Sequester Was Obama’s Idea; Make Him Own It!
President Obama is good at spending money and very adroit at blaming Republicans for the many failures of his presidency. Four years under his belt and another four to go and Obama continues the blame game with gusto. Now Obama is topping his own standard of hypocrisy and blaming the $1.2 trillion sequester on Republicans when the idea was Obama’s in 2011.
“And that’s why it’s so troubling that just 10 days from now, Congress might allow a series of automatic, severe budget cuts to take place that will do the exact opposite,” declared his Royal Highness Obama.
Let’s get this straight, it’s Congress’ fault sequestration, also known as the automatic spending cuts, is about to happen even though it was Obama’s idea? Apparently, Obama also never said in November 2011: “I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts, domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one.”
Oh, well he’s Obama and the media doesn’t hold him accountable to a record much less his words. The first round of $85 billion in yearly automatic cuts for the next ten years is set to rip March 1, 2013. In his usual haughty tone of denying culpability, Obama continued:
“So these cuts are not smart. They are not fair. They will hurt our economy. They will add hundreds of thousands of Americans to the unemployment rolls. This is not an abstraction — people will lose their jobs. The unemployment rate might tick up again. “
If the sequester isn’t “fair”, why didn’t the president get serious about solving the problem of government spending and debt in 2011 during the debt ceiling talks? Instead, Obama proposed the sequester to which Republicans in Congress objected in favor of serious budget belt-tightening?
In the summer of 2011, Obama waged a PR war demanding Republicans in Congress raise the nation’s debt ceiling (its ability to borrow) so Obama could spend more money. Republicans said they would only raise the debt ceiling (now $16.5 trillion) if Obama agreed to cut government spending. When the two sides couldn’t agree to significant cuts and Obama rejected House Speaker Boehner’s offer to raise $800 billion in taxes, the White House proposed “sequestration.”
If the sequester, again OBAMA’S IDEA (see page 326, The Price of Politics), isn’t “smart” and “will hurt our economy” why didn’t Obama deal with it in January 2013 instead of demanding $600 billion in tax increases on higher earners over 10 years. This amounts to $60 billion a year, which will pay down less than 5% of Obama’s $1trillion yearly deficits/over spending habit.
Obama didn’t want to deal with the sequester in January so Congress kicked the can down the road until March 1, 2013. Voila, here we are less than 10 days away from sequestration with the Commander in Chief once again demanding action from Congress, as if he is a bystander to government not part of it. Half of the $85 billion in cuts would come from Defense and the other half from discretionary domestic spending, which is only a 5% cut. The Wall Street Journal calls it The Unscary Sequester, reminding readers Hurricane Sandy aid was $60 billion to put things in perspective.
We’ve seen this act before from Obama: 2012 and 2010 Bush tax cut stand off, 2009 stimulus, Obamacare, Dodd Frank, etc. His script is always the same, “Congress do it, do it now. Republicans you are getting in my way, you are bad. I’m the first black president. I deserve anything I want and will not be held to the same standards of my predecessors.”
This is what Obama is saying and he’s getting away with it. Why? Because Obama enjoys a “fawning media” who perpetuates his preposterous narrative and because Republicans are lousy at PR.
Republicans fail to stay on message. Instead of telling their own story, Republicans always chase Obama’s narrative of himself and the GOP. Over the past four years, particularly during the 2012 presidential race, Obama was deft at changing the subject from his failures to the gender, race and class wars, Bush, Romney’s taxes, etc.
How does the GOP beat a media maverick like Obama? First, Republicans need to let sequestration happen and force Obama to take responsibility for the mess he’s created. Second, House Speaker Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell need create a consistent message and tell their team to stick with it!
For example: “This president refuses to get serious about the real issues facing this country and instead wants to play the blame game, passing the buck like he’s not a part of the problem but a bystander to it.”
“The sequester makes no cuts to mandatory or entitlement spending which according to the Congressional Budget Office are the main drivers of our unsustainable debt for the next 75 years.”
“Since he became president in 2009, Obama has added $6 trillion to our debt, which stands at $16.5 trillion. He has refused to cut government spending even though the Congressional Budget Office warns our debt threatens the country’s future.”
“If unemployment remains above 7.5%, as the Congressional Budget Office projects through 2014, it will be the longest period in 70 years and the sixth straight year under Obama’s presidency the jobless rate has stayed above 7.5%.”
With a lousy record like Obama’s: persistently high unemployment, largest debt since World War II, and a faltering economy, Obama shouldn’t have gotten re-elected much less be blaming Republicans for anything. But Obama is better at spinning his version of reality. It’s time for the GOP to step up its game or stay in the corner and get punched.
@CBC
With your statement that Obama should have never been reelected, I presume you are implying that the GOP failed to nominate a candidate that could beat him. My original reaction was that you were inferring that anybody could have beaten Obama. Since that was illogical, I figured my take was on it was all wrong. However the context of your post doesn’t actually imply that the fault was with the GOP. Instead it implies that the electorate failed to do what an informed electorate could, should and would do. If that is what you meant, then I guess I can see your point, sorta.
It must be difficult to write that Romney would have been a better president when Romney ran a very mysterious campaign. Romney’s “I’m not him but I can do what he does, if that’s what you want” campaign was really one of the all time strangest strategies I’ve ever seen. It almost seems like he was trying to help get Obama reelected, doesn’t it? I mean think about McCain. He probably could have won if he picked a ticket with a clue.
Great summation, CBC! Now I get it.
I completely agree about the sequester. It is Obama’s baby and he should have to own it. I just hope the Republicans stand their ground and refuse to budge.
You are also right about Obama and the way he seems to believe he deserves to get anything he wants, just because he won a couple of elections. He is a political bully and it is time for him to be slapped down. It remains to be seen if that will happen.
Two problems – The media doesn’t fawn, they take it all the way to whoring. Outside of a communist country, there has never been more lies told to support a miserable regime.
Secondly, Obama is such a snake, he will use the most painful cuts in order to hurt the Republican party. (I hear he is going to close the bathrooms in the national parks) instead of cutting the fat in the budgets of the various social programs that is obviously there. He is a hateful, devious man who only cares about himself.
“….this is the day that the rise of the oceans began to recede; this is the day that we began to fundamentally transform the United States of America.” Who in their right mind would say these kinds of things, implicitly ascribing these results to himself in the process? If he speaks, I lunge to change the channel, faster than sh*t through a goose. And our would-be “emperor” (he lamented earlier this month that he is but our President, not our emperor) said these things to an adoring crowd of low information (“I voted black”-yay!) voters after being declared the winner of the ’08 election. Not the greatest day in U.S. history, ain’t?
Wasn’t there, did he really say: “I’m the first black president.” ??
The rest of CBC’s article is so good, why make it easy to criticize with something to invite hate mongering??
Wish the press would see the duplicity of the liberals, and report on what is really happening to poor people and the middle class as a result of progressive policies.
@ Pam
It should go without saying that healthcare is the number one issue driving our debt, but the way Obama was attacked for zeroing in on it in his first term, I thought I should state it at the outset. There is supposed to be an interesting read in the Mar 4 Issue of Time Magazine (I haven’t found it yet in hard copy but you can google time magazine or
http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/
if you want to get an idea of what is in the time magazine special report).
The chances that Obama will cut where it would benefit the nation most, is of course unlikely because it is more likely that he is bought and paid for just like his republican colleagues are. Still, information is out there for people who have open minds and want to have informed opinions. It’s funny how MSNBC only notices the things the reps do wrong, and FOX News is better at noticing what the dems do wrong.
Another stupid article written by yet another stupid Black conservative…First let’s examine with a little common sense what the sequester actually means for millions of Americans..
Legislators don’t have any discretion with the across-the-board cuts: They are intended to hit all affected programs equally, though the cuts to individual areas will range from 7.6 percent to 9.6 percent (and 2 percent to Medicare providers). The indiscriminate pain is meant to pressure legislators into making a budget deal to avoid the cuts.
Here’s what some republicans say about it…
Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH): “Military leaders have been clear that defense sequestration will deprive our troops of the resources they need and undermine our national security for generations,” said Senator Ayotte, Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee. “This new study underscores that sequestration will also crush our economy, devastate our defense industrial base, and put tens of thousands of Americans out of work. Republicans and Democrats must work together now to find alternate spending reductions that will not add a national security crisis to our fiscal crisis.”
And here is what some republican governors say…
The Republican Governors Association released a letter today regarding sequestration written by Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, Chairman of the RGA, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Vice Chairman of the RGA.
A copy of the governors’ letter can be found here, and the complete text is below:
On behalf of Republican governors, we write to you today as the citizens we jointly represent are faced with a daunting economic outlook. In fact, most governors agree that we are operating in a period of unprecedented uncertainty due to global economic factors and inaction by the federal government. We, in government, have an obligation to take action when action is necessary, to be decisive, and to make tough decisions for the good of the nation. The people have entrusted us with these responsibilities. On spending and debt and deficits, the time to act is now. With an astounding $16 trillion in debt, and over a trillion dollars in deficits the past three years with no end in deficit spending in sight, reducing federal spending is critical to the health of the nation. Drastic cuts are needed, and we understand that, because unlike the federal government we must balance our budgets every year. The problem we now face is the haphazard method you and Congress put in place via the sequestration plan.
Sequestration was a political means to force spending reductions and a budget agreement, not a common sense fiscal policy. Its implications were so potentially onerous that the generally accepted belief was that Congress would not actually allow it to proceed. We understood the need to create consequences of such magnitude that the parties would have no choice but to reach an agreement. However, the super committee failed miserably, Congress has not made changes, and you have failed to lead in pushing a national plan to cut spending while preserving national defense.
The negative impacts of sequestration on our national defense have been well articulated from both the public and private sectors. Sequestration will be devastating to our military capability and to our service men and women as Secretary Panetta has suggested. It is especially acute given actions over the past decade through Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) to reduce our military, and arguably, their ability to act in a decisive manner on multiple fronts. Sequestration will not only impact our national military capabilities, but will also have an adverse impact on governors’ abilities to be commanders-in-chief of their states. Cuts to the Army and Air Guard will limit our ability to keep our citizens safe in the event of unforeseen circumstances, such as natural disasters that strike unpredictably and from which no state is immune.
The defense industrial base has also sounded the alarm. In meeting after meeting on Capitol Hill, in state capitols, and throughout this country, representatives of these major employers have shared with all of us that they must, by law, begin issuing layoff notices as soon as October pursuant to the provisions of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. Guidance issued just yesterday by the U.S. Department of Labor has done little to reassure our business leaders that the Act does not apply. In many cases these employers have already begun to prepare for the potential lay off of their work force. The impact of these layoffs, coupled with the proposed reductions in troop levels, will have negative effects on state and local economies and create more economic uncertainly.
A resolution of this uncertainty cannot wait until after November as we approach another year end crisis. The sequestration impact on jobs in our states is direct, immediate and devastating. The impact on our service men and women, our workers, and all of their families, may be irreparable. The time to make rational, targeted decisions is upon us, and we applaud the U.S. House of Representatives’ action to pass legislation to address the disproportionate impact that sequestration would have on our economy, and in particular our national defense, as well as efforts to enhance the transparency of the process. We ask that you directly engage with Congress immediately to find a bipartisan solution to avert the catastrophic impact that the sequester will have on our military and our economy. For the sake of our country and her people, we implore you to act now.
Here’s a quote from a different blog….
“Republican President Dwight D.Eisenhower had a TOP TAX RATE OF 91% ON BILLIONAIRES & MILLIONAIRES and he warned us about the “Military-Industrial-Complex”. Further when his fellow republicans in congress begged him to lower taxes on the wealthy, he responded … “We cannot afford to reduce taxes and reduce income until we have in sight a program of expenditure that shows that the factors of income and outgo will be balanced.”
What did President Eisenhower do with that tax money? He took that money and built dams; the interstate highway; the electrical grid and made our Public School System the envy of the free world.
WHAT HAPPENED ? TAXES WENT DOWN FOR THE RICH AND SO DID THE IQ OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND OUR INFRASTRUCTURE! WHEN DID IT HAPPEN …. 1980s
Our Country started going downhill when Ronald Reagan arrived at the White House in 1981. He touted three major agenda items. Two of these were just like George Bush’s 20 years later: greatly increase defense spending and slash taxes on the wealthy ~(remember its called “Voodoo Economics)~. He did both. His greatest effort was devoted to cutting the top tax rate from 70% to 50% to 38% to 28%, giving obesely wealthy Americans gigantic new piles of money to play with. The national debt nearly tripled on Reagan’s watch, from $993 billion to $2.6 trillion. Reagan tried to correct his mistakes by raising taxes 11 times during his administration. When that didn’t work he signed into law “The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982″, THE BIGGEST TAX INCREASE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES!
But the top tax rate never approached even 50% much less the 70% it was when Reagan took office.
Now the Republicans hate Government, they think it is the problem (re: to much regulation) now why would you put people who hate Government and regulations in charge of the Government (THE “HOUSE”)?
What did you think was going to happen you fools?..”
One thing I will say is that Obama rolled the dice on this and the GOP supported it , the blame will not doubt go more to the GOP than the president..I honestly think both sides are to blame but politicially the president has more of the country on his side..Just ask the republican governors…
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker tells Bloomberg TV that he’d rather the federal government reduce its deficit by adjusting entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare than through across-the-board cuts that are scheduled to take effect March 1.
Walker’s in Washington for a meeting of the National Governors Association. His interview with Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital With Al Hunt,” available online and via cable TV this weekend, is here. He’s also scheduled to appear on “Fox News Sunday.”
Walker also says that if the proposed across-the-board cuts, or “sequester,” do go into effect, they have a significant impact on Wisconsin, but won’t hurt the state as badly as they would some other states such as Virginia.
The problem for republicans is that they are blocked in the corner if “we hate Obama” rather the open field of “we’ll do something to help the country”
The question “what has the GOP done for the country in the last 13 years “..???…still goes unanswered….
Obama’s plan…that depends on who you ask….
Three PEW research polls show American citizens continue to hold Republicans responsible for creating economic crises, not only for the sequester, but also for the debt ceiling crisis and the fiscal cliff crisis.
The sequestration came about from a deal made by the Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) and the Tea Party members of his caucus who jumped at the idea; they thought that Mitt Romney would be in the White House and not Barack Obama. You can read the leaked Power Point presentation by Speaker Boehner to his caucus explaining his plan.
The new spin from Republicans and the right wing media is to blame the sequestration plan on President Obama, when in fact; it was Speak Boehner’s plan. The only insistence by Obama was that the sequestration would not go into effect until after the Presidential election.
The Republicans in Congress continue to create one crisis after another, they weaken and slow our economic recovery and each and every time they create a crisis, they blame it on President Obama. And just as America citizens rejected Mitt Romney in favor of President Obama, American citizens know that it’s the Republican Party who’s responsible for each of these economic crises that they themselves have created, just as the PEW polls point out.
In a new PEW research poll released today Feb. 21, on who is to blame for the “sequester” if Congress and the President fail to reach a deal before the March 1, 2013 deadline shows; 49 percent blame the Republicans, 31 percent blame the President, 11 percent blame both the President and Congress and 8 percent are not sure.
The GOP will lose this fight if they don’t come to their senses…One thing is very clear..The GOP underestimated the skill of being a community organizer…
@truevoice
Thank you for the substantive contribution to this discussion. The research behind it is evident. When I can say I learned something, I can call it a good day. Clearly it matters who gets blamed for this because it will impact who will be in control going forward. However I maintain that it is very telling that the focus of our leaders is more about who will be blamed and less about what can be done. In a hearing about this very subject rebroadcasted on CSPAN, rep Elijah Cummings mentioned something about “playing a game”. The game is who can get elected and they are wagering the lives of the 99%, yet our focus is who gets to play and who wins the game.
Very good comments as usual.
I thought that President Obama stated in one of the debates that “sequestration will NOT happen”. How can this be happening? I guess that is like him saying that he will cut the national debt in half in his first 4 years. How did that come out?
Hold onto your hat, BIGGER GOVERNMENT, here we come. Let’s hope the Republicans grow a pair and do not cave this time, as they have in the past.
If it takes sequestration to get real spending cuts, then so be it. Our Country is strong we will survive, sequestration. If we survived 8 years of Bill and Hillary, we can survive anything.
From today’s Christian Science Monitor:
“My extensive reporting for my book ‘The Price of Politics’ shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of [then-budget director] Lew, during the negotiations and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors – probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government,” Woodward wrote. “Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid…. Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise.”
As someone said, the Democrats have a better propaganda machine.
“Making America a magnet for good jobs” will never happen under his watch.
Instead Obama is succeeding in making America a magnet for repelling Americans working abroad. The number of Americans giving up their passports is growing dramatically. Case in point: Tina Turner.
@ Wes…I hear you…the rest of us suffer while the politicians at like boys with toys while penis measuring in the school yard……..
@ Truevoice Great Overview of the issue as usual.
@ Noel
I admit that raising the minimum wage isn’t a good idea for creating jobs. However, the dynamics of the global market are simple. It isn’t good business for a multinational corporation to hire US workers @ $15/hr when they can hire somebody in India to do the same job (either on the phone or in a plant in India) for $3/hr. Why pay someone $15/hr plus healthcare in the US when you can pay someone $15/hr in Europe where you won’t be on the hook for any healthcare costs. As I see it, Obama’s only way to create jobs in the private sector is to deplete our natural resources (like dug up all of the oil, coal and natural gas and sell it). That would kick the can down the road as long as our natural resources hold up, assuming the fossil fuel burning isn’t killing the planet and dragging us toward some theoretical point of no return. Climate change is real. I’m not yet convinced that burning fossil fuel is the reason for it. However if I had to bet, I’d bet it has something to do with it. I think cutting down the rain forests is more responsible, but I’m drifting off topic…
Congress always has and will continue to be the one who controls the purse strings in Washington
@ Wes
I agree. Obama could at least approve the Keystone XL pipeline to stimulate the economy.
@noel
Smooth! {g}
@noel…The pipeline will not do much for the economy..it is basically a politicial tool used by the Oil company involved to make more money and most of the oil will be exported…
Keystone XL oil pipeline, heralded by supporters as a major job creator, will add few permanent positions once the $7 billion project is built.
The number of people needed to operate and maintain the 1,661-mile (2,673-kilometer) pipeline may be as few as 20, according to the U.S. State Department, or as many as a few hundred, according to TransCanada.
“I don’t see a big jobs impact,” Stephen Fuller, director of the Center for Regional Analysis at George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia, said in an interview. “It gets the oil into refineries that already exist. It’s like replacing a bridge on the highway.”
Most of the jobs will be temporary jobs and that will not do much for the economy…
@ scott…..As Woodward wrote in his book, and as he subsequently explained to Politico, neither party wanted the automatic cuts to take effect or thought they would happen. The cuts were included as a mechanism to force members of the bipartisan committee to work out a deal to avoid them.
Now, as the new deadline for sequestration draws closer, many Republicans blame the president. And though it’s true that the idea of sequestration originated in the White House, there would be no possibility of automatic cuts had members of Congress — both Democrats and Republicans — not gone along with the idea.
The Budget Control Act passed in the House with 269 votes in favor — 174 from Republicans and 95 from Democrats. And the bill cleared the Senate with 74 “yea” votes, of which 28 were cast by Republicans. In fact, one of those voting in favor, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Feb. 17 that “Republicans deserve blame; I’ll take some blame for it.”
And Rep. Justin Amash, a Republican from Michigan who voted against the bill, has said that “it’s totally disingenuous” for Republicans who voted in favor of the bill to now blame the president for it. Amash told Buzzfeed: “The debt ceiling deal in 2011 was agreed to by Republicans and Democrats, and regardless of who came up with the sequester, they all voted for it. So, you can’t vote for something and, with a straight face, go blame the other guy for its existence in law.”
Looks like the White House rolled the dice but we all suffer from this politicial football game….Why would both democrats and republicans agree on this especially knowing that the gridlock in Washington is not going away..Maybe congress will come to their senses but recent history has proved that they won’t…
@noel…
“Instead Obama is succeeding in making America a magnet for repelling Americans working abroad. The number of Americans giving up their passports is growing dramatically. Case in point: Tina Turner.”
How so…???
@Truevoice methinks it is just as disingenuous for the President as for the opposition.
International Living is constantly touting the benefits of going overseas and giving statistics on the numbers. The number of Americans giving up their passports is rising in a dramatic percentage fashion. However, the actual numbers are low allowing small changes to show up as large percentages. We are not in danger of a significant population – or even talent – drain.
@scott…The President has more public support and being that he can’t run again he really has little to lose..On the other hand the GOP dies not have the public behind ion the sequester and with 2014 just around the corner amnd woth republican governors going on record agaiunst it , the GOP congress is somewhat backed into a corner…We’ll see what happens…
“A Record 1,800 people renounced U.S. citizenship last year alone, up eight times the number of those who did in 2008″
just not a great number of people….
@Truevoice – I still chose to differentiate between power and right. I understand, that is why I am so afraid.
@truevoice
Every job helps, at least some families would benefit from those temporary jobs and could use them as stepping stones to something better. Those jobs would do something for them. Plus, more oil means less dependence on Middle East oil.
Besides “making America a magnet for repelling Americans…”, he has succeeded in repelling cash away from the economy.
Companies are sitting on trillions of cash, which means he has succeeded in making America a magnet for repelling jobs.
Socialist policies always achieve the opposite of their good intentions.
@ Noel
“Companies are sitting on trillions of cash, which means he has succeeded in making America a magnet for repelling jobs.”
This was the condition that started when the housing bubble burst and the credit market froze. That means Obama didn’t actually repel anything. It was his predecessors that did the repelling. That means he failed to fix what was broken when he arrived. The right is always blaming Obama for stuff he didn’t do, then when black people don’t throw Obama under the bus for it, we get accused of supporting him because he is liberal or black. If Obama claims the problem was there before he got into office, he gets blamed for not taking responsibility. If Obama doesn’t wear a flag on his suit jacket lapel, he is accused of not being for America. If Obama doesn’t produce a birth certificate, he is accused of not being from America. Why would any rationally thinking black person, embrace the stuff the GOP is putting out there? The dems may be stabbing us in the back, but the GOP is peeing on us and telling us it is raining.
The GOP’s propaganda machine needs an overhaul, IMHO.
@wes
His rhetoric does create uncertainty; one of the reason companies are still sitting on cash. If the man “failed to fix what was broken”, why is he still there??
This is not about Obama. This is about Capitalism vs Socialism.
Socialism doesn’t work. In a way it is the fault of the party that is supposedly for Capitalism (the Republican party) that the capitalist empire is falling. The Republicans don’t know how to defend capitalism; on a moral basis.
@Noel and Wes
You are getting to what I see as the nub of things.
Republicans talk about conservatism; however, what they practice looks more like a feudal society without the royal titles. Then again, the Democrats do the same. As do the heads of large corporations, labor and charitable organizations.
Someone needs to pay the bills: the capitalists. Liberals and government create nothing. However, capitalists need to recognize that a large middle class gives them a better market. So really it is self-serving to help the average guy succeed. They need to recognize that fact and they need to sell the fact that capitalism is the best route for the average guy to get his needs filled.
And they need to denounce racism. It is stupid and no longer profitable.
CBC hits at some of the problems, but there is no positive sales effort from her or really any Republican.
Kind of occurs to me that I may be a microcosm of society. I frequently find I am swept up in the latest trend.
Before you call me a rich SOB, I will flat tell you I am concerned about my money running out before I die, so it is not that much. And I am healthy.
Anyway: I have significant profits in my stock investments. If I sell them and take the profit, I could spend some money. But, if I sell them Uncle Sam will take, say 20% and I will lose some dividends. The result: I will take no profits and I will spend less money. How many times is that being repeated around the country?
Taxes and the present administration are affecting my behavior and therefore the economy. How typical am I?
@ Noel
“ If the man “failed to fix what was broken”, why is he still there??”
When it comes to president, this nation has been in a “lesser of two evils” mode, for better than 20 years. Obama still being president is a failure on the part of the GOP to effectively challenge has record. If you want the answer to why he is still president you’ll have to ask someone who believes voting for dems and reps makes sense.
Your statement that socialism doesn’t work, is correct in my opinion. Capitalism is the best economic system, bar none. Socialism is intrinsically flawed. However, just because capitalism is the best system, one should not assume deregulation will work. History proves a lot of things and deregulation leading to problems is one example among many that the GOP tries to pass off on the public as ideas that will lead to prosperity for society as a whole. Instead, it leads to a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, and that in turn leads to social unrest.
Healthcare is a unique commodity. When 99% of the population can’t afford to pay for their own, the hard truth is that somebody must pay. If you want to say we are a capitalistic society, and if a person can’t afford healthcare, too bad, that is of course, your choice. The fact is medicare is a form of socialism and a lot of people will die if it doesn’t endure in some form. So from a purely idealistic perspective, let them all croak. However from a more practical perspective, come up with something that will improve life expectancy for the 99% or don’t call them stupid or leeches because they won’t vote for you. The GOP is selling poison and putting the skull and cross bones on the bottle. Then they act baffled when thinking people don’t want to drink it.
@ Scott
I agree with everything in your post. I’d like to add that I think a women’s right to choose is at odds with a fetus’s right to life. I think this devalues the preciousness of life in society at large, which in turn contributes to violence. I also think a person has the right to destroy his own life with drugs, if that makes him happy. I think this will also have a negative impact on society, but his right to do it trumps the negative impact it imposes. However, if he pays a heavy tax for his reckless behavior, he could at least help with the debt problem. Since our biggest problem with debt comes from healthcare, I’d apply the tax to healthcare. Since the person doesn’t value his own life, he could, at least, help others who do.
I know public healthcare doesn’t sound good on paper, but considering the alternatives, well let’s just say at the moment, I’m open for ideas.
If letting people die at a certain age sounds cold, then letting people die regarless of age sounds downright frigid.
Public healthcare does sound good, until one thinks about it. Yes, I think everyone deserves health care.
But: why do you have the right to take my money for your health care?
Why should I pay for the health care of some fool who smokes, drinks, eats wrong and does nothing for himself? In fact the public option would reward that behavior (much like many other progressive ideas.)
Next but: a healthy population would probably make business better and certainly there would be less suffering, an emotional but worthwhile goal.
Next but: the medical model needs to be reformed. Physicians still treat diseases rather than make people healthy. It is the model. Today we are on the verge of creating health, but the drug companies and physicians are still wanting to use the old
highly profitable model: treat each problem, and if we create another one, charge the patient for that, too.
@ Scott
Those are all excellent questions.
Hypothetically, (I have not crunched the exact numbers) but assuming only the 1% can afford healthcare, then only the 1% will get healthcare, unless of course the 1% pays for the rest. It’s the ugly truth but yes the 1% would have to pay for the 99% under this hypothetical scenario. The 99% don’t have the right to demand such a thing, but when the numbers are so disproportionate in terms of how poorly the wealth is distributed, it is a simple fact that only certain people can afford healthcare regardless whether the rest deserve it or not. The wealthy may want to do what is necessary to cook up a good recipe for pacifying the masses or they may prefer to roll the dice and bank on the prospect that the masses will drop into a state of capitulation not unlike those depicted in the movie “The Hunger Games”. It is quite possible. Already the masses still think they have a choice with the dems and reps when it seems all too clear to me that they don’t.
Clearly people who engage in risky behavior put a strain on the system and clearly it is unfair to those who make more healthy choices. I have no answer for this and I am glad you brought it up. I don’t think getting into a “big brother” mode where the food police are watching what people eat, drink and smoke is a way to decide who deserves what level of healthcare is the answer. I saw a guy smoking while he was dragging an oxygen tank around with him. I guess I’ll have to get back to you on this.
Reforming the healthcare model is obviously necessary. We might be able to actually afford the program if the waste is cleaned up and the focus is to cure rather than control.
@Wes – seeing the problem and coming up with the answer are two things. I think a major reform is in order when the most profitable drug groups have not been proved to do any good.
In other words, there has never been a study to demonstrate that cholesterol lowering drugs reduce the chances of a heart attack. Another study on diabetic medications was stopped because the people who were most meticulous about following directions died sooner.
Another problem is that the union of the physicians – called the AMA – has effectively created a monopoly and reduced entry into the profession. The American legal system has added to the cost through high insurance rates. And yet, someone who does not make a good salary until they are in their mid-thirties (schooling) does deserve to earn a good living, but how good?
Answers:
1) amazingly Bush actually investigated the model used in Holland where relative costs are much lower. Why not follow up?
2) in most of the rest of the world, pharmacists are allowed to dispense routine meds which require an office visit and prescription here.
So, in most countries, you have a sore throat and the pharmacist sells you some Clavamox or whatever. Cost $15.00. In the USA, that’s a perfunctory office visit for $100 plus the prescription. Not only is the cost greater, but the office visit takes hours to complete, costing you more. The saddest part of this is that the physician is so pushed doing the routine things, he is hard pressed to be thorough on the less routine things.
3) I do know that veterinary medicine uses the same drugs and equipment and performs the same tests and procedures, but owners pay out of their pockets. DVMs make a good living, but not like some surgeons etc. Insurance is a minimal issue for DVMs. How to carry that over?
I think about it, but don’t really have an answer.
@Scott
Any time a problem or situation has a political component, there is generally a certain amount sleight of hand or misdirection that must be peeled away in order to reveal the actual problem and viable solutions to that problem. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this in a way offers me (and others) the opportunity to look at this on a comprehensive level.
Since you have insight into areas that I do not, correct me if I am reaching conclusions that might seem bogus to you. This industry has inefficiencies and people who tend to profit from these inefficiencies. If this is true, then yet another level of bureaucracy is needed to bring the industry into a state of efficiency, that we can realistically dream of affording. Perhaps a private sector watchdog industry that could somehow profit from exposing poor prognosis strategies and downright fraud would be more viable that yet another level of governmental regulation and red tape that might gum up the process is the answer, but the regulation is needed IMHO.
I’m all for unions, but again unions protecting workers rights are good and unions protecting a worker’s “right” to get paid for not working are bad. Doctors deserve to be compensated well for what they do and what they can do. I certainly don’t want to put a cap on how much doctors make and the principles of capitalism suggest that they should make as much as they can make. However doctors should not be in positions where they are urged to marginalize the interests of the patients in favor of profit margins. That runs counter to the spirit of the Hippocratic oath or something. A person who is capable of playing professional baseball or basketball or being a doctor should never choose professional sports or acting in movies because the money is more attractive. A society that puts that much emphasis on entertainment is doomed. Pay the doctors well, but give them the incentive to heal above the other overall strategies.
I have major problems with GW Bush as a president in general, however when you say Bush investigated the Holland model, I’m assuming you mean W did this and not his dad. If he did this, I believe in giving credit where it is due. Even if he never followed through, I find it extraordinary that he had the vision to do the study. Budget constraints and political entanglements can always generate unfunded mandates, let alone killing an idea before it gets going. Obama could pick up where Bush left off, but I suspect he could run into similar road blocks should he decide to advance ideas that Bush “inexplicably” abandoned.
@Wes – Bush was an extremely poor propagandist. He did investigate other health plans, he did try to point out the problems with the mortgage industry and actually he funded a good bit of HIV work in Africa. Today I feel that he probably wanted to fight a war in Iraq and mis-read the military info. Compare that to what TrueVoice correctly brought up about Eisenhower, who realized the the military wanted a war. In the end Bush was a poor president.
And indeed I can see how this argument leads to the need for regulation. It is not that the physicians are immoral, they truly believe what they are doing and in many ways it is the best possible thing. However, they are educated to accept authority and that means if someone presents a study, you accept the results. Really there is no choice. If you do not accept a study, then you are using hearsay or anecdotal evidence. Problem is who is studying what and why?
When antibiotics were discovered, that was great and companies went off and tried to develop new ones. Still do. Now apply that model to diabetes (Type II, adult onset) for instance. On the surface diabetes is a problem with insulin and initial evidence seemed to say a diabetic person needed more insulin to lower blood sugar. To some degree, this is true. But that is the only solution currently being offered. (To be fair there is some change going on with this particular problem.)
What about other thoughts? What is the role of diet – lowering the insult to the pancreas? What is the role of gluten and genetically modified wheat and corn? What is the role of grain fed-beef? Is cardio-vascular exercise helpful vs heavy weights? Artificial sugars, etc. These are just some questions I have read about.
Some of it comes down to the fact that diabetic people don’t want to change their lifestyle also.
Back to regulation: how do you tell a company to spend money on research about something else? What is the something else?
I do think the government should fund basic research.
Oh, the heck with this. I also know of researchers who have had success and block efforts to change their “empire.” So success begets power begets self-interest begets abuse. Same with the regulators. We need a strike and 50 separate nations.
Humans, including regulators, are not moral, so we are screwed.
@ Scott,
I think I get the general thrust of your post, and I say I am more optimistic. The founding fathers were well aware of the human nature component of the problem and that is why the separation of powers, I presume. The government is nothing more than a big ball of regulation. The fact that the three branches appear to be bought off doesn’t mean the model itself is flawed. The checks and balances should work if the courts are not controlled and we elect statesmen who act on behalf of their constituents, rather than on behalf of their campaign financers and lobbyists. I think it is doable. We just need an electorate that is informed instead of an electorate that trusts the media to keep it well informed.
To regulate the medical industry sounds like we need yet another system of checks and balances. I suppose that is so daunting that I don’t want to think about that either. I guess you win this, until I come up with something other than a regulation monstrosity. Perhaps that is what you are trying to show me (that Obamacare is nothing but a regulation monstrosity).
@Wes – thinking about all this nearly renders me submissive.
I agree about how our Founders thought. But the execution has really never been great. The influence of the “career politician” and lobbies is overwhelming.
I fully agree intelligent regulation is needed. However, appropriate regulations really were in place for the financial crisis, just not implemented. Regulation is in place for trading firms, but look what Jon Corzine got away with. Regulation of the medical industry will do nothing either – they have strong ethical standards – and regulation.
To me, the press is failing to do its job. As a child, I remember studying the “Yellow Press” and the “Tweed Ring” in New York. It seems the same is happening today. Regulations are pointless if the villains ignore them and they are selectively enforced.
The medical care problem is not an ethics problem, it is a focus problem. Human nature is to accept the prevailing paradigm until it is overthrown. Right now medicine accepts the “treat the current problem” paradigm. I actually think the next paradigm is being discussed. Our children or maybe grandchildren will have true prevention and maintenance as the primary goals for medicine.
Thanks for your stimulating discussion. It helps me get my thinking more rational.
What is much more important than whose idea the sequester was is the following question.
“WHY SHOULD THE AMERICAN ELDERLY, POOR AND CHILDREN MAKE SACRIFICES WHILE CORPORATIONS CONTINUE TO GET TAX DEDUCTIONS TO SHIP AMERICAN JOBS OVERSEAS?” ANSWER THAT!
Tax deductions for sending American jobs overseas is WRONG and
“Anti-American” whether the US has a SURPLUS or a DEFICIT, because it sucks money and jobs out of the American economy.
The Republicans use words like “revenue, spending cuts and entitlement reform” which are terms, to sanitize the moral WRONGS of taking from elderly and poor Americans to give to the wealthy corporations.
Even if there has to be changes to medicare or social security insurance, why should it supercede or co-exist along with Anti-American policies that are detrimental to our nation.
Money spent on programs for the poor and elderly is almost always put right back into the American economy while tax deductions to ship jobs overseas is NEVER put back into our economy.
Finally, there is no such thing as a conservative black chick but instead, an ignorant, low self-esteemed black chick with a mental problem.
Its amazing how you ignorant conservatives that vote against your own self interest, never look at the facts.
In regard to the debt, MOST of the debt that has accumulated under Obama’s tenure, is the result of Bush continuing policies that Obama is trying to stop. For example, the Bush tax cuts to the rich, two wars (one completely of choice), and a Medicare drug program where the drug prices are not negotiated are the biggest contributors to the increasing deficit.
Obama’s biggest contribution to the deficit so far has been the stimulus, and that was necessary because of Bush also. Therefore, almost ALL of the deficit is still because of Bush.
If you have evidence of policies that Obama has implemented that has significantly contributed to the deficit, I want to see it. Don’t try to use Obamacare because most of it has not been implemented and would not be part of that $16.5 trillion you quoted above.
You conservatives never break down numbers and what they consist of because you would have to face the real truth of who is responsible for them.
@ Scott
A law that has no enforcement behind it provides a road map for those inclined to follow guidelines. Obviously others who are either ignorant of the law or undaunted will do what they do when enforcement is lacking. I bow to your insight into the medical industry, as I work to find ways to make healthcare affordable for all (or at least a bit more than the 1% who can currently afford it).
The beautiful of the separation of powers is of course that one branch makes the law, a second enforces it and a third not only judges the law itself, but also the innocence or guilt of the accused perpetrator. It is a slow due process, unlike the more efficient NDAA where they write the law, target the accused and carry out the sentence all before the hypothetical transgression is actually committed. Talk about saving time, healthcare problem solved. If you get too ill, take one drone and don’t call me in the morning.
I think the press is driven by ratings (which equals sponsorship) and also access to politicians. Knowledge is power and the electorate doesn’t get power for free. You sharing your knowledge for free is a public service even if you don’t think so. Unfortunately people don’t trust everything they read on the internet (I guess that could be a good thing too). I think compelling arguments are good and oratory, not so good. The successful politician uses oratory well. I can tell you love your country. I wish there was something we could do besides pray.
Actually Paul Ryan was advocating for the Sequester since he first came to Congress in the 90′s lol and theres video proof of it, so no it was not Obama’s idea lol it was actually a republican ideal.
Well, we have a new liberal using name calling “ignorant low self esteem” and shouting “WHY SHOULD” to contribute to the discussion in a simplistic manner.
Thanks for your insights and helping me realize why I think with two bad choices, conservatism is the better one.
I guess I should point out my prior comment was pointed at @SLR
Great post and don’t let the liberals get you down. It’s seems Obama blame game is back firing on him as his job approval went down this week.