a plan".


    I recommend robbing banks (none / 0) (#40)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 09:18:41 AM EST
    when you hit 65. Either you'll get the money for the insurance premiums or health care from the federal government while incarcerated. Either way, it's a win-win where your health care is concerned.

    That has been done already, in case (none / 0) (#63)
    by observed on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 11:08:50 AM EST
    you didn't know.
    Actually that would make an interesting protest movement: seniors who rob banks for a penny,just to get medical care in prison.

    I'm with you (none / 0) (#64)
    by waldenpond on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 11:12:21 AM EST
    I have always thought people should walk away from their buildings rather than financially destroy themselves.

    The govt has made all sorts of stupid things illegal for the lower classes I wouldn't even blink if someone told me they had been arrested or done time.

    Why struggle?  Don't have Sr living in your area?  Sell out, if you have any little bit of assets left, give it to family or charity and move into what will become the local senior living.  Take it over.


    My take on the speech is (none / 0) (#80)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 09, 2011 at 12:43:17 PM EST
    that the hullabaloo over the need for a Joint Session of Congress was unnecessary to the task and, indeed, was uncomfortably celebratory with its pomp as well as hugs and kisses from Democratic members of Congress as a part of the grand entry (at least, the kisses found their way only to facial cheeks). There seemed to be a mismatch: the environment did not correspond to the austerity of the message.  If "bipartisanship" was a goal, it did not appear that the message was moving "Congress" (yes, I will say it,if not the president: i.e, Republicans).  And, going over their heads to the people needs constant re-inforcement, as the president recognizes and did indicate that he would do.

    As for the speech, its delivery was robust and aggressive. A little long, but I would give it high marks: an 'A'.  As for the content, proposing half of the $447 billion for infrastructure and for other areas of need, was welcomed.  The continuation and expansion of the payroll tax holiday (Federal Insurance Contribution Act, FICA) does put more money into the hands of those on a payroll, but its stimulative effects, overall, are another question, and I worry for its impact on the Trust Fund, even though the lost taxes are to come from the general fund.  

     Social security and Medicare "reforms" did not belong in a "jobs" speech.  And, the new $447 billion needs to find offsetting cuts (it is paid for, it is said), that will be on top of the $1.5 trillion and more for Cat Food II to come up with.   Moreover, the cuts will need to come later or the "stimulus" will be negated.  

    As for the content, I would give it an "Inc." since this was really Part I of a two part presentation. Part II is key: It will be the president's marching orders to Cat Food II and Congress (this time Democrats and Republicans). We know Medicare and Social Security are in his sights and the only question is how much damage is in store for the programs-- for both those under and over age 65.

    I think that if the president just read the latest annual report from the Social Security Administration verbatim as a part of the second speech, the nation would see financial needs, but their scope, nature and urgency would provide a good perspective for "reforms" that can be addressed by an improved economy, less joblessness, and reasonable, not draconian, measures.