Dave... We're already paying. We've been paying... Obama can only say so much... Look at FDR prior to being elected. He wasn't promising massive sweeping changes. He couldn't. It would have been political suicide...

However, given how utterly wretched our REAL economy is right now we're screwed for some time.

We are the world's largest debtor nation. That isn't good by any stretch of the imagination... But it's worse when you consider we are also the world's biggest IMPORTER of goods and one of the largest EXPORTERS of raw materials... We are in essence the world's largest Third World nation.

With only 12% of our workers now in manufacturing... With 22% of US "economy" generated by Wall Street, with a huge chunk of the rest found in the "service" sector... We are in much MUCH worse trouble than we were in 1930.

At that time we were one of the world's largest creditors. We were the world's largest manufacturer. We imported NO oil at that time.

No, it matters little who wins the White House. Either way it's going to be an ugly four years.

The only thing Obama may MAY bring to the table is a radical change in our present form of capitalism... But I kinda doubt it.

Marlowe

"Right now, the average insured person and/or his employer pays $7600 in premiums per year. That's a total cost of $2.3 trillion per year."

Dave, perhaps a remedial math class is in order. The only way you could have come up with that $2.3 trillion figure is by having every man, woman and child in the United States in paid employment and each having their own individual insurance.

That's quite apart from your complete mischaracterization of Obama's healthcare plan.

Dr. D, those figures come from the insurance industry at the NCHC. Take it up with them?

But yes, they do seem to have divided the total spent by the general population. The actual total per person should be much higher - even worse for any attempt at national healthcare.

Dave

The NCHC aren't the ones who misrepresented those figures, Dave - you are.

Their numbers are simply the total annual healthcare spending, expressed per capita. Nothing to do with insurance premiums, as you claimed.

Dave, you know exactly what's going to happen. Obama will be "surprised". Remember Clinton's promises? When he came into office, he sat down with the budget people, and was surprised to discover that things were worse than anyone ever realized. Really, honestly worse. He immediately broke all of his campaign promises, and claimed the high ground for doing so. So with Obama, the only question is, will he break the promises about new programs or the promises about taxes?

Quite right, Baritone. They mentioned both the premiums and the total per capita and I got the two crossed up. I've corrected it. The basic information remains correct, but good try at diverting us from the main points.

Dave

Baronius, he's going to back off on all of his promises from taxes to medical care. He won't have a choice. But unlike Clinton, since we already know so much about the economic problems he won't be able to claim ignorance effectively.

Obama is not going to be able to meet any of his promises and he's going to raise taxes on everyone earning $50K or more just to meet existing obligations. And that's a BEST case scenario. That's what he'll do if he's responsible and can put need ahead of ideology. Worst case scenario he'll actually try to implement some of his socialistic nonsense, worsen the economic situation and end up really pleasing his masters with unprecedented levels of nationalization and seizure of assets.

Dave

Can you also tell me the winning lottery numbers, Dave?

No, Jordan. They are ALL losing numbers.

Dave

Jordan, since the numbers don't add up, it's not a crazy guess that Obama's going to break his promises. The only questions are which of them, and how soon. I'm guessing that he'll take a page from Clinton's playbook, and say "gosh, the problems are so much worse than any of us imagined" before Inauguration Day. It's been done before.

Listen, if Obama finds a way to fund his soci-, um, postpartisan paradise, I'll admit I was wrong. But accountability goes both ways. People on this site have been predicting Bush coup scenarios, with the president refusing to leave office. If they're right, hats off to them. If they're wrong, I expect them to wolf down a nice helping of humble pie.

Dave,

I don't believe I have entered this conversation prior to now.

"Worst case scenario he'll actually try to implement some of his socialistic nonsense, worsen the economic situation and end up really pleasing his masters with unprecedented levels of nationalization and seizure of assets."

And just who would "his masters" be? Is Obama someone's slave? Oh, lawdy, lawdy!

Nice touch.

B

The basic information remains correct, but good try at diverting us from the main points.

I'm not diverting, Dave, I'm just that irritating hand up at the back of the class.

You corrected the numbers only, and only because you got caught massaging them. (Perhaps the new president should give you a job in his PR office.) Your argument continues to hinge on the notion that Obama, to fulfill his healthcare promise, will have to find all of that money from public funds. That was never the deal: Obama's plan, should you bother to read it (a large majority of his critics evidently haven't, as they continue to claim that he doesn't even have a plan), specifically states that employees' premiums will be reduced - not disappear completely.

Marlowe says it all in his comment here. The leader of a debtor nation like the United States cannot deliver on empty promises - and it does not matter which leader it is. All he can do is seek out the foreign butt that is easiest to kiss, and the folds in the foreign but easiest to lick clean.

We already see that the butt that Obama will kiss is Arab butt, and very possibly Russian butt as well. Whose butt will McCain kiss? Chinese?

Who knows? But, unless the United States decides to end its debtor status by threatening other nations with destruction, its leaders will have to wipe the feces off their lips for quite some time. Life will get very bitter in the States because of this. "Rich" people will flee with their riches, leaving the poor to deal with what will become very painful poverty after a time.

I'm so glad I'm not in America right now....

And actually, Dave, your numbers are still misleading. The $4400 you quote is not the average cost per family member under a group policy, as you claim, but the cost for single-person coverage.

For a family of four it's $12,100, or a little over $3000 per person.

Dr. D. I corrected the explanation of one of the numbers bcause I misread it. It doesn't change anything about the overall cost of providing healthcare to the nation.

But you did catch one real problem with the article. It turns out that Obama's plan is substantially different from the healthcare plan which Democrats in Congress have been promoting. It's much more conservative and would be substantially less expensive, perhaps limited to no more than a cost of about $500 billion a year. Still another half trillion which he can't possibly fund, of course.

Dave

What charming imagery you employ, Ruvy...

Dave,

According to the Tax Policy Center, the proposals offered by Senator Obama would

effectively raise income tax rates for many Americans, even on some earning $20-$50,000 per year. . . .

What charming imagery you employ, Ruvy...

It's accurate imagery, DD - and all of the language is clean and pure, as white as the driven snow....

It doesn't change anything about the overall cost of providing healthcare to the nation.

Well, so far we've got the cost whittled down to about half what you initially claimed it would be. And that's without taking into account the employee's premium, which of course doesn't come out of public funds.

Setting healthcare aside, I can't help but wonder what we'll find if we take a closer look at the rest of your numbers...

Welcome to the world of Bush voodoo economics, Dave. A world that you have enthusiastically embraced as it came upon us 7 years ago.

In spite of your constant wriggling and squirming the disaster that has characterized the Bush administration has put us in terrible straits. Not a government agency established in 1933 that has been instrumental in helping millions of American families have their own homes. Not an act from 1979 that has expanded home ownership for decades under responsible administration.

No, the mess that we have is from the "deficits don't matter" attitude of this administration.

The catastrophe is due to a conscious attempt by radical neo-republicans to drain the US treasury for the ignoble purpose of impoverishing the government so that it could not help citizens with any kind of social programs. That was made apparent by the hands-off attitude of BushCo in the face of Katrina, and by denying improvements in childrens healthcare.

Bliffle, you can keep on trying to spin it any way you like, but the facts remain the facts and it's quite clear that the Bush administration tried to address the problem and were stymied by the democrats who have fed off of Fannie and Freddie for years.

Dave

...you can keep on trying to spin it any way you like, but the facts remain the facts and it's quite clear that the Bush administration tried to address the problem and were stymied by the democrats who have fed off of Fannie and Freddie for years.

And you can keep repeating this distorted half-truth as many times as you want, but it will never be true.

For someone who pays so much lip service to "facts," you are extraordinarily loose in your use and and interpretation of them.

Dave, it's pointless. Here's why:

Obama Voters are the people who blame McDonalds and Burger King because they got fat, they blame Marlboro for their emphysema, Budweiser for their Liver cirrhosis, the Realtor for their house payments, Hersheys for their bad teeth, and car companies for their bad driving.

This has become the MAJORITY of Americans-the only freedom they desire is freedom from risk, freedom from responsibility, freedom from consequences. Their game is to find someone with deep pockets to blame for their problems, then use Government to go after that someone.

The only 'sacrifice' they're willing to make is sacrifice of ethics, sacrifice of morality, sacrifice of liberty-these they sacrifice gladly for the sake of 'Teh Win' for their chosen masters. There is nothing they will not forgive or ignore for the sake of the party that promises them safety from the consequences of their own actions, plus a little bit of crumbs and the satisfaction of punishing those who dare disagree, or those who have the misfortune of being slightly better off.

Crabs in the bucket, Dave, intent on dragging anyone who tries to climb out back down among them on the way to the cooking pot.

Crabs in the bucket, Dave, intent on dragging anyone who tries to climb out back down among them on the way to the cooking pot.

Nice analogy, Cannon. Crabs left too long in the bucket or trap wind up cannibalizing each other until only one big fat crab is left...

Handy, I'm going to try this one more time.
Answer these yes or no questions.

Did Johnson privatize Fannie and Freddie in 1968?

Did the CRA make low and non-qualifying loans available to those who would normally not qualify for them?

Was the CRA signed by Jimmy Carter?

Did the FHA gain the power to coerce banks into giving non-qualifying loans by withholding loan guarantees during the Clinton administration?

Did the Bush administration propose reforms for Fannie and Freddie in 2003?

Were those reforms blocked in committee primarily because of Democrat opposition?

Were hearings held in 2005 to consider possible problems with Fannie and Freddie?

Did leading democrats at those hearings deny that there were problems and suggest that the regulators should be investigated instead of Fannie and Freddie?

Did Republicans propose legislation in 2005 to reform Fannie and Freddie?

Were Chris Dodd and Barack Obama the top two recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie?

Did Chris Dodd take a 'VIP' loan from Countrywide at a sub-prime interest rate?

Did Chris Dodd sponsor a $300 billion bailout bill to compensate Bank of America for taking over failing Countrywide?

Did Dodd support a bill to ease credit card lending restrictions promoted by Countrywide?

Did Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson advise Obama at some point in his campaign?

The list could go on, but you should get the point by now. Remember, yes or no answers.

Dave

Why am I not surprised that when discussing healthcare costs neither McCain, Obama or any of you zipperheads mentions the billion dollar smorgasbord in free care that illegals are currently enjoying in hospital ERs?

Cannon, you really think the hamburger, beer, cigarette crowd is voting for Obama? Get real. They are the no government Repubs.

Dave, once again, you are as simplistic as they come.

As always, the election is a distraction from acting politically.

Groups that should be doing something are holding their breath and hoping Obama wins.

It will take some time before realizing that President Obama is not solving fundamental problems.

cannon offers up some straw horses to distract the easily lead:

"Obama Voters are the people who blame McDonalds and Burger King because they got fat, they blame Marlboro for their emphysema, Budweiser for their Liver cirrhosis, the Realtor for their house payments, Hersheys for their bad teeth, and car companies for their bad driving.
"

Daves article says:

"but I don't see a democratic socialist like Obama completely eliminating Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. "

Eliminating SS would be a mistake since it produced a surplus of $167billion last year, just as it's produced a surplus every year for the past 25.

Without the SS surplus GWB wouldn't have been able to finance his and your war.

Lisa: Cannon, you really think the hamburger, beer, cigarette crowd is voting for Obama? Get real. They are the no government Repubs.

I beg to differ with you, Lisa. All of the above are voting Obama, at least in Michigan.

I'll be more than relieved when this election is over. It was too long, the rhetoric too smooth and the animus too pointed.

According to Comment #29, cannon offers up some straw horses to distract the easily lead [sic]. I don't think the characterization is correct, but better straw horses than Trojan horses.

Dan(Miller)

Obama has promised us everything but a condo on the moon. And McCain is promising a balanced budget by the end of his first term. Both men are misleading us in their fever pitch to be the next President. Unfortunately, I am resigning myself to the fact that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States. He will fail. It is impossible for any successor to the incumbent to succeed. We're a selfish, consumer society. We don't like sacrifice, yet it is time for us all to pay the piper.

Poor and middle-class America has funded the feeding frenzy on Wall Street through our purchases of insurance and investment in retirement accounts. We have been led to the trough believing those entrusted with our hard earned dollars would create enough of a return to keep us secure in the winter of our lives. And now poor and middle class America has to bail out the same individuals we've subsidized and trusted. It's time for a civil, political revolution in this country. The problem is we're too lazy and stupid to make the effort.

re Comment #33, Obama has promised us everything but a condo on the moon. Probably an oversight.

Dan(Miller)

(perking up suddenly from blog-induced voter apathy...) We're getting condos on the moon? Cool! Where do I sign?

He'd be way behind the times if he did.

Proudly fleecing suckers for 28 years.

And it came to pass in the days of the waning King that the One rose up to release the oppressed from captivity. And He became their King. They rejoiced, singing praises to the Most High. And the King rebuked them saying that He was the Most High. The throngs fell to their knees in adoration before they were led to the slaughter.

-- a Reading from the book of Silas

Silas,

Speak ill of the Messiah if you must, sir, but the torments of Hell await you. Repent! Repeat after me: "For on that day was born in Hawaii the Savior, Christ our Lord. And he shall reign forever in the hearts of men (and, of course, women)." Even that may not make you worthy of redemption, but it's worth a try. I guess.

Dan(Miller)

Hickory Dickory Dock,
Time's run off the clock,
Justice is due,
America, it's true,
We're gonna be stuck with Barack.

This is starting to smell a lot like 1929. Everything I've read about the crash that melted the market away the day before Hoshana Raba, 5690 - Black Thursday, 1929 - sounds like its repeating itself. Rising inventories, falling commodity prices, forced selling - all looks very familiar.

Hoshana Raba, 5769 is on Monday, 20 October....

I wonder if the lazy hawk of History will fly over the same Crash site she flew over 79 years ago.

What was that that Obama was promising again? On which cloud do I have to get my pie in the sky?

And will this Depression be the prelude to advent of World War 3? Shall the atrocities of Germany be visited upon the Middle East? Will Japan and China unite in a rising which will result in a reciprocal act of nuclear warfare akin to what Harry S. Truman delivered?

Ruvy, after I read the story on the wires about the second attack on John Paul II in Fatima I believe anything is possible. How is it that the Portuguese press and authorities were able to hide this from the world? Or is this just a revisiting of days past when I was being indoctrinated into the Roman Church? I am so confused.

Pish-tosh!

Silas,

And will this Depression be the prelude to advent of World War 3? Shall the atrocities of Germany be visited upon the Middle East? Will Japan and China unite in a rising which will result in a reciprocal act of nuclear warfare akin to what Harry S. Truman delivered?

Your beginning to get the picture that the Jewish theory of history paints - but events do not repeat themselves with such exactitude. If anything, I would look at Ezekiel 38-39 and Zechariah 14 for somthing that looks like a forecast - bearing in mind that these books were written at least two millennia ago by men who could see modern technology - but who did not have the words to adequately describe it. Frankly, I do not think it will take the decade that it took for the world to sink into a major conflict 79 years ago. The powder is laid, and all that is needed is the match. Events will move much more quickly today. If you've been following my articles on events around here, you would see that clearly. In my new year's wishes for 5769, the words "peace" and "peaceful" were both absent. This was purposeful.

As for the Fatima predictions, there is no law that says that prophecy should be restricted to Jews. The prophecy that the young girl saw in 1917 was structured in a way that she would understand it clearly and find it believable - a vision of the Virgin; this is proof of the assertions of Benedict Spinoza in his analyses of prophecy and miracles, where he states that both occur in such a way that the believer can understand them clearly, no matter what his religion.

Sheesh, Silas. Don't encourage him.

Dave

But Dave's 'one more time' Fannie/Freddie list is of course, as always, selective.

If you could possibly acknowledge:

How many Republicans received F&F contributions.

Not all 'reform' is equal. 'Reform' is not a generic item applied like a coat of paint. The reforms pushed by the Bush administration and the reforms pushed by, for example, Oxley, are very different. You make no distinction.

The CRA is neither all good nor all bad. Followed as written, it did what it was intendend to do, expand the universe of home owners. But you paint it as the source of huge problems.

Most subprime loans involved in the recent meltdown were not issued by banks, and therefore were not covered by the CRA. They were motivated entirely by greed and/or stupidity.

Fannie and Freddie were late to the subprime party. They were being pressured by shareholders to match the mortgage-backed securities offered by investment banks. F and F caused their own problems, but they are not the 'cause' of the crisis, just one of the effects.

The Bush administration did plenty of its own cheerleading for the 'ownership society.'

And so on.

Everything, everything you write is filtered through your ideological prism. This does not result in 'truth,' 'facts,' or a meaningful discussion. It is soul-deadening.

Sorry, Dave. It's hard to break old habits. I do find all of this quite interesting. I'm thinking about studying voodoo next. I wonder how tough it would be to make 535 Voodoo dolls?

Washington Post: We Endorse Obama Because McCain Would Be Better and We're Idiots October 17th, 2008

Tired of all the questions about whether the MSM is in the tank for Barack Obama or not, they've decided to just make it official. The Washington Post has officially endorsed Barack Obama. (Apparently the New York Times will follow suit this weekend)

It's not like this comes as any surprise. One need only pick up their "news" papers to see their undying love and affection for the Socialist. So much for objectivity, eh?

And aside from their obvious conflict in creating news that they're supposed to be objectively covering, the reasons they set forth in their formal Socialist endorsement are comical.

"The choice is made easy in part by Mr. McCain's disappointing campaign, above all his irresponsible selection of a running mate who is not ready to be president. It is made easy in larger part, though, because of our admiration for Mr. Obama and the impressive qualities he has shown during this long race. Yes, we have reservations and concerns, almost inevitably, given Mr. Obama's relatively brief experience in national politics. But we also have enormous hopes."

Get that? When it comes to the Republican ticket, inexperience at the bottom is unacceptable... but when it comes to the Socialist ticket, "hope" will suffice to quell "reservations and concerns" about inexperience at the top of the ticket.

If you have the intestinal fortitude to continuing reading the love letter to the Socialist, you'll see the Post actually identifies Obama's socialist "spread the wealth" policies as a point they adore.

"There are two sets of issues that matter most in judging these candidacies. The first has to do with restoring and promoting prosperity and sharing its fruits more evenly in a globalizing era that has suppressed wages and heightened inequality. Here the choice is not a close call. Mr. McCain has little interest in economics and no apparent feel for the topic. His principal proposal, doubling down on the Bush tax cuts, would exacerbate the fiscal wreckage and the inequality simultaneously."

And according to the Post, the fact that he'll be breaking lots of his campaign promises, is another reason to love him. Hell of a ringing endorsement there, guys.

Mr. Obama's economic plan contains its share of unaffordable promises, but it pushes more in the direction of fairness and fiscal health."

As for education... the Post credits Obama with promising the best solution while simultaneously admitting they have no idea what his solution really is.

"Mr. Obama also understands that the most important single counter to inequality, and the best way to maintain American competitiveness, is improved education, another subject of only modest interest to Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama would focus attention on early education and on helping families so that another generation of poor children doesn't lose out. His budgets would be less likely to squeeze out important programs such as Head Start and Pell grants. Though he has been less definitive than we would like, he supports accountability measures for public schools and providing parents choices by means of charter schools."

The Post sums up their decision to endorse the Socialist this way...

"ANY PRESIDENTIAL vote is a gamble, and Mr. Obama's résumé is undoubtedly thin. We had hoped, throughout this long campaign, to see more evidence that Mr. Obama might stand up to Democratic orthodoxy and end, as he said in his announcement speech, "our chronic avoidance of tough decisions."

But what do they think of McCain?

"Mr. McCain has deep knowledge and a longstanding commitment to promoting U.S. leadership and values. ... he has been a force for principle and bipartisanship. He fought to recognize Vietnam, though some of his fellow ex-POWs vilified him for it. He stood up for humane immigration reform, though he knew Republican primary voters would punish him for it. He opposed torture and promoted campaign finance reform, a cause that Mr. Obama injured when he broke his promise to accept public financing in the general election campaign. Mr. McCain staked his career on finding a strategy for success in Iraq when just about everyone else in Washington was ready to give up. We think that he, too, might make a pretty good president."

I guess the moral of this story is that we should be voting for the Socialist because he is less experienced than John McCain, he lied to us about campaign finance (among other things), he's been completely wrong on Iraq, he is reckless in his rhetoric on free-trade, he's making campaign promises he knows he can't keep, and he's not giving us the details we need on his actual plans to govern... but we can always rely on hope!

Washington Post has officially endorsed Barack Obama.