Not what I had hoped for...
Speaking for myself in my little corner of the far left wing so far Obama has been a bit of a disappointment on the economy.
I was VERY disappointed in his plans for the Big 3 auto makers. His decision will cost tens of thousands of American workers good paying union jobs. Along with health care reform, a green energy policy and a foreign policy based more on diplomacy than force, I thought Obama would be a friend to help the American worker. So far Wall Street bankers and the investor class have had their best interests looked out for by the Obama Administration the same isn't true for the 95% of the rest of us.
Now I am not trying to go all 'class warfare' here. There are legitimate reasons why we need to ensure that banks remain able to do business...as long as they are viable. If they are not viable they should be taken into an orderly bankruptcy so they can be broken apart, if appropriate in terms of their size. As others have noted any company which is 'too big to fail' is too big to exist. We need to address the problems we have with companies that pose systemic risk to the economy. Instead of breaking them up it sounds like Team Obama, judging by Gethneir's PPIP announcement, has no problem having them operate for the foreseeable future as 'too big to fail' institutions and ones who stand to make great profit.
Meanwhile auto workers, and the American people, take the hit...
This is not what I was hoping for or expecting from an Obama Administration...I still fully support him, but.
I was VERY disappointed in his plans for the Big 3 auto makers. His decision will cost tens of thousands of American workers good paying union jobs. Along with health care reform, a green energy policy and a foreign policy based more on diplomacy than force, I thought Obama would be a friend to help the American worker. So far Wall Street bankers and the investor class have had their best interests looked out for by the Obama Administration the same isn't true for the 95% of the rest of us.
Now I am not trying to go all 'class warfare' here. There are legitimate reasons why we need to ensure that banks remain able to do business...as long as they are viable. If they are not viable they should be taken into an orderly bankruptcy so they can be broken apart, if appropriate in terms of their size. As others have noted any company which is 'too big to fail' is too big to exist. We need to address the problems we have with companies that pose systemic risk to the economy. Instead of breaking them up it sounds like Team Obama, judging by Gethneir's PPIP announcement, has no problem having them operate for the foreseeable future as 'too big to fail' institutions and ones who stand to make great profit.
Meanwhile auto workers, and the American people, take the hit...
This is not what I was hoping for or expecting from an Obama Administration...I still fully support him, but.
Advertisement
The American taxpayers are doing our part, in the form of our tax dollars going to bailout these 'too big to fail corps', and the American workers are paying, with skyrocketing unemployment and possibly catastrophic lay-offs in the auto industry, but the CEO class is paying a price at all...
As Wagoner parachutes out of GM with a cool $23M...
March 31, 2009 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
My bad...s/b;
"isn't paying a price..."
It's late, lol.
March 31, 2009 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
(With a tip of the cap to Josh)
Deep Thought: What happened to the idea of shared sacrifice?
March 31, 2009 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious and very sincere. When during our lifetime was that "idea" actually executed with any balance?
I really feel you guys, seriously I do but I refuse to go out feeling defeated. ESPECIALLY after only two months. I worked my butt off as well to get the President elected and I trust me more than I trust the President and I would not have worked that hard if I didn't truly believe he was the right choice. (and it took me a year of thinking, talking and researching to decide on that choice) So for now, I'm hanging in there and giving him the support he so desperately needs.
I'm really having a difficult time understanding why people voted for this man if they can give on on him so easily. It baffles the mind.
No disrespect but you guys must have lived in a Norman Rockwell world before this all happened.
For me, in spite of my two parent home and middle class upbringing, no one promised me "no crystal stair" and you know what, I'm beginning to realize and APPRECIATE what a great opportunity and gift that was.
It taught me to hold and and keep on stepping until I can't step anymore. It taught me to believe in me and trust in my judgment. It taught me to seek as as much info and opinions as I can to help form those judgments. It taught me life ain't always fair. Big whup! Last but not least , it taught me that whatever comes my way, I may get pissed, and may get knocked down but as long as I get back up, I'm still in the game.
I may rant during the day but I actually sleep pretty well at night. When I finally get to bed that is.
March 31, 2009 5:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't given up on him either and I too, don't feel defeated. Having said that, I do not think that supporting the president requires the suspension of critical thinking regarding his actions and proposed policies, and voicing my concerns. On the contrary I feel that registering a voice of dissent, now, before the decisions being made in DC are written in stone, increases the probability that BHO will do the right thing in the face of overwhelming economic pressure lobbying for the special interests. My belief in Obama, is such that I have to wonder that if in fact, he can't implement the kind of change we really do need, (especially given the dire circumstances we are faced with), then who will ever be able too?
March 31, 2009 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, no it doesn't. Obama did not want a Nation of Sheep. He said he can't govern or go it alone, and that is true. We need to help him find his way through this unprecedented mess, and keep him from caving in to the powers that be.
He's a man, not a fargin miracle.
I am a little leery of this type of scolding. It just doesn't sit right. Suppose a baker works his ass off all day preparing a cake for his family, but misses an ingredient rending the cake inedible. Is it wrong of his family to not eat it anyway? Or can they go out for take-out?
March 31, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm curious and very sincere. When during our lifetime was that "idea" actually executed with any balance?
True, questionable if it has ever been. I am guessing the closest we have come was during WWII...but even then it wasn't close to equally shared. I brought it up because it seems to be what our President is talking about.
March 31, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know how you feel. I worked to get BHO elected after the primaries, and have felt a bit like change I could believe in has morphed into SOS. I keep hoping there will be a popular outcry that the taxpayers' best interests aren't being served well, and there's someone there to hear it. I think the complexity of the banking crisis, and the interwoven threads of the financial industry, (probably all industry), and government has made it hard for Americans to get a cogent story on what has happened, what's happening, and just how bad it is. In truth, I'm not sure anyone really knows any of this yet, at least in its' entirety. I'm waiting to hear that there's not enough cash to fund the alternative energy proposals we so desperately need 'cause the financial sector sucked it all up. Couple that with the reality that Single-pay advocates weren't even invited to the table on the healthcare discussion, and I get the feeling that the voices of industry and finance are drowning out those of us not on the inside of the equation. Well, that was a cheery note to go to sleep on. Thanx Libertine. ;)
March 31, 2009 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well it isn't a done deal miguelito. It is a 'work in progress'. But what I have seen to this point, at least on the economic front, hasn't instilled a lot of confidence that there will be meaningful change....doesn't mean it won't happen but all I am sure of is what has happened to this point. Right now I have a very vested interest in health care reform, being a type 2 diabetic who got priced out of the market and now in the ranks of the uninsured...so I will be watching closely, with my fingers crossed and literally with my life on the line.
March 31, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I took years to get us to this place, and it will take years to turn it around.
If Obama could (even without the Republican obstructionists) turn the economy around in 60 days, he truly would be "The One".
March 31, 2009 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see the Obama administration had two lousy choices with GM and Chrysler.
1) Do nothing, let them go. Something many wanted to see happen. Stating -they are weak companies and only the strong should survive. Had he and his team made this choice the screams about the American worker would have been deafening.
2) Figure out a way forward so that they might have a chance to survive. Thus maybe not saving as many jobs as some would like, but saving some none the less. GM will have to let people go, but this is better than letting all the people go. UAW will once again be asked to sacrifice. This to me is unfair, but I also realize being unemployed would be even worse. Chrysler will also shrink, if the FIAT deal goes through. However having looked at the FIAT turn around starting in '06 I think they will have a better shot in the long run than GM.
So be disappointed if you want. I on the other hand will continue to try and look for the good in a bunch of lousy choices.
And I ask my friends here, before they go off the deep end, to close their eyes and imagine John and Sarah now in the WH with Phil Gramm as Secretary of the Treasury.
March 31, 2009 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh god no please!!!!! please don't make me go there...
March 31, 2009 7:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course there is a HUGE difference between McLame and BHO...though not as much, imo, between Geithner and Snow.
March 31, 2009 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm... admittedly, the US auto industries has had problems, many of them brought on by mismanagement. Legacy costs were an issue but the government could have simply helped with those. If we have $130 billion for AIG's counter-parties or $1 trillion to invade and occupy Iraq, we have more than enough money to guaranty pension and health benefits for Detroit workers.
The credit crisis madem Detroit's problems more immediate -- banks stopped making auto loans. We gave the banks our money and they still won't make auto loans. This is the UAW's fault?
March 31, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
We actually have an FDIC-like pension guarantor. Unfortunately, it has been allowed to become ineffective due to mismanagement and underfunding. A TPMMuckraker story right now details how they switched to stock investments just before the market crash last year! Lunatics running the asylum.
March 31, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, we do have a pension guarantor and it should have been used here to take on some of the pension obligations. Our government treats the PBGC like it's a nuclear weapon, never to be used. But if a giant Wall St. bank needs capital, we open the spigot!
March 31, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . banks stopped making auto loans.
AFAIK banks don't make auto loans; they put together ABSs supported by consumer auto loans and sell them to investors (pension plans, insurance companies, etc.).
Banks are intermediaries -- unless they get caught holding the paper in which case they become reluctant, very reluctant investors themselves.
March 31, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
True. It's the securitization that ended, but that froze the auto loan financers. Thanks for keeping me precise. I think my point still stands.
March 31, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the unions, and in the case of the auto industry the UAW, is being set up as a scapegoat destor. There is a great deal of antipathy towards labor unions not only universally from the right but even from some on the left. I personally think that the American worker is underpaid...I think strong unions are needed now, in the age of globalization, as much as they were needed in the 20's and 30's.
March 31, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reality is that the President has to deal with crisis which boxes him in so far as the type of choices he gets to make. He could take a hard progressive stance on the issues but he's not an idealogue, rather he's more of a pragmatist and that fact eliminates what some (including myself) some of his best options. The bright side is that he's still far better from the radicals that got us here.
March 31, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
A "pragmatism" that eliminates the "bets options" is pretty problematic. A true pragmatist tries to make the best choice regardless of ideology, right? Then if the best options are from the progressive wing of the Democratic party, as you seem to imply, a pragmatist president would, I don't know, maybe use them. Once at least. At this point, once would be nice.
March 31, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's how it should be but Obama is not your conventional pragmatist. He does not only reject ideology in many cases but the appearance of it also. That may be the problem.
March 31, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"best options" seems a bit difficult to divine from the outside view we currently occupy. I think you would be better off saying "my preferred solution".
If you accept Obama's philosophy as pragmatic and not ideological - then the pragmatic approach may be one you disagree with. This will be especially true for those who view themselves as progressive idealists.
The Krugman plan is nuclear, you can't just "try it once". If we go the nationalization/receivership route - telegraphing the plan before implementation would cause chaos in the markets. It seems the administration is making quiet moves to place the necessary weapons in our arsenal. But don't expect them to be deployed in a fit of Krugmanesque hysteria.
March 31, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pragmatism is just fine with me Professor. It is the best way to tackle complex and difficult problems. I do think it is important to have a moral base, an ideology, to work off of too. And on the economy I am not sure where the President is coming from.
March 31, 2009 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he starts from a cloudy center. Obama is very much a centrist but who knows what that means. If we had true labels here, I'd put him much closer to a fiscal conservative than fiscal progressive. But we don't have proper labeling so he's called a centrist and that's scary.
April 1, 2009 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am afraid you're right Professor. I was really hoping that he would channel his true inner progressive after the pragmatic politician figured out how to get elected. But I have a feeling I misread his true ideology...very centrist indeed, at least on the economy if not right of center on fiscal matters. To me all that means is to redouble the effort to make the case that progressive is actually pragmatic.
April 1, 2009 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never would ask anyone to sit quietly by and act like a drone but you said,
How is it SOS when we don't even know what the final results will be after only 2 months?
Keep his feet to the fire but give the man props for stepping to the plate and tackling this unprecedented mess. If you have a better plan let me know, I'm serious when I say I will do whatever it takes to get it out there.
I can't say I want him to succeed and not help him succeed. I live in this country too. I worked my arse off too, I finally stood up and stopped bitching and being apathetic after all these years and did something. Not ready to give up now. If he screws up, he's got to go but in the meantime and in between time, I'm willing to see where he's going with this.
It's ONLY been two months, what were you truly expecting in such a short period of time?
I'm reading the news this morning and the man has vowed not to let the auto industry vanish but they must get their act together. These companies were hemorrhaging in the billions of dollars in loses. Then there is the fact he is determined to get his green cars. hahahahaha
He also lit a fire under the CEO's in the financial sector. They don't seem as cocky and confident today. Does that sound like the SOS to you?
March 31, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
"He also lit a fire under the CEO's in the financial sector. They don't seem as cocky and confident today. Does that sound like the SOS to you?"
Read the article below about the White House meeting with the bank executives. They sound plenty cocky to me, and I find that worrying:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123816459546857301.html#mod=todays_us_page_one
March 31, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose what I was expecting was an approach to problem solving that didn't lock out 'certain' solutions from even being considered. In the case of the financial sector, that would be the Roubini/Krugman approach. In healthcare it would be single payer. My interpretation of that unwillingness to consider solutions that might threaten the status quo of the entrenched financial interests of those sectors of the economy is the SOS. I would like to have some solutions considered that weren't accomplished solely at the expense of the taxpayer, in favor of big business.
March 31, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
That meeting took place before Henderson received the ax.
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE52T6DP20090330
I just read where the unions are putting the pressure on.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/labor/in-wake-of-gm-ouster-unions-demand-obama-fire-bank-of-america-ceo/
I doubt very seriously if they are feeling THAT cocky right now and I'm sure they are glad as heck he's out of the country for now. :)
March 31, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, I'd like to be optimistic, but the signs aren't there. Obama has announced three measures to deal with the financial crisis
1) the PPIP
2) Suspension of mark-to-market accounting (cf. here
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601091&sid=awSxPMGzDW38&refer=india
3) the stress-test of bank balance-sheets
The first two are huge give-aways (along with the AIG mediated bailout of bank counter-parties) to the big banks. There will be bumper profits announced on their first quarter accounts. The third measure, which would have actually done some good - i.e. produced transparency about their solvency - has disappeared into the background never to be heard of again (we should have heard about the results by now). Obama has caved to big finance. Unless he does an unbelievable U-turn.
The firing of Wagoner just makes the double-standards glaringly obvious. Big finance gets their bail-out on a silver platter with no strings attached.
And I'm not just 'thoughtlessly throwing this out there'...
(just a detail - it's Wagoner who got the ax - Henderson is the new guy...)
March 31, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and if you still haven't seen the 'positive solutions' that are being proposed. Try
1. removing the 'non' from 'non-recourse loan' in the PPIP proposal
2. Not suspending M2M accounting
3. actually doing the stress test (or any functionally equivalent audit of the banks)
4. Funding the FDIC so they can safely handle putting a big bank in receivership.
March 31, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obey you lost me on 1 an 2 but I understand the others. How would these help compared to what's being done and or proposed now? If you could keep it pretty basic I'd appreciate it. Economics is not a strong suit. It's something I have to really concentrate on and study.
March 31, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The non-recourse loans involved in the PPIP means all (or most) of the downside belongs to the tax-payer. It artificially inflates the price above what the private partner-bidder actually thinks it is worth. I've posted on this (and all the econblogs have noted the same). basically a bidder who thinks the assets are worth 50 cents will make a profit even if he buys them at 80 cents. The explanation is a bit long. But if you remove the non-recourse clause, this incentive goes away, the tax-payer is better protected, and the bids are more realistic.
As it stands, the program is just a 300B give away to banks.
The change in accounting rules means that banks can decide what value to book their assets at. They don't need to use their current market prices. This is problematic for a number of reasons. But the main one is that the lack of confidence in the markets - the reason good solvent banks can't find capital - issues from a lack of transparency about where the losses are, which banks are insolvent and which are fine. These changes just worsens the opaqueness, and thus the mistrust. So you get zombie finance.
March 31, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obey let me ask this question why is making a profit a bad thing? Wouldn't that improve their bottom line and help give them incentive to lossen credit? Now obviously we want them to do that now but I'm just asking. I don't know the answer and somewhat confused.
If AIG makes a profit why is it wrong for the auto industry to go into bankruptcy when there aren't any profits in sight or even a doable plan that has been submitted by them?
Which of these two companies holds a bigger threat on US economy and has longer arm globally?
Sorry my mistake you're right, it's Wagoner.
March 31, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
- why is making a profit a bad thing? Wouldn't that improve their bottom line and help give them incentive to lossen credit?
It's great if they make a profit. But my point is that the change in the accounting rules lets them DECIDE the value at which they're going to book their assets, among them the toxic ones. Which means they'll book a very high value, thereby declaring a (fictional) high profit. The problem with that is that it just prolongs the wait for the eventual write-downs and clean up of the banks. The banks have little financial incentive to loosen credit during a recession/depression. They'll rather just give the money back to shareholders and employees...
- If AIG makes a profit why is it wrong for the auto industry to go into bankruptcy when there aren't any profits in sight or even a doable plan that has been submitted by them?
I have no thoughtful pt of view on the auto industry. But I don't understand your first bit - AIG isn't and won't be making a profit ever again.
Which of these two companies holds a bigger threat on US economy and has longer arm globally? I don't know. AIG is tricky because if you let it default, all the major banks are in trouble - because they are counterparties (they have assets insured by AIG). So you need a comprehensive deal where you bring all the majors in one room and bang their heads together (eg. they all take only 90 cents on the dollar for all their AIG CDS contracts). I don't see Geithner having the balls to do that. So you end up subsidizing the AIG counterparties through AIG (by fulfilling all their obligations). Right now the idiot traders at AIGFP are just throwing as much money at counterparties as possible - they are not representing their principal very well - and then they'll all just get hired by those banks. The public outrage particularly directed at AIGFP is not stupid. It is unbelievably accurate.
March 31, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is what's throwing me
What I was thinking, based on the above statement if AIG is making or will be making a profit and the auto industry doesn't stand a chance anytime soon to do the same, why compare the situations? Two different companies with two different issues, one making a profit, one that is not. Two different companies that have a direct impact on the economy but in different ways and on different levels.
I'm thinking from the President's point of view, you've just gone through hell with the banks and the public outrage, do you keep the CEO who hasn't seen a profit in 5 years or do you tell him to hit the road? Also,IF his handling of AIG was a mistake, why risk making the same mistake twice?
This was a no win situation, what do you do? Cut your, loses and prepare for the onslaught that was going to come whatever decision you made.
I tend to be in the camp there really isn't a definitive answer to handling this economic crisis. Several ways to go, with some benefits outweighing others. It's a judgment call and depending which way the economy turns, will determine if your judgment was correct. Your way Obey, may be the right way based on your analysis, his way may be correct, another or another, may also be the answer.
I didn't make my choice to support President Obama on a whim but deliberate and careful thought. I choose to go with the person who brought me to the dance. He's the one I chose, worked for, voted for and have confidence in. I may be wrong, it's a judgment call.
March 31, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well the Hillary supporters aren't allowed to criticize Obama's adminsitartion or his plans because we're so bitter. Obama supporters who had hopes (based on his campaign) that he'd give a more fair deal to the middle class and the progressive side of the fence should shut up and line up behind Obama. The Republicans are obvioulsy irrevelevant and have no plans anyway. Is anyone allowed to dissent here or are you looking for a GWB insulation from criticism and diversity of opinion within the party? Seriously, where did people get the idea that Obama is too soft for his ideas to be challenged? That he needs to be boosted and supported by a band of cheerleaders who will not be critical even when they vehemently disagree with a course of action? This is a democracy not a monarchy last time I checked.
The UAW is asked for even more concessions in terms of health care & pension benefits. I have not seen real reforms enacted against Wall Street bonus / compensation structure where people are rewarded for short term incredibly risky gains rather than the long-term health of the company. That's a much bigger systemic risk to our economy than the auto industry and we're punting on that.
Shared sacrifice goes across the board, and we can't keep coddling Wall Street and subsidizing the richest, while putting the screws to the middle class. Obama (via Geithner & team) is turning the image of the Democratic party into the protector of Wall Street interests. And if this Geithner plan is a bust, the Dems are screwed in the midterm elections of 2010 because it's. all. on. us. Democrats who care about the future of the country and the party have an obligation to speak their dissent NOW, not just hope it works out for the best.
March 31, 2009 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I realize I'm not the best writer in the world but is my point THAT difficult to decipher?
I don't have a problem with HRC supporters, She was never my candidate of choice but never asked her supporters not speak up and I happen to have been and continue to be, fully behind her as SOS.
Where have I asked anyone not to speak up or against the president and his policies. I asked people to think first. I ask for support, why is it wrong to want people to support our Commander in Chief?
I don't see coddling but yes I see kid glove treatment with Wall street but since they can cause and have caused major havoc I think it's wise. I don't think it will continue forever. That's what the regulations will help to elevate at least that's how I see it. Could be wrong could be right but I don't know that in 2 months time.
My views don't have anything to do with Bush although if we had seen this kind of behavior from the public and MSM when he was in office, maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now. I disliked the man from day one, and didn't trust, believe and barely listened to a word he had to say for 8 years. (including and especailly after 911) Not the same thing at all for me.
60% of the people believe the President is doing the right thing, who is hearing all this dissent?
How many times has this dissent crossed over into MSM from here or are people getting out in their communities, joining groups and truly being engaged from behind a computer screen.?
Listen, I've said over and over, discussion is good but as I said in another thread, (I'll paraphrase) how many times can you tell the same people on the same forum you don't agree with the same policies over and over? There are a lot of extremely intelligent people here, where are the solution's, viable and working solutions? Dissent is good, a working plan is better. Just ask the republicans? :)
March 31, 2009 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
SOS has been used for two different things in this thread. You might want to be careful… ;)
March 31, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL, I figured it out let's be nice. :)
March 31, 2009 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well dijamo...I was an ardent BHO supporter and I feel free to criticize him. I don't see why people who supported HRC should not be able to voice their dissenting opinions either. Nothing wrong with dissent if it is done constructively in an attempt to make positive change(s).
And I agree with all of your opinions in your second and third paragraphs. Good points...
March 31, 2009 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
oops, my response is to miguelitoh
March 31, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough but you understand the way Washington works, how does an unprecedented man, in an unprecedented situation get unprecedented ideas by a staid and conventional Congress?
He has four years to work his way up to where you would like to see him be, eight if we support him and in all honesty he may never get there but have you really given him a chance? He's done more in two months than any president I can remember.
We voted in a President we can work with, now we have to vote in a Congress that comes closer to his vision than what we currently have now. That takes time. So we get what we get now, until we can work to get more.
The health plan hasn't really been out out there yet. Do we really know what it has and doesn't have? Have you noticed he slips in bits and pieces of his campaign promises here and there almost every time he sends a bill up?
It's been reported a bunch of insurance execs or what have you were at some meeting but have you heard the President speak on that meeting yet?
Heck, I like Gibbs but I still prefer to hear what the President has to say before I even take his word for some things.
Miguelitoh, I'm self employed. I don't have insurance, can't afford it. I'm 56 years old and have been smoking since I wad 17. Trust me, I want a decent health plan, the right health plan but right now I have nothing. Whatever I get is more than I have now.
As far as money from tax payers to pay big business. I haven't received a bill or been forced to go in my pocket to pay for anything, have you? By the time we have to pay our 1300.00-1400.00 share, I'm hoping the economy will be back on track so the bite will not hurt as much and it still will not come directly out of my wallet. But if 1400 dollars help get us through this, they can have it. I'm cool.
I can't worry about some CEO who receives millions, I can't spend it and if he didn't get it, wasn't going to hit my bank account anyway.
I truly understand the frustration and you're talking to a very impatient person but 2 months?
There is a lot out there that needs to be done not to mention the fundamentalist fools who are now talking about attacking us again. (the Capitol they claim is their target) but again, 2 months? hahahahaha.. Come on, let's be realistic.
March 31, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think our 'support' of BHO is going to determine whether he gets 8 years or not. I think that will depend solely on the success of the economic plan at the end of his first term and whether the electorate perceives the rescue to have been fair, (esp. to the taxpayers). In that sense my criticisms are aimed at producing a positive outcome on all fronts, IMO. Regarding the health plan, all I know is that 2 advocates of single payer, (a plan favored by the majority of Americans), were invited to the summit on health care at the eleventh hour after the president came under criticism for not including them in the first place, (another argument for speaking dissent from the party line IMO). HTWT, I too am self employed, and uninsured, and have health issues, so I am fully aware of your predicament. If interested, you can read about how I came to be uninsured, and my position on single payer here.
I'm not sure where you get your $1300-1400 figure from. But if we end up 'printing' more money to pay for the solution, we will see wealth disappearing from the American landscape at a great enough rate to worry even the most casual observer. BHO has my sympathies believe me. When he won in Nov. I commented that he must feel like he won the boobie prize on some level, with the economy flaming out before his eyes just as he ascends to power. I agree that two months is not enough time to expect results from his policies. Never meant to imply that I expected results this soon. My criticisms are directed to the avenues he and his advisers are exploring, (or not).
March 31, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
miguelitoh, go back and read the post where I highlighted your words. That is the part of your post I was speaking to. That's where I saw the defeatist attitude. I don't agree with the way you view him so far but I'm not against the criticism, I am against what seems like lack of support in a man you worked hard to get elected, but you say you still support him and I trust that.
Maybe it's about people being conditioned to expect the worst as a result of the last eight years but I simply don't share that view.
Things are not always what they seem and until we see how it all plays out, we don't really know what his game plan is. What we know, are the things he wants to accomplish. He's been telling us for two years, the last 2 months and even in his book Audacity of Hope.
I guess I'm one of those people who doesn't worry about how we get there as long as we get the desired results (or somewhere in the ballpark) and I believe it's too early to tell what those results will be. I will also admit I'm ruled more by heart and instinct than intellect but I like to think I find a balance most of the time. If you believe in astrology, the Aries thing probably doesn't help my situation. ...LOL
Seriously though, we have never seen anything like this, I'm not a big enthusiast of trying to predict something on a model we have never had. Not saying it can't be done, or has never been done. Simply not excited by it. Obviously we will have to agree to disagree.
I understand your point of view and I think you understand mind, we just don't agree. I'm cool with that, are you?
BTW, not ignoring your link but I have two windows open and seemed to have lost my place so let me get out of this and then come back in to read it.
March 31, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what you are not getting on this thread and others is that it's been quite obvious that progressives have been pretty much shut out of most discussions in the White House (e.g., they had to all but show up unvited on the healthcare issue) and were under-represented in the cabinet as well. Your answer to that is for us to just shut up and stop trying to have our points of view represented. Well, that's not what democracy or representative democracy is supposed to be about. I don't want a King. I want representatives representing me.
March 31, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually you have helped to clear something up.
Progressives voted for a man that never claimed to be a progressive and now they are angry because they weren't asked to the table. What's more important, all Americans or progressives Americans?
Sounds like either way you go, far right or far left, it's only about an ideology.
I did not ask a single person to shut up, not speak, not question. I ask not demanded for people to help and support a President who is trying to put a fractured country back together. Who knew that was a bad thing.
March 31, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
As always bluebell very well put and I am in total agreement. I get the feeling they they would wish progressives would sit down, shut up and mind our own business. Problem is, I have problems when people tell me that...and at this point in my life I don't expect I'll be changing much on that front.
March 31, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, I remember reading that. I can't even begin to tell you how angry that made me feel but I can't imagine having to endure all that. My heart goes out to you. How are things going now?
Ironically I wasn't always big on National Health Care. Five years ago I moved back home and found myself without health insurance for the first time in my adult life. Once I began to research and saw how many people were in my situation or worse (much worse) it put me in a totally different mindset. I pretty much went though life with blinders on for awhile before that all kicked in.
Something you said stood out though, about people being afraid of change. I think that applies to why we don't see those massive sweeping proposals you're looking for.
I remember when Krugman first started in on the stimulus package and how it needed to be larger. I agreed but politically didn't think it could happen. I don't think those three Republican votes in the Senate would have been there.
I read the President proposed budget, I was impressed. Not dancing on the ceiling but impressed. Now I'm listening to how congress wants to strip it with the help of Dems no less.
That's where I see our support is critical. The more we go after Congress the more power we give the President to push our agenda. I mean, he's actually back to campaigning now. Have you seen the ads? He's seeking our help. This is what he has always asked of us. What are we doing, complaining he isn't doing enough or the right thing or doing it our way?
You me, millions of us need to see this work in our favor, that you and I agree but I also have to understand there will be strong opposition no matter how many people speak up for us at the table. I also have to understand everyone has their issue/s that are important to them, can we realistically expect all of us to walk away 100% happy with what we receive?
I don't know, I guess I'll just have to do what I can do and hope those in the middle stand strong since I think that's where that 60% approval is coming from. :)
Time will tell.
March 31, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time will indeed tell HTWT, and I think we will have to agree to disagree on some of this. Perhaps we're splitting hairs in the end, but I think Obama's writings indicate that he supports and encourages an active, involved, and vocal electorate as a necessary ingredient in bringing about change. So, until it gets down to a final vote in the legislature, I'm gonna shoot for the programs and policies that I think are necessary. When it's down to the final vote, I'll more than likely support BHO, whatever the final form of the legislation. And, yes... we're cool. ;)
Side note HTWT: when you respond to a comment it helps to click the 'reply' button under the comment in question. It makes it hard to decipher who's talking to whom otherwise.
March 31, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're probably right and we are splitting hairs. I think it's pretty much wanting the same things but taking different routes to get there.
I've enjoyed the conversation, thanks and I'll try to remember to hit the comment button.:)
April 1, 2009 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The crisis economy is Obama's weakest policy area. On foreign policy, health care, etc. he's been working on his strategy since at least 2006 and has a really clear picture of what it will take to achieve the goals. This economic meltdown smacked him in the face along with everyone else at the end of a long campaign. He's been forced to wing it. I think that's why we've seen him tend to the status quo vs. more radical potential solutions.
I'm somewhat disappointed with the approach myself on several levels. I would have preferred to see a counterbalance to Geithner and Summers on his economic team (although I don't prefer drama queen Krugman). I do think Sheila Bair plays a balancing role to an extent. If we're going to put some of these institutions into receivership, I'd far rather see it handled by Bair than Geithner.
Of the options we were given, I'm happier with Obama winging it than ... say ... McCain. That said, those who pretend Obama isn't flying by the seat of his pants here are fooling themselves.
BTW: "deep thoughts" deserve a nod to Jack Handy - not Josh.
March 31, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very good point kgb. I too wish there was more of an ideological balance on his economic team. They all seem to be right of center economists who are locked firmly into the conventional wisdom. The last thing I felt we needed right now was a team of Rubin-ites.
March 31, 2009 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
No argument here, I agree!
March 31, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a question: what decision on auto industry were you hoping for? At least in the context of the workers' jobs?
March 31, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some way to keep them going, make the necessary changes but preserve the jobs. I don't think the economic ripple effect that will be felt coast to coast by the American people if GM goes bankrupt is fully appreciated Lalo.
March 31, 2009 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I LIKE CLASS WARFARE. IT GOES ON IN THE STREETS OF AMERICA EVERY DAY. PICK A SIDE
March 31, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Channel Gandhi or Dr. King dd...non violent revolution is still the way. ;)
March 31, 2009 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well I just got home from a 12 hour day at my store...and this post got quite a workout. 8)
I am about to read through the replies now...thanks to everyone who weighing in on it.
March 31, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Severing the head of Rick Wagoner the day after wining and dining the heads of the financial institutions that got us into this mess makes no sense whatsoever. We've given them 28 times as much money as we've given the auto industry, yet thus far it's all been taken out on Wagoner.
What's the difference between this, and going after Saddam Hussein while allowing Osama bin Ladin and the Taliban to roam free?
April 1, 2009 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken on the analogy John. On principles I have no problem with Wagoner being taken out. He did a lousy job running GM...or should I say running GM into the ground. But why he was taken out while the Wall Street 'Lords of the Universe' get to keep their positions after screwing up just as much if not more is just plain wrong in my book...
April 1, 2009 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink