Liberal Suicide March

[Chuckiechan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/op...=2&ref=opinion

Nancy Pelosi has lower approval ratings than Dick Cheney and far lower approval ratings than Sarah Palin. And yet Democrats have allowed her policy values to carry the day — this in an era in which independents dominate the electoral landscape.
Who’s going to stop this leftward surge? Months ago, it seemed as if Obama would lead a center-left coalition. Instead, he has deferred to the Old Bulls on Capitol Hill on issue after issue.

[MTAtech]

I read that too in the Times this morning.

Sometimes David Brooks makes sense. This is not one of those times.

I seem to remember Saint Reagan having a wider gap between his personal approval rating and his policy approval rating. Back in the 1980s, Americans liked Reagan but hated his policies.

Moreover, approval of Obama’s handling of health care slid from 57 percent to 49 percent not because Americans suddenly decided that they no longer want healthcare reform, but because Obama promised reform and is allowing himself to be derailed by Republicans and blue-dog Democrats. In other words, Obama's approval on healthcare has slipped because Americans expected him to pass something soon, which he has not done.

I read the Washington Post-ABC News poll too. While Congressional Democrats have an approval rating of 47%, that's about 30% higher than they were two-years ago and higher than the current Republican's approval rating of 36%.

[tony_j15]

Sometimes David Brooks says things that don't agree with my ideological nature so I move the goal posts and talk about Reagan instead.

Fixed.

[Pexster]

Most Americans love Barack Obama personally, but support for Democratic policies is already sliding fast.

Well, he's wrong right there because there are no "Democratic policies." And therein lies the problem. Our President makes sense, and the Democratic Congress could f___ up a wet dream.

[Toadman]

First, there was the stimulus package. You would have thought that a stimulus package would be designed to fight unemployment and stimulate the economy during a recession. But Congressional Democrats used it as a pretext to pay for $787 billion worth of pet programs with borrowed money. Only 11 percent of the money will be spent by the end of the fiscal year — a triumph of ideology over pragmatism.

Then there is the budget. Instead of allaying moderate anxieties about the deficits, the budget is expected to increase the government debt by $11 trillion between 2009 and 2019.

Finally, there is health care. Every cliché Ann Coulter throws at the Democrats is gloriously fulfilled by the Democratic health care bills. The bills do almost nothing to control health care inflation. They are modeled on the Massachusetts health reform law that is currently coming apart at the seams precisely because it doesn’t control costs. They do little to reward efficient providers and reform inefficient ones.

[Chuckiechan]

Moreover, approval of Obama’s handling of health care slid from 57 percent to 49 percent not because Americans suddenly decided that they no longer want healthcare reform, but because Obama promised reform and is allowing himself to be derailed by Republicans and blue-dog Democrats. In other words, Obama's approval on healthcare has slipped because Americans expected him to pass something soon, which he has not done.

I don't agree. The independant voters are getting scared at the amounts of money that is being talked about. The word "trillion" is rolling off politician's lips way to easily. Joe and Jane Six Pack understand budgets, since they live by one at home. The spending and the potential deficits are just too much to ignore. You cannot ignore economic maliaise, disfunctional stimulus, GM split up between the government and the unions, and now - the nations medical services. You are asking way too much, and moving way too fast.

Add to this the penchant to send in bills, unread, that are now shown to be not working, or not working as promised, and you have a breach of confidence. You are defenseless to critizism when you voted for a bill you haven't read.

For this reason, Obama's days of ramming through bills unread for ungodly sums of money - not to mention Obamacare - has reached a critical mass of public consciousness.

That is the problem. America is waking up, is tired of the war footing of Obama's administration. The money is just too much for America to swallow, and a jambdown is just not going to happen.

We're looking at an official 10% unemployment end of July, with few signs of this abating. Our economy has shrunk so far, most of these people will not be working for the next five years, minimum. And now you want to do what? For how much?

Please...

[tony_j15]

Our economy has shrunk so far, most of these people will not be working for the next five years, minimum.

Your proof for this ludicrous statement?

[MTAtech]

Our economy has shrunk so far, most of these people will not be working for the next five years, minimum.

If so, that only reinforces the need for a government health care option. If someone is going to be out of work for five years, at last thing they should have to worry about is medical coverage and the last thing we should want is these unemployed showing up to ERs for primary care.

But you are right about the independent voters. They are the most susceptible to right-wing scare tactics. When the Republicans passed Medicare Part D in 2004, they didn't shy away from the cost. Now, of course, bring the U.S.'s health care up to par with the rest of the developed world is an unacceptable cost.

[zen]

Your proof for this ludicrous statement?

Why do you think it's ludicrous?
Today's economy has been adjusted to what now should be considered "normal." What was thought to be normal the past 5 years was over inflated and a ticking time bomb. It could easily be a 5 year plus recovery. or much worse.

[Chuckiechan]

Your proof for this ludicrous statement?

Various economic reports have given me a reason to make that statement.

Just what do you think it takes to employ these people? The economy has to expand to accomodate them. Unemployment is a lagging indicator, meaning that hiring trails expansion. Unemployed consumers can't consume at the levels our economy was designed to operate on.

"Shovel ready jobs"? There aren't too many and the front ends of projects are not that helpful for employment. Why? Red tape.

If states and cities knew a couple of years ago that this money was coming they could have started early on the environmental reviews, the "who pisses who off" litigation, etc., they would have. Don't think that these cities had off the shelf projects ready to go for lack of money. It doesn't work that way. Now that process is just beginning to start. More like "lawyer-ready" projects.

Tony j15, wWhat do you see that makes you think we will have a sudden uptick in jobs? I see nothing. I see 12% unemployment by July of 2010, (excluding those no longer being counted). What do you see and why?

[MTAtech]

The stimulus wasn't expected to have any effect until mid-2010 anyway. But thinking that the state project wouldn't get started until five-years in is difficult to believe. US News also says,

Of the $246 billion in the stimulus bill in the pipeline to states, about $135 billion is relatively flexible and can be used to support Medicaid, our public schools, and higher education—together comprising nearly 70 percent of an average state budget. This $135 billion is critical for states as it is allowing them to postpone and limit planned budget cuts and tax increases.

We understand your desire for Obama to fail, regardless of how much that will hurt the country, but take off your black colored glasses.

[MTAtech]

Republican opposition isn't about saving money:

Politics Driving Opposition to Health Care Reform -- Taegan Goddard's Political Wire

In an interview on CNBC, Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) admits that at least half the opposition to health care reform is about scoring political points against President Obama rather than substantive policy disagreements.

Said Voinovich: "I think it's probably 50/50."

[tony_j15]

Tony j15, wWhat do you see that makes you think we will have a sudden uptick in jobs? I see nothing. I see 12% unemployment by July of 2010, (excluding those no longer being counted). What do you see and why?

I see an armchair quarterback who's been over the top and/or wrong on everything from Russia to China to Obama and back again.

[Chuckiechan]

You opinion is like you light sabre - all light and no substance.

You are simply unstudied in the affairs of the world, and don't care to take the time to research.

Fine with me...

[tony_j15]

said the man who vaguely references "various economic reports"

[Atomic Rooster]

Tony j15, wWhat do you see that makes you think we will have a sudden uptick in jobs? I see nothing. I see 12% unemployment by July of 2010, (excluding those no longer being counted). What do you see and why?

Hell, it's already 11.6% here in the People's Republic of California with no end in sight.

Unemployment rate remains at 11.6 percent for June

[Chuckiechan]

Whatever tony...

If so, that only reinforces the need for a government health care option. If someone is going to be out of work for five years, at last thing they should have to worry about is medical coverage and the last thing we should want is these unemployed showing up to ERs for primary care.

An idea I like is to have a laid off worker's COBRA paid for by the government on a sliding scale while they are collecting unemployment. When unemployment runs out, the premiums continue to be paid by EDD (Employment Development Department) until COBRA runs out. When COBRA runs out, they become covered under MediCal - the insurance plan for low income Californians. Think of it as welfare medical. It's probably as good as anything anyone else gets.

All of the mechanisms are in place

The reason so many people go to the ER in California is because they are too lazy to apply for Medical, are illegal aliens and are ineligible, or they elected to go without insurance and gambled and lost. Face it, if you have no assets to proect why buy insurance? Lots of young people don't feel they need insurance since nothing will happen to them...