'The End of Hope and Change'

[darksyndrem]

President Barack Obama’s final speech before this weekend’s anticipated vote on health care legislation had the same soaring rhetoric he’s been known for, those turns of phrase that sound awfully pretty unless you think about them too hard.

Obama’s speeches are what a speechwriter I knew liked to call “cotton candy communication”-sticky sweet and airy, made for children, comforting to the listener as they hear, but melting away, instantly forgettable. Plus, ingest too much of it and you get sick as a dog.

There was one note in this speech, though, that stuck out by typifying Obama’s views, encapsulating his approach to health care policy, and indicating a disturbing level of desperation in his young presidency.

“In just a few days,” Obama said, referring to the Sunday roll call, “a century-long struggle will culminate in an historic vote.”
Obama likes to cast things in terms of century-long battles. He did so in his State of the Union address, referring to a law considered half that age at most, which prompted a headshake from Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. But what is prompting him to make this assertion regarding his health care legislation, which dramatically affects an arena of government policy that has not even existed for a hundred years?

There is no conceivable date he could be measuring from, unless he has a strong sense of irony not previously in evidence. Trust-busting Teddy Roosevelt would undoubtedly excoriate the idea of special interests setting the parameters of national reform, with support campaigns from unions and activist shell groups, PhRMA in the room during every significant negotiation, more than a hundred-million dollars in propagandistic ads for legislation which will protect the industry status quo, and the like.

The fact that Obama continues to spend such energy in support of legislation that all reputable independent data suggest will raise premium costs, increase the entitlement burden, destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs, and enforce a dramatic disincentive for success indicates that this is all about politics, not which policies actually work best for the American people.

Over the past week, in backroom conversations with members of Congress, Obama changed his negotiation tone from demanding to desperate. He told progressives that the outcome of the rest of his term depended on what happened on health care, and a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus confided to Politico that Obama changed his position on this weekend’s vote by saying “the fate of his presidency” rested on it.

It’s not hard to see why the president would feel this way. The tidal wave of popularity he rode into office has crashed and withdrawn. This week Gallup found, for the first time, that more Americans disapprove of President Obama than approve - a shift made all the more jarring when you consider how little he has achieved in his short tenure in return for so much spent political capital.

Such crumbling popularity would give any politician pause, especially one who has spent most of his political career appearing before cheering crowds who proclaim trust, optimism, and hope for him. Obama’s dedication to passing this spectacularly flawed and unpopular health care bill appears to be based on the assumption that the American people like a winner even if the victory comes at their expense.

Other presidents have made this mistake. Voters may not have memories as long as they once did, but they will remember who this brave new health care world belongs to, and the blame for it will be a palpable political factor in the decades to come.

As the dangerous outcomes of this plan become apparent, Obama may well come to regret this moment when he chose political expediency over what’s right for the nation. When historians judge this presidency they may well point to this moment as signaling the end of Obama’s cotton candy storyline of “the people vs. the powerful,” the rhetoric that once drove to his side multitudes of people fed up with the ways of Washington, the lies, kickbacks, shady backroom deals, and lack of transparency.

Once, they trusted and hoped in his ability to achieve change. Now the American people know whose side he’s on.[/i]

Here is the source.

[manganimefan227]

Hm, Going to jail if I choose not too put money in health care that I, a healthy American, wouldn't use much . . .If I end up needing to in the future, I hope it doesn't cost much . . .In any case . . .it will be very interesting to see what the world would be like if this bill passed. I read atleast 200 comments of people stating their opinions, most making it seem like the world will end if this bill is passed . . .I rather pay higher taxes than die or watch others die because of the outcomes . . .

I apologize if this sounds ignorant.

[Sangetsu]

No one needed to print such an article as most people are aware of the facts. Troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and military spending on both wars is now higher than it was when Bush was in office. Guantanamo is still open, and there is no knowing when it will finally close. The "stimulus" programs have put our country into incredible debt, while doing little to aid the economy, and rescinded the welfare reform acts begun in the Clinton presidency which were actually very effective.

The "health care reform" program will cost add even more trillions to the debt, while leaving the administration of the program in government hands (and we all know how wonderful the government is at running things), so costs will probably be 2 to 3 times higher than predicted right now.

Obama is well on his way to beating Jimmy Carter as worst American President of all time, but even Carter had higher poll numbers than Obama at this time in his presidency. No president in the history of America has had such low popularity only 1 year into their first term.

We can't forget that before becoming a senator, Obama was a university law professor. For those of you who have spent a lot of time in university, or in the profession of education, law professors usually teach because they are not/cannot be effective lawyers in the real world. There is an old saying "those that can, do, those that can't, teach". A person who has no professional real-world experience cannot be an effective president.

A president is more than just a figurehead. Speeches are just words, regardless of how they sound or how they make you feel. Remember, actions always speak louder than words, and there has been no action whatsoever from President Obama.

A president is supposed to be a leader, the person who sets the agenda of the country, and guides the country along that path. No doubt it's a difficult job, which is the reason why we must be careful in who we pick for the job. The only recent example we have of a strong president is Ronald Reagan. Whether you agreed with his policies or not, he had the personal strength and character to do what he felt had to be done, and he did a remarkable job of getting his agenda across, and accomplishing the things he set out to do.

Of course, the fault does not lie entirely with President Obama. The current system which made the people feel that change was required is the one which needs to addressed. According to the same poll which shows President Obama's disapproval rating exceeding his approval rating also says that 68% of Americans do not plan to vote for any incumbent.

Congress does not want a strong president, they don't want one who will be able to control their choices. They are more than happy with President Obama, but according to polls, people dislike the current congress more than they dislike the president.

If anyone really wants change, they'll have to go to the polls again in November of this year, and not vote for anyone who is in office right now. Our senators and congressmen have been doing nothing to serve the people; they have been serving only themselves at the people's expense. The only way to get change is to show them that the people cannot be fooled all the time (though sadly enough, many can).

A small amount of change has been happening, several senators and congressmen have seen what is coming, and have decided to retire or not to run again in the next election. Hopefully their suspicions are true, and that the people are finally waking up and beginning to care about what is happening in Washington.

[MMM]

Wow, it feels like 2009 all over again.

Dark I am curious what inspired you to post this. It comes from The New Ledger, a group of right wing writers.

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

According to the same poll which shows President Obama's disapproval rating exceeding his approval rating also says that 68% of Americans do not plan to vote for any incumbent.

If 68% of people said they were not going to vote for incumbents, then no incumbents would be re-elected. We all know that isn't the case.

Here is the question as it was asked by FOX/AP:

If American voters only had the following two choices on the Congressional ballot -- keep all current lawmakers in office, or get rid of all incumbents in Congress -- what would they do?

A new Fox News poll asked that question, and the answer could be bad news for incumbents this fall.

Sixty-eight percent of voters would oust all incumbents, while 20 percent would keep all lawmakers in office.

FOXNews.com - Fox News Poll: 68% Say Vote Out All Incumbents

That is VERY different than saying they plan on not voting for incumbents in coming elections.

When asked if people would think incumbents should be voted out, the majority will say "yes". Ask them if they think THEIR state's representatives shouldn't be re-elected and then the numbers change dramatically. People think OTHER states' bums should be tossed out, but not usually their own.

This is also true of health care reform (or more accurately, health insurance reform).

When asked if people support "ObamaCare" or whatever you want to call it, the majority say "no". But when asked about individual aspects of the bill, the majority do support it. (i.e. Do you support insurance companies not being allowed to deny benefits because of pre-existing conditions?)

FT.com / UK - Final push as data show bill will cut deficit

The chances of President Barack Obama's healthcare legislation being passed this weekend brightened yesterday, when the independent Congressional Budget Office reported that the final bill would cut the US deficit by more than $1,300bn over the next 20 years.

[Sangetsu]

Originally Posted by MMM

Wow, it feels like 2009 all over again.

Dark I am curious what inspired you to post this. It comes from The New Ledger, a group of right wing writers.



If 68% of people said they were not going to vote for incumbents, then no incumbents would be re-elected. We all know that isn't the case.

Here is the question as it was asked by FOX/AP:

If American voters only had the following two choices on the Congressional ballot -- keep all current lawmakers in office, or get rid of all incumbents in Congress -- what would they do?

A new Fox News poll asked that question, and the answer could be bad news for incumbents this fall.

Sixty-eight percent of voters would oust all incumbents, while 20 percent would keep all lawmakers in office.

FOXNews.com - Fox News Poll: 68% Say Vote Out All Incumbents

That is VERY different than saying they plan on not voting for incumbents in coming elections.

When asked if people would think incumbents should be voted out, the majority will say "yes". Ask them if they think THEIR state's representatives shouldn't be re-elected and then the numbers change dramatically. People think OTHER states' bums should be tossed out, but not usually their own.

This is also true of health care reform (or more accurately, health insurance reform).

When asked if people support "ObamaCare" or whatever you want to call it, the majority say "no". But when asked about individual aspects of the bill, the majority do support it. (i.e. Do you support insurance companies not being allowed to deny benefits because of pre-existing conditions?)

FT.com / UK - Final push as data show bill will cut deficit

The chances of President Barack Obama's healthcare legislation being passed this weekend brightened yesterday, when the independent Congressional Budget Office reported that the final bill would cut the US deficit by more than $1,300bn over the next 20 years.

Nonsense.

Once again we are shown more "voodoo" accounting by the the Congressional Budget Office which has an incredibly bad record of accuracy. The deficit will not be "reduced", the amount of increase will be reduced, which still accounts for a net increase in the deficit. And, in order for this "reduction" to occur, the economy must be on track, unemployment at a low level, and costs to not exceed what the Budget Office expects.

The cost of the program will be shouldered by individuals and companies which are already heavily taxed. Why do do you think so many US jobs have been outsourced overseas? Caterpillar yesterday stated that the current health care bill would cost them $100,000,000 in the first year, and that is in addition to what they already pay for health care coverage.

But, they can simply move their manufacturing to China or India, pay 75 cents an hour to their overseas workers and tell the US government to "shove it", as many other companies have been doing in recent years.

It is not the governments job to make our lives better. It is the government's job to make an environment where we can make our own lives better.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

Once again we are shown more "voodoo" accounting by the the Congressional Budget Office which has an incredibly bad record of accuracy. The deficit will not be "reduced", the amount of increase will be reduced, which still accounts for a net increase in the deficit. And, in order for this "reduction" to occur, the economy must be on track, unemployment at a low level, and costs to not exceed what the Budget Office expects.

The cost of the program will be shouldered by individuals and companies which are already heavily taxed. Why do do you think so many US jobs have been outsourced overseas? Caterpillar yesterday stated that the current health care bill would cost them $100,000,000 in the first year, and that is in addition to what they already pay for health care coverage.

But, they can simply move their manufacturing to China or India, pay 75 cents an hour to their overseas workers and tell the US government to "shove it", as many other companies have been doing in recent years.

It is not the governments job to make our lives better. It is the government's job to make an environment where we can make our own lives better.

$100,000,000 sounds like a lot of money (and it is) but it is an increase of how much for Caterpillar? 1000%, 500%? No, more like 20%. They are already paying $500,000,000 in health care as it is.

After being rejected for several medical procedures in the last year, guess how much my insurance company increased my monthly rate? Yup, just about 20%.

If we were dumping a system that worked for one that didn't, I would be totally against it. But we have a broken system now. 45,000 Americas die every year because they do not have insurance, or their insurance doesn't cover their problems. 2/3 of personal bankruptcies in America are because of health care bills.

How many people in Japan went bankrupt last year because they couldn't pay for their health coverage?

How about in Canada, Germany, France or England?

Now this health care bill will not solve that problem because the fear-mongers have gotten people to believe they would rather have profit-seeking corporations decide if they get health care rather than the government.

But ask those who are on government health care (V.A. MediCare, etc.) if they would rather have a corporation take care of them rather than the government. "Don't you dare touch my VA benefits!" "Don't you dare touch my MediCare!"

So you can call "nonsense" if you want, and you aren't the only one that is rejecting an independent organization's claims about the financial impact of the health insurance reform bill, but you also took the FOX/AP poll above and misinterpreted that, either accidentally or on purpose. The conservative action lately has been "If it doesn't support your view, reject it." This is par for the course.

It is also to be the "party of no" and then call Obama a do-nothing president. There is a reason Obama's approval rating is at 53%, but Congress is at less than half that (22%).

[SSJup81]

Originally Posted by MMM

If we were dumping a system that worked for one that didn't, I would be totally against it. But we have a broken system now. 45,000 Americas die every year because they do not have insurance, or their insurance doesn't cover their problems. 2/3 of personal bankruptcies in America are because of health care bills.

*Raises hand* I'm one of them. I had to file bankruptcy recently, and have a court date coming up, but, unfortunately, seems I'm going to have to miss it (because of the job offer I got in Japan). So, which means my medical bills are going to end up even more delinquent than they already are.

Unless I can find an English-speaking Notary and do a phone hearing over in Japan, I'm screwed.

[clintjm]

Oh this thread could surely go on for pages.... And the usual quality posts from Sangetsu still give me some hope for the future. The OP post from CBS is quality stuff too.

The jury is out tomorrow. At least it will be over and maybe the liberal democrat dream of a socialistic utopia will be disproven passed or not passed. We will all be able to take the train to work in our soviet like society.

I love the closing arguement from the Prez:

"Don't do it for me. Don't do it for Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid," he said. "Do it for all those people out there who are struggling."

Can the guy even fit his head through the door anymore. Just say it... "Win one for the kipper".

Well, as we all watch Rome burn, lets take a momement to enjoy the simple things in life:
The face that MMM posted from Fox News.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by MMM

Wow, it feels like 2009 all over again.



The chances of President Barack Obama's healthcare legislation being passed this weekend brightened yesterday, when the independent Congressional Budget Office reported that the final bill would cut the US deficit by more than $1,300bn over the next 20 years.

That was just the preliminary CBO Score before the other ammendments and revisions of the bill are taken into account. The final CBO on the actual bill won't be available until well after the vote. The CBO is not required to give a final score on the bill before the vote.


Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com

[MMM]

Originally Posted by clintjm

Well, as we all watch Rome burn, lets take a momement to enjoy the simple things in life:
The face that MMM posted from Fox News.

The "face" I think you are talking about is "fact" and if you really want to get excited about the fact that I posted statistics from FOX...

then please look at why all the way through.

I am not trying to overemphasize this issue, but this is typical stylings of those that want to manipulate statistics and polls to work in favor of their argument.

Let's look at facts.

Sangetsu said this:
According to the same poll which shows President Obama's disapproval rating exceeding his approval rating also says that 68% of Americans do not plan to vote for any incumbent.

Let's look at the actual FOX/AP poll:

If American voters only had the following two choices on the Congressional ballot -- keep all current lawmakers in office, or get rid of all incumbents in Congress -- what would they do?

A new Fox News poll asked that question, and the answer could be bad news for incumbents this fall.

Sixty-eight percent of voters would oust all incumbents, while 20 percent would keep all lawmakers in office.

CLEARLY different statistics that are easily manipulated by those that want to.

A and B are not the same.

If this is the modus operandi, then I call BS. This kind of public manipulation is not acceptable and not something that I will step aside and bow down to.