Reply #34: Philosophical differences [View All]

It seems that you are essentially conceding that the economic policies put into place (mostly ARRA) have helped get a grip on the economy as I've pointed out in the O/P. This is good.

OK, now you say that you have several policy issues related to the direction his administration has chosen. OK, this is valid criticism and I don't have any issue with that. Specifically, you seem to have an issue with HCR and "placing the wants and whims of the financial elite ahead of then needs of low-income and working class individuals and families". OK, that's an admirable description, but I have looked at the compromises made and I feel that most of what is in the HCR bill will benefit many millions of "low-income and working class individuals and families". I see this as a step in the right direction and a building block for future progress. Nationalized exchanges, for instance, make it relatively easy to add a "public plan" later when it is clear that the ins. companies are still not playing fair. The exchanges should also allow people like me who pay 2-4x for the same coverage to get competitive rates due to being in a pool of thousands versus about 10 now. Removing lifetime caps and preventing the ins. cos from denying coverage due to a pre-existing condition is crucial to guaranteeing coverage for many who can't get it now. There are other regulations that will prevent insurance companies from playing unfairly. Is this the perfect solution? No. Can idiots like Lieberman be convinced to do the right thing and allow for single payer or a public option? I dare anybody to claim that they can be. Can reconciliation be used to force some changes to the system? Yes, but it can not be used to implement many of the critical changes included in the bill that are not related to budgetary matters (if I've read all the essays on this topic correctly.)

As far a Wall St. versus Obama goes, I'm not an expert on this topic (as I doubt many here are), so my comments will be limited. I will repeat what I said earlier - that I don't think Obama was an expert on Wall St. policy when he took office and that he chose the path of least resistance due to the impending depression. This included a relatively conservative approach to Wall St. He wasn't willing to bet the future of the country on gambling wrong in an area where he was not an expert and had to rely on people whom he thought were competent enough to get us through this mess. Ideal? No, but a depression would have been the end of his Presidency. If things economic are indeed turning positive (back to my O/P), then he will now have some leverage to start cracking down on the practices that lead to this crisis. I don't see what the hurry was to crack down during the crisis. All this "oh, it's too late now, he's already let the horse out of the barn" talk doesn't hold much water with me. He's the President and can set his agenda as he sees fit. Granted the levies on the ass-hole banks who are giving out massive bonuses during a major downturn is perhaps only a small beginning, but it signals that he is NOT happy with the system as it is currently set up. And don't forget what the Agent said in the Matrix - "only human". Barack Obama is not a machine - assuming one can just batter him incessantly into submission is probably not the path to the best outcome. Dialog like this is constructive, but this discussion is the exception, not the rule.