“Honey, We Shrunk the President”
Aug 15th, 2009 | 17 responses
After months of a bigger-than-life presidency, Barack Obama is being cut down to size–by the enormity of an economic crisis, by orchestrated fear of Change as a reality rather than an idea and by exhaustion of the hope and idealism he stirred up during two years of campaigning. But behind the falling poll numbers and raucous town halls, something else may be going on.
“Health Debate Fails to Ignite Obama’s Web,” says a New York Times headline for a report from Iowa: “As the health care debate intensifies, the president is turning to his grass-roots network–the 13 million members of Organizing for America–for support.
“Mr. Obama engendered such passion last year that his allies believed they were on the verge of creating a movement that could be mobilized again. But if a week’s worth of events are any measure here in Iowa, it may not be so easy to reignite the machine that overwhelmed Republicans a year ago.”
Sensing a potential Obama Waterloo, the previously overwhelmed are suddenly energized. “The Obama White House has done the near impossible,” Peggy Noonan claims. “It has united the Republican Party. Social conservatives, economic conservatives, libertarians—they’re all against the health-care schemes as presented so far. They’re shoulder-to-shoulder at the barricade again.”
Maybe so, but there are also signs that Obama is morphing, not into Jimmy Carter as Noonan suggests, but more of an embattled Harry Truman who found his presidential voice by taking on a “good-for-nothing” Congress in 1948.
In his less combative way, Obama is now directly confronting the proprietors of America’s failed ” health care system that works better for the insurance industry than it does for the American people.”
In today’s weekly address, he says: “If you’re worried about rationed care, higher costs, denied coverage, or bureaucrats getting between you and your doctor, then you should know that’s what’s happening right now. In the past three years, over 12 million Americans were discriminated against by insurance companies due to a preexisting condition, or saw their coverage denied or dropped just when they got sick and needed it most…”
Read the rest of this entry.
The cartoon by Daryl Cagle, MSNBC.com, is copyrighted and licensed to appear on TMV. All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.
17 Responses to ““Honey, We Shrunk the President””
8 months into his four-year term and he's already pronounced a “failure”. Gee, I wonder who cooked up those premature results?
*puts on thinking cap*
Ha Ha ha, your negative article fails. Next time just write, “I'm a republican”, at the begining of your article and everybody will know where you stand from the git. It's the right thing to do.
Obama's actually correct, in a general sense, when he says that “rationed care, higher costs, denied coverage, or bureaucrats” are already here. Currently, though, the bureaucrats are in the insurance industry, rather than in the government.
I fail to see how the latter is necessarily going to improve that situation.
Hear, hear, PM. And since a large problem with our current health insurance company bureaucrats is that we generally can't dump them for a better set of bureaucrats if they're not performing in our best interests, the solutions that help improve competition by making our health insurance portable and allowing us to purchase individual plans rather than employer based ones, makes a lot more sense to me.
I have to smile at the latest in the media's touting of how Obama is failing, or losing to the opposition or any other number of dire things. The media keeps saying that Obama has been beaten or some other dramatic 'oh, no!'.
then, after a few weeks of this emoting, Obama manages to put egg on the media's face ……again.
Obama does things his way. Not the conventional wisdom or the way the media thinks he should. And he does them in his own time, his own timing. Not someone else's.
How many times have we heard and seen the media proclaim the end of Obama only to see him come on stronger then before.
You should know by now that our president is very good at rope a dope.
the media and others have been dying to proclaim the end of Obama since he announced he was running for president. Every couple of months we have had this 'the end of Obama' storyline.
But, what amazes me is that since Jan 20th, the media and others have been so quick to jump on this president for everything and have been chomping at the bit to indulge fat Rushbo by telling him that yes, Obama has failed.
I wonder if they will get tired in a couple years of being made to look like fools and give up on trying to gift the fat drugged out one.
vwcat- Nope it will not end until his last day in office. The media is socially liberal but otherwise conservative and it shows pretty well. During the Clinton years I really thought they were just being goaded into it by right wing activists but then I watched them ignore left wing activists until 2005-6. We have a corporate media and they are protecting their interests and since those media companies are owned by giant mega corps invested in many industry's you can ensure little will change if they have any say in it. Republican or Dem we live in a corporate socialistic state we just get to choose between the ones that steal our money while making gov bigger and saying they will make it smaller or those that will at least allow us to have programs to help survive to current state of affairs. Neither will shrink gov, neither will stop the corps from infringing on our freedoms because they are not the gov so its not their job to protect them, neither will stop the growth of the military or prison industrial complexes. And the media keeps tellin us to smile!
OT, I know, but… Must we keep looking at naked/semi-nude pictures and drawings of the POTUS? I can contend that he's not bad to look at, but I'm getting overload when you consider this artist and others like him…
http://wildammo.com/2009/07/27/unusual-painting…
I know many worry about a government take over but why do we trust the corporations(that are government inventions) yet fear our government? I do not understand the fear, I like that they desegregated schools, in fact right up until the war on drugs changed the way law enforcement treated the citizens of this country I had no real issue with the Fed gov which makes me ask why the fear? I have never had the gov take away my job or liquidate my company yet I have seen that from corporations. I do know people fear the gov having too much power but how did having mega-corps in the telecom industry help protect us from warrent less wire tapping.
Oh yea we could sue instead of vote them out but hold it we can't sue either. The baby boom generation seems to have decided that the evil gov that drug them into Vietnam and desegregated the schools was so scary that they would trade it for the cuddly corporations I am just noting that we are worse off now then we were in 1970 and that shift in attitude seems to have had a price but no one is paying any attention because “socialisim is coming.” Its not, the best we will ever get here is a below poverty line guilt ridden safety net but I still prefer that to people starving on the street or begging to charities that get to shove religion down your throat(which is why that charity idea is so popular). I have spent my lifetime watching and waiting for communism to come all while I have watched since 1980 our media our culture and or nation turn further and further fascist, are we really that stupid? Does no one see that when you print more money inflation goes up and when you have money concentrated in to few hands that inflation will go up but many will not be able to keep up and will fall into abject poverty? No because we are all gonna win the lottery and be rich. If you do not like socialism I suggest you start fighting the money we give to prop up corps in this country because we have had a socialist corporate state since the 1940's its just that no one but their investors gets a cut. Does no one realize that China and Russia were totalitarian states not communists or they would have dissolved the state? Does no one realize the huge difference between communism and socialism? I have an idea why dont we all scream “slippery slope” at the top of our lungs and do nothing while our country goes down in flames after all it has worked so well to fix our problems over the last twenty years. Look out the commies are a commin.
MagicalSF — “I am just noting that we are worse off now then we were in 1970 and that shift in attitude seems to have had a price but no one is paying any attention because “socialisim is coming.” Its not, the best we will ever get here is a below poverty line guilt ridden safety net”
Hoping to discuss here, rather than provoke…..
MSF, I believe we already have a below poverty line safety net. Medicaid. Unfortunately, we also have a system in which millions of people who want (and need) coverage cannot get it. I agree with you totally that people starving or dying in the streets is abhorrent and can't be tolerated.
I had several thoughts, though, when I read your comment.
1) If it's true that socialism isn't coming to this country (and I agree with that generally), it isn't because nobody's proposing socialistic policy, but because Americans push back strongly against it.
2) I don't see safety nets as “the best we will ever get here” while falling short of some wider goal, as you seem to. I see them as the best possible outcome. The goal. The end state.
3) You said, “I do know people fear the gov having too much power but how did having mega-corps in the telecom industry help protect us from warrent less wire tapping.”
What trustworthy entity was it doing the wiretapping again?
Polimom- If you define socialism as the middle class supporting the investor class and the poor then yes we are offered that often and are actually being offered it now. That is not socialism of which I speak though that is actually classic trickle down economics with a small safety net that is used as often as possible to further this or that corporations profits by say busing in people to work for minimum wage three hours from their home so that those company's do not have to pay a wage that is competitive for the area.
For me socialism is more the 1940's-60's sort in the US or at its most extreme what you see in Europe now. Everyone puts in and therefore gets a service that would not be wise to put into a capitalist system as that system is corrosive by nature, which is why it can lower prices for most industry's, everything else stays in a free market.
Health care is not a wise thing for a civilization to make a profit off of. For a good example lets look at the different amount spent per person here to the different amounts in other nations and even when accounting for service we are losing out. The same can be said for education in my opinion.
Tell me my mom can stay alive only if I can scrape together 100k and I will probably start robbing banks as it is the only way I can get that kind of money fast and otherwise I am “killing” my mother. I see this as little different than dealing with loan sharks in the social effects they have. If the health care industry were run as a non-for-profit and also non-for-paying extreme salaries to their employees at the top(which is how the game usually works at a non-profit in the US with any large footprint) than I would have no issue. The prices would obviously be as low as possible and the focus would be on “first do no harm.” Right now it is focused on “first make a profit” which is great for capitalism but does not work well for the people that have to live in it. Insurance by definition is a socialistic way of spreading risk to allow profit but much like with any end game of a capitalistic war the ultimate goal is to profit and not pay and this is how the insurance industry is doing it, that and cutting benefits when you need to use them. I do not want “socialism” I want some social programs to save capitalism from itself before my choices are fascism and communism and many of the young “socialists” you think you see around are not, the younger ones are flat out communist not socialist and they scare me almost as much as the Randbots on the other side. I say almost only because we are now on the extreme side of that wave and have a much longer road to travel before becoming commies than we do to become fascists currently.
The only socialistic style programs I have seen proposed come from Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinuich and are always quickly ignored much like Ron Paul who is also wise and ignored. You want to hear my extremist view of best case scenario? 100% inheritance tax and that money used to fund all healthcare and education for all citizens, a basic social safety net much like we have no with welfare but portable so that people can move to where the jobs are to get off the program. Yup thats it, the rest would be free market capitalism with some basic safety and truth in advertising regulations. That is best case, and that is why it will never happen.
You are right it was the government that we had voted in for thirty years to be hard on criminals and ignore there rights that asked for access but if that access is granted what difference does it really make who is doing it? To me the answer is small companies, private companies and an end to corporations unless they are serving the public interest which those obviously were not. Its actually basic libertarianism with the exception of health care and education that I believe should be part of the governmental infrastructure to make it citizens more appealing for business and lowering operating costs. I would even be a large fan of lowering taxes on companies but no longer on the backs of the middle class.
A good deal of the health care debate is a joke though. The republican idea for a while was to give the poor “tax breaks” to pay for health care but they still would not be able to afford it. Then they began to shift to the idea of giving the poor money to buy their own insurance but that is wealth re-distribution though I have no idea why no one says that is what it is. That is what will be done with or without a public option now which is a joke, it would have been better to allow those that can't afford insurance to join a government backed program that you are enrolled in until you make enough to pay for your own or get health care through a job. Much like it would be better to send those on welfare and other programs to school to learn a trade and then give them a one way ticket to where jobs in that industry are but then rural states would lose tax money from the Fed and voters for the census and we cant have that.
By the way your first point 1) is a slippery slope argument and it works both ways. We can choose to do nothing out of fear of where that may take us or we can do something and choose to change it if it does not work but that is not an option if we worship at the altar of capitalism while living in a socialist state and denying it. Wealth re-distribution is a problem whether you are handing people money for welfare or your shifting money from the coasts to rural areas to create jobs in the military industrial or prison industrial complexes its just those people get better deals and do not think they are socialists even though they are. Our economy reached gov taking up 40% of the market under GWB following the practices of Reagan. Yet we fear the dems,. Up until 2000 I was a moderate but I can no longer see any virtue in claiming to be a libertarian while only fighting for economic libertarianism without the central component of getting rid of corporations who compete with all of us financially for food water and land.
So to be specific what trustworthy entity began the wiretapping that would be a “law and order” republican government that was reacting out of fear of losing that title and danced all over the constitution while we all clamored for protection from people that live in caves half way around the world. We acted like cowards and were led by them so now we have less freedom but it was not the socialists that took it from us but the American version called corpratists.
So do you prefer the idea of doing nothing and things getting much worse and then in 16-20 years after another republican has almost bankrupted the nation trying to fix health care then? That is not what is being said but that is the reality of the situation, the rep's had their chance but chose instead to do what was done to Clinton “here you won but you cant have any programs because we spent to much paying for arms to be manufactured in the boonies so you should just raise taxes and pay off the debt.” The current pres is not putting together a bill that will be tacked onto the debt but will be funded and the chances for a public plan are slim so where exactly is the socialism that is creeping toward us? Why was no one screaming about socialism or corporatism with the drug bill for seniors? Could it be that the corporations stood to make a killing and therefore had little interest in stirring up the masses? One last thing when anyone that cant afford healthcare insurance can buy insurance from medicaid I agree but its not a safety net if it misses the working poor which it does, the public option would fix that but I doubt we will get it.
“So do you prefer the idea of doing nothing and things getting much worse and then in 16-20 years after another republican has almost bankrupted the nation trying to fix health care then?”
I think the entire “do nothing” versus “national health care for all” is being falsely (and dishonestly) presented as an either-or choice. There are other proposals on the table, like regional coops / non-profits, for instance, that offer possibilities currently being dismissed by partisans and die-hard advocates on one side of the argument or another.
I have to tell you, though, Magical…. the 100% inheritance tax stopped me in my tracks. Took me a second to get my breath back. You are okay, then, with double-taxation? What's your objection to people being able to leave something to their kids?
I do not think National Health Care For All is even being discussed. That would be a single payer system and as far as I know would never make it to Obama's desk. I do know that the bills Baucus is discussing now have nothing to do with this so national health care for all is not really an issue. Regional co-ops, non-profits and a Public OPTION(sorry I have to note the option word everyone thinks this means this is the only choice or that its a “slippery slope”) are in no way shape or form national health care for all.
On the 100% inheritance tax first they did not earn it and therefore do not deserve it by the American ethic of which I strongly believe that you keep what you earn. You have to consider though that in The Wealth Of Nations Adam Smith himself looked on taxing wages as slavery. He preferred the idea of a tax on rents since this would only tax those that were trying to profit off of their invested capital. I cant say that I think that is all that much better of an idea so it got me to thinking hard about taxes and the ills of capitalism. I like it in theory but it just fails to work for so many and that is when I realized that no problem exists with capitalism, the problem exists with multi-generational wealth consolidation. If you have multi-generational wealth consolidation you will be forced to print more money without progressive taxation to keep money flowing(which is another option to fix the issue but its wealth re-distribution). Printing money causes inflation whether you give it to the rich or the poor but it is more of a tax on the poor as the wealthy have the option of investing their money in ways that it can out pace inflation where as the poor's savings does not accrue enough interest to stay ahead. Therefore the problem of poverty will be an ever growing one if you have inflation but if you do not print money the system will be unable to pay for the “interest” being accrued from invested capitol. So how to fix this? I realized if we are focused on people not being lazy like we say then why do rich kids get left out of that equation? Why just pick on the poor and middle class? If I want to leave my kid 100k thats wonderful but if those above me financially are leaving there kids 100m my kid is still worse off then he would have been had we all started from the same line as prices will still go up because money and land are finite. I also do not understand the whole “taxed twice” thing. With 100% inheritance tax no reason for further taxes would exist unless we greatly expanded our life spans which would make it so we would need to cut down on breeding anyway. Its not something I think will ever happen but you want capitalism and a meritocracy I give you 100% inheritance tax. You want a fair society I give you 100% inheritance tax. You want to get rid of wage slavery as we know it and all of those evil taxes I again give you 100% inheritance tax. I do not want my parents stuff, I did not earn it. If I did want my parents stuff because they had so much and I have so little wouldn't that be one of the main reasons that I do not deserve it in the Ayn Rand philosophy? I know it is jarring, everyone that I have told about it is utterly shocked at first and reacts much like you but after a few weeks pondering it I usually even win over Libertarians.
Okay, Magical. Let's talk about this some more (although inheritance tax is pretty OT — sorry Robert).
You seem to be saying, essentially, that because of inheritance(s), some people are starting off at a different place. That it's not a level playing field.
That's certainly true…. but Magical, even if I waved my magic wand and started everybody off with the exact same amount of money — and gave them the exact same education — and provided the exact same housing and nutrition — the outcomes would STILL be different. Because people are different, in many ways — some helpful, some not so much.
And where do you draw the line at applying an inheritance tax? 100K? 1M? 5M? 10M? Or is it across the board. Nothing comes from mom and dad. Zero zilch nada?
And do you apply that to assets as well? So… family farms? Antiques? Art?
You get nada but you do get first bid on all heirlooms and property. Family business's are a bit more tricky, I have worked for many companies that were handed down to the kids only to be run into the ground but I also know a lot of great multi-generational business's. Upon the death of the owner it would be offered for sale. All with good business plans and a method to finance the purchase could apply. You would gain points for being a family member and also for working for the company but you would first need a good business plan of how to move forward.
In some cases a worker may get the company over a son if the owners son failed to go to school and come up with any business plan but in the case of farms unless the children did not want to buy in they would be the only people with the “extra points” on the list. Farms are a special case children usually begin working on them young so they would have over a decade of service to the “company” or farm under their belt before they came of age. In other words it would be tricky but I still think more fair then the world we currently live in all while keeping inflation and prices low.
As far as those that can't compete because of the obvious different outcomes I would probably be in favor of large dorms for the homeless(hey they can stay there while they go to school and start new businesses) and maybe some land for them to farm in multi-level greenhouses(not sure if you have seen these) but they would have to work at least some to maintain those facilities. If they want the latest shiny bobble or a steak dinner though they would have to work in the free market for it though.
100 years ago it really would not have worked but we have the technology now to hand someone a watermaker and the supplies to make a green house and with some education they have food and water. If you have food water and shelter I have little to no pity for you if you have no initiative. I respect work, I was raised during the Reagan era and it has been beaten into my head but I do not expect everyone to be happy or wealthy thats not societies job, thats their job. It just neuters any problems with capitalism, you want something stand up and work for it. This would also have the very real bonus of us no longer subsidizing work as it would not be mandatory for survival just advancement but I think that is a bit more far off and not something I would back unlike 100% inheritance tax until we have the proper technology. Once we have the tech though why would we pay your water bill when we can hand you a $1k water maker once and you have water for life or the next ten years? We should get more intelligent with our help to the poor and try to make them not dependent on a system that they need to pay to play in when we know they cant pay, it just makes us pay longer(I think this is the future of the Rep party but they probably will not realize it for twenty years or so).
Equal results for equal effort on the other hand I frown heavily upon, this would be communism. It would be rewarding mediocrity which is what I hate about our current system. If you take away the pressures of food shelter and water though technology is no longer hampered by having to create jobs so we could automate many things that we cant now in the interest of generating jobs which would allow us to focus our resources on invention and innovation instead of our current focus of squeezing a buck out of those uneducated enough to believe your advertising which I know has a long history in the US but it served its purpose and we need to change the focus of the system in my opinion.
Its not a fear of Change, its a lack of response to Presidential fear mongering. First it was the stimulas, then the budget, then the climate bill, now its healthcare and the President has just cried wolf too often. The people want a meaningful bipartisan effort and not a democrat only devised plan that the fear mongerers are trying to tell the people is so urgent and wanted to get rushed through before August,.
The president shot his credibility too much to hell. He has lost this fight for a public option, Sebelius and Conrad had pretty much said its dead. Actually Conrad has said so explicitly.
[...] “Honey, We Shrunk the President” (themoderatevoice.com) [...]