Good article. Is Obama going the way of Hoover?

[Pure]

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/07/0082562

Barack Hoover Obama: The best and the brightest blow it again

By Kevin Baker


the author points out many resemblances of BO and HH, and stresses how what seem to be the best ideas just don't get 'sold' to the public, or go far enough.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/07/0082562

Barack Hoover Obama: The best and the brightest blow it again

By Kevin Baker


the author points out many resemblances of BO and HH, and stresses how what seem to be the best ideas just don't get 'sold' to the public, or go far enough.

And here's one explaining why you absolutely must do so. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm

 

[rgraham666]

And here's one explaining why you absolutely must do so. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm

That's really fucking scary.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Hoover had many ideas and did little or nuthin. Franklin Roosevelt put many of Hoover's ideas to work.

People dont wanna do the math. They elect leaders to do the math and boil the figures down to a tasty elixir that settles the nerves and stills the trembling hand. They want optimistic slogans. They want tucked into bed at night, and a nite-lite.

Obama has done none of this. He sits up all night at the dining room table, with eye-shade and adding machine and ash-tray filled with butts; and in the morning all he knows for sure is he needs a pay raise just to handle the bills and the shylocks he owes.

 

[LaRocha]

Obama is too busy cockblocking Joe Biden all night at the White House mixers to realize he has to actually put forth legislation as president to get anything done as president. I don't care what Obama does as long as my bank stocks don't continue to get destroyed. If they do, then I'll make sure everyone knows that Obama is the Great Satan of Islam and the Jehovah Antichrist.

I bet Herbert Hoover was busy cockblocking Charles Curtis all day at the White House speakeasy. Now Hoover's grand-daughter has to spend all day talking about all his accomplishments from underneath the desks at MSNBC and Fox News.

 

[Pure]

hi bear

Originally Posted by voluptuary_manque
And here's one explaining why you absolutely must do so [reach voters].

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm

Thanks friend. Of course why people vote against their interests has been debated since early industrialization. Why American voters are often sold on Republican policies that favor big businesses and hurt small ones, because of packaging as 'free market'. As the author points out, voters without any health care can have a fear of 'government dictatorship' override all other calculations.

It is also true that voters are manipulated over divisive issues, such as 'gay marriage'.

In tough times like the present, the politician who does not at least seem to deal with voter anger and frustration is going down. The Rep'n victory in Mass was not really based on 'here's some new good ideas' (the man hasn't any), but on "i'm a fresh face; i'm not in the 'in crowd'; i'll listen to you and pursure my own 'lights'; i'm not part of a 'machine.'" Indeed the fellow ran clips of *Jack Kennedy* in his ads to indicate his youth, freshness and energy.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

That's really fucking scary.

It's also pathetic. And not just about the voters but about the elected officials' attitude towards those who voted them in. Smoke filled room bargaining may be a realistic way to get anything done but an explanation of what was on the table and why the decisions were made is essential. My feeling, because of that obscurity in the process, is that the health care bill that will now never pass was a gift-wrapped present to the insurance industry. No wonder people are pissed.

 

[amicus]

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/07/0082562

Barack Hoover Obama: The best and the brightest blow it again

By Kevin Baker


the author points out many resemblances of BO and HH, and stresses how what seem to be the best ideas just don't get 'sold' to the public, or go far enough.

~~~

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/barack-obama-you-remind-me-herbert-hoover?page=0,2

Yet another comparison...

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by voluptuary_manque
And here's one explaining why you absolutely must do so [reach voters].

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm

Thanks friend. Of course why people vote against their interests has been debated since early industrialization. Why American voters are often sold on Republican policies that favor big businesses and hurt small ones, because of packaging as 'free market'. As the author points out, voters without any health care can have a fear of 'government dictatorship' override all other calculations.

It is also true that voters are manipulated over divisive issues, such as 'gay marriage'.

In tough times like the present, the politician who does not at least seem to deal with voter anger and frustration is going down. The Rep'n victory in Mass was not really based on 'here's some new good ideas' (the man hasn't any), but on "i'm a fresh face; i'm not in the 'in crowd'; i'll listen to you and pursure my own 'lights'; i'm not part of a 'machine.'" Indeed the fellow ran clips of *Jack Kennedy* in his ads to indicate his youth, freshness and energy.

Sometimes it is a matter of opinion what is "against the interests" of the specific voter. For instance, from what I have hear of it, Obamacare involves a big decrease in funding for Medicare. This means either spending more for premiums or getting limited care, and people on Medicare are certainly going to oppose either. There are many persons who are very satisfied with their medical insurance, and believe Obamacare will have a negative impact. I happen to be one of those people.

There are also many persons in the middle class who see Dems. as the party of welfare and school busing and affirmative action and other policies that most people oppose.

 

[Pure]

note to box

Sometimes it is a matter of opinion what is "against the interests" of the specific voter. For instance, from what I have hear of it, Obamacare involves a big decrease in funding for Medicare. This means either spending more for premiums or getting limited care, and people on Medicare are certainly going to oppose either.

no, i think 'against the interests' is an objective judgment. it means that a measure will [relative to the alternatives] harm the bank accounts, health, 'standards of living' and happiness of those involved.

for instance, it's Republican, and ultimately a bipartisan thing to contain the costs of medicare. those who vote Repug will certainly see it. so you won't avoid it by voting Repug.

the links to the the Congressional health plans are mainly a piece of propaganda. it doesn't take a genius to know that if publically available insurance were on the menu [aside from any effect on medicaire] it would be opposed by pseudo-cons like ami and neo cons, as well as other assorted right wingers. that's because it affect corporate profits in the healthcare sector.

it might also be mentioned that an integration of health schemes will result in saving overrall, if carried out with reasonable efficiency; hence a decrease in the costs of medicare are to be expected. but it's a canard to say that the newly covered people will be at the expense of the old.

btw, i note that because of the *corporate* nature of the Senate plan, it may NOT produce great savings; i.e. it's not a 'left' but a centrist package. IOW the impact on non wealthy peoples 'interests' may be relatively minor. if you look at the stock prices--said to be jumping UP-- of the major healthcare corps, you can see who the principal beneficiaries will be.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Sometimes it is a matter of opinion what is "against the interests" of the specific voter. For instance, from what I have hear of it, Obamacare involves a big decrease in funding for Medicare. This means either spending more for premiums or getting limited care, and people on Medicare are certainly going to oppose either.

no, i think 'against the interests' is an objective judgment. it means that a measure will [relative to the alternatives] harm the bank accounts, health, 'standards of living' and happiness of those involved.

for instance, it's Republican, and ultimately a bipartisan thing to contain the costs of medicare. those who vote Repug will certainly see it. so you won't avoid it by voting Repug.

Of course it's an objective judgement, and the persons making those judgements are the individual voters, who see Dems as the party of Affirmative Action and School Busing and Welfare Handouts and Gay Marriage, and Big Government/high taxes and other things that most people don't like. I base this on the various referendums and initiatives that have been held in CA over the years, when voters express their opinions. Even so, Californians tend to vote largely for Dems.

the links to the the Congressional health plans are mainly a piece of propaganda. it doesn't take a genius to know that if publically available insurance were on the menu [aside from any effect on medicaire] it would be opposed by pseudo-cons like ami and neo cons, as well as other assorted right wingers. that's because it affect corporate profits in the healthcare sector.

it might also be mentioned that an integration of health schemes will result in saving overrall, if carried out with reasonable efficiency; hence a decrease in the costs of medicare are to be expected. but it's a canard to say that the newly covered people will be at the expense of the old.

btw, i note that because of the *corporate* nature of the Senate plan, it may NOT produce great savings; i.e. it's not a 'left' but a centrist package. IOW the impact on non wealthy peoples 'interests' may be relatively minor. if you look at the stock prices--said to be jumping UP-- of the major healthcare corps, you can see who the principal beneficiaries will be.

Health Care is a major issue, but only one. Most people also believe "one party rule" which we would have if the Dems. had a super majority in the Senate, is against their interests.

 

[DeeZire]

...Health Care is a major issue, but only one. Most people also believe "one party rule" which we would have if the Dems. had a super majority in the Senate, is against their interests.

I think if you were to reread the second linked article, you would see that people don't think - they react to political rhetoric in a non-logical manner.

What would be in our best interests as a country, and as individuals, is universal healthcare - something we would only get with one-party rule, since the corporate interests that fund conservatives would never allow them to vote for such a system. But apparently, "most people" think it's in their best interests to pay twice as much for a healthcare system that drops them when they're sick, bans them from participation when they have pre-existing conditions, and is destined to bankrupt this country. If this isn't an example of "most people" embracing a system that is in their worst interests, perhaps we're discussing two different Americas - the one in your mind and the one the rest of us live in.

In your particular situation, I can understand your worries about Medicare. Corporate interests have done a really good job of obfuscating the issue. However, if we were to look at the situation realistically, Medicare is unsustainable in its present form. How do you propose we deal with this dilemma if not by either cutting reimbursements, or raising premiums, or raising taxes, or totally overhauling the entire healthcare system?

Until you face this fact, Box, you are part of the problem, because you are insisting that an unsustainable model must not change. Lucky for you, you'll be dead before your grandchildren realize how you totally fucked them over.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

But what the article says, very clearly, is that when governmental decisions are made in the dark people don't trust it. If both House and Senate had been the least bit transparent about what they were doing instead of playing everything close to the vest, there wouldn't have been anywhere near as much outcry.i Yes, the people made a wrong decision but it was caused by a series of wrong decisions in Washington.

 

[JamesSD]

Articles like these will look really stupid at the end of the year when the economic recovery is well underway.

The Bush recession is ending, the Obama boom is in its early stages.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Articles like these will look really stupid at the end of the year when the economic recovery is well underway.

The Bush recession is ending, the Obama boom is in its early stages.

I'm certainly hoping so . . .

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
...Health Care is a major issue, but only one. Most people also believe "one party rule" which we would have if the Dems. had a super majority in the Senate, is against their interests.

I think if you were to reread the second linked article, you would see that people don't think - they react to political rhetoric in a non-logical manner.

What would be in our best interests as a country, and as individuals, is universal healthcare - something we would only get with one-party rule, since the corporate interests that fund conservatives would never allow them to vote for such a system. But apparently, "most people" think it's in their best interests to pay twice as much for a healthcare system that drops them when they're sick, bans them from participation when they have pre-existing conditions, and is destined to bankrupt this country. If this isn't an example of "most people" embracing a system that is in their worst interests, perhaps we're discussing two different Americas - the one in your mind and the one the rest of us live in.

In your particular situation, I can understand your worries about Medicare. Corporate interests have done a really good job of obfuscating the issue. However, if we were to look at the situation realistically, Medicare is unsustainable in its present form. How do you propose we deal with this dilemma if not by either cutting reimbursements, or raising premiums, or raising taxes, or totally overhauling the entire healthcare system?

Until you face this fact, Box, you are part of the problem, because you are insisting that an unsustainable model must not change. Lucky for you, you'll be dead before your grandchildren realize how you totally fucked them over.

I know that some people vote in response to rhetoric, which is one reason why Obama, the excellent speaker, was elected in 2008. However, there are also many people who vote in what they consider their best interests. These best interests might be financial or educational or social or any other phase of the individual voters' lives.

For example, they look at the record of the Dems on school busing or affirmative action or gay marriage or other issue, and decide they don't like it. They may decide that single party control of the government could lead to a dictatorship, and that is against everybody's interests. Without the super majority in the Senate, the Dems no longer have total control, and that is a good thing. They don't yet have control of SCOTUS but, with one nomination by Obama and a rubber stamp by the Senate, they will have.

As for Obamacare, most people are satisfied enough with their health insurance they don't want to have to change it. The bill currently under consideration is so complicated that nobody really knows what is involved, and manhy people don't want to risk it.

Corporate interests fund both parties, because they want as much control as they can get, and they don't care what party is in power. However, the Dems are also beholden to other groups, such as the Trial Lawyers Association, which is why tort reform will never be passed, and big unions.

ETA: As for Medicare, that has been in place for over forty years. My wife and I pay $190 per month and, with copays and deductibles, do not get that much in value in terms of health services. We have been doing so for five years and have paid in between eleben and twelve thousand dollars, without getting anywhere near that much in benefits. We are benefactors of Medical, not benificiaries. At the same time, I realize one or both of us may sometime have a major operation or hospitalization, and get our money's worth, although I hope not.

 

[amicus]

DeeZire posted:

"...What would be in our best interests as a country, and as individuals, is universal healthcare - something we would only get with one-party rule, since the corporate interests that fund conservatives would never allow them to vote for such a system..."

~~~

One should perhaps provide anecdotal evidence of how wonderful Universal Health Care is, say, in such enlightened Nations as North Korea, just to get your attention.

The concept of Universal or Socialized Medicine was fully in place in the late Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc Nations they controlled, perhaps some evidence of the success of Soviet style medical care would be in order?

Maybe even the current conditions in Communist China? I am sure you can find zillions of favorable reports there?

Oggbashan continually states that England once had a Socialized Medicine system in the 50's, but it failed, miserably and now the private market offers alternatives.(to the wealthy)

Liar, from some undisclosed Scandinavian Country, blurts out the same tripe, that they tried Socialized Medicine after World War Two, but modified it to the degree that now the people just love it.

Not one advocate of Universal, Government run healthcare has ever defended the reality of the situation, that the entire Medical Profession would be drafted, conscripted, into Government service and become just like Soldiers and Sailors, obeying orders they may or may not like.

The second portion of the quoted paragraph by DeeZire, is a thinly veiled dismissal of Democracy as a working form of government. Only 'one party rule', that of a dictatorship, would permit a system of Universal Healthcare to come into being.

While DeeZire and others of the collectivist ilk, gush admiration for the Proletariat, the common man, and swear that altrusim, serving others over self, is the ideal of the future, the content of DeeZire's post illuminate a hatred and distrust of the ignorant masses who are so swayed by advertising and money that they will never choose to do the 'right' thing.

Those of a collectivist persuasion just don't get the the rights of the individual to choose to pursue their own best self interest. They wish to remove those 'selfish' instincts of the individual and replace them with the educated opinion of the self declared 'elites' of any society.

As Canadians pour across the border into the US for medical treatment and Universal Healthcare has failed in every instance, perhaps DeeZire would care to defend that opening statement above?

Perhaps also you might declare openly your avowed support of tyranny over individual freedom?

Amicus...

 

[Pure]

ami's dreams

ami //Not one advocate of Universal, Government run healthcare has ever defended the reality of the situation,//

on the contrary, the major parties is every country with universal healthcare agree on it: were it as ami says, the 'conservatives' in a given country would run and say "we'll privatize healthcare; no more publically run services except for the entirely indigent."

but that has not happened. conservatives, be it Canada, Finland, Germany do NOT call for any such thing.

so vast majorities favor the various versions of 'public health care.' [[ADDED: they live in parliamentary democracies {france, germany, holland, italy, norway, canada, etc } and do not consider themselves oppressed by tyranny, any more than US citizens of old age, including amicus, feel oppressed by 'social security' and old age pensions. or medicare, for that matter.]]

rants about north korea just keep the boobs in line: ami's allegiance is to corporate profits, not actual individuals.
===

amiPerhaps also you might declare openly your avowed support of tyranny over individual freedom

ami has already done so: he's supported the rights of the Commmander to imprison any 'suspect' at will, be he citizen or not; make no charges, have no trial [at least not in the criminal justice system--just before a 'commission' of gov't appointees, china style] and hold him 'for the duration*.' he supported the authorities' rights to torture. he has NEVER, in 2000-2008 protested the extreme [assumption of] powers of the executive branch over all others. [so any talk now is pure politicking]

---

*the 'war on terror,' so called, of course, has no fixed 'duration', hence indefinite [for life] holding.

 

[amicus]

Location, Location, Location, goes the Real Estate Jingle: Obfuscastion, Obfuscation, Obfuscation, is the usual Pure Ploy, to divert attention from a clear, concise and valid query concerning Socialized Medicine and Tyranny.

Why not just attempt to answer the questions I posed, Pure?



ami

 

[Pure]

note to box

As for Medicare, that has been in place for over forty years. My wife and I pay $190 per month and, with copays and deductibles, do not get that much in value in terms of health services. We have been doing so for five years and have paid in between eleben and twelve thousand dollars, without getting anywhere near that much in benefits. We are benefactors of Medical, not benificiaries. At the same time, I realize one or both of us may sometime have a major operation or hospitalization, and get our money's worth,

that's what insurance is all about, box. it's a loss UNTIL the 'big event'. and millions of americans under age 60, middle class ones, are one big event away from bankruptcy, in a way that you, fortunately are not. [the proportion so lacking coverage is at least one in six. see, for example http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_93076.html ]

 

[DeeZire]

ETA: As for Medicare, that has been in place for over forty years. My wife and I pay $190 per month and, with copays and deductibles, do not get that much in value in terms of health services. We have been doing so for five years and have paid in between eleben and twelve thousand dollars, without getting anywhere near that much in benefits. We are benefactors of Medical, not benificiaries. At the same time, I realize one or both of us may sometime have a major operation or hospitalization, and get our money's worth, although I hope not.

The last figure I saw was in the neighborhood of 70% of Medicare dollars are spent during the last 6 months of life. Reforming the way we deal with end-of-life care would be a good way to address that issue. Unfortunately, reforming end-of-life care has been compared to "death panels" by the Fox News fearmongers, so I'm afraid we're all going to be stuck in our little dysfunctional corner of the world until China repossesses our country and imposes universal healthcare for all - which would really piss off the fearmongers at Fox News. How ironic that their intransigence will end up being the cause of the collapse of our once-great nation.

On your claim that "most people" are happy with their healthcare, I suspect "most people" are also happy paying less taxes than the cost of government, and "most people" don't mind that their selfishness is going to be a huge financial burden on future generations when the bills we are running up today eventually come due, and I'm sure "most people" were happy with slavery, the unavailability of legal abortions, and the persecution of gays, not to mention witch burning. The fact that "most people" approve of something doesn't make it right, it only makes it obvious that "most people" are selfish assholes.