home

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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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.


    Parent
    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).

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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)  

    Parent
    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!

    Parent
    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.  

    Parent

    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.

     

    Parent

    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)

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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?...

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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

    rmm


    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.


    Parent
    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.

     

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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.  

    Parent
    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


    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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

    Parent
    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?)

    Parent
    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


    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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)

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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?

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

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

    Parent
    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?

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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%.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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%


    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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.


    Parent
    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.


    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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.


    Parent
    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).

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent