Charlie Rose

doodah  11/09/2010 08:23 AM Report

My brain didn't understand it as it was happening. But now I understand what my gut was saying. Why Obama pursued 'healthcare reform' in the midst of major economic upheaval caused primarily by banking-financial corruption of Congress (which 2-3 years into it, still hasn't found a bottom). 'Healthcare reform' - The only way to really cut the costs to the society as a whole, would have been to implement a public option with maybe some minor redundant cuts in quality at the periphery for the royal rich (who want to be the first Frankenstein monsters)(a 'public option' could crush that dream, of immortality). But still with technology and knowledge, as it is, even the experts (economic and medical) who studied all the details and scenarios endorsed it as a good idea (the insurance companies would lose some profit; the worst outcome), somehow was turned into 'socialism' by the tea party (never mind the 'socialism' of the financial-services Industry). Then he (Obama) compromises to the absolutely worst case scenario, EVERYBODY loses EXCEPT for the insurance companies and their affiliated snake-oil industries. A bad move on Obama's part, took the focus off of the real fire (Geitner went with it, maybe his idea.? .Goldman Sachs?.?).

In the end, it's all a big game, led by the big banks. They (the bankers) must be comfortable with 10% 'official' unemployment. No threat to their power, esp. with pawns as ignorant as 'the tea party'.

anne4444  11/05/2010 03:56 PM Report

What a job to be the president of the United States. It is a job in hell in comparing with the Chinese president.

Chinese president serves their people and deserves all applause, but our president works twice harder and gets only criticism

REMant  11/05/2010 01:23 PM Report

I can see the administration outmaneuvering the Republicans if the latter focus narrowly on repealing everything done in the last two years, especially if they fall back to the normal GOP fare of social issues, defense and tax cuts. Also if they somehow become identified with the Fed and the banks. Tuesday's Fed announcement is basically another bank bailout, like the last buying binge, allowing them to make a tidy profit on Treasuries, and invest overseas, where they threaten to bring down those economies by appreciating asset and commodity prices and local currencies. It threatens to escalate food and oil as in 2007. When that crap hits the fan, anyone near it is going to smeared.

Education reform, and much of the rest of the Keynesian protocol can be accomplished by the private sector and will probably have to be. Much of what needs to be done is a matter of policy, not spending, and like education is even impervious to it. The Fed'l govt can't afford to repair the infrastructure unless it cuts defense and brings down entitlements, but that is a state and local responsibility for the most part, is better handled by them, and not as a jobs program. Boehner did not say he wanted to scrap health care, but make it fiscally responsible, and McConnell said they'd be willing to listen to proposals that did not involve more govt spending.

This has to be a business of horse-trading. For instance, a flat tax for health care with a cap, which I think would have been a better approach than what was done. Offshore drilling for green energy investment. Earmarks for a balanced budget, or something like that. You could require spending in one area to be offset by reductions in another. Offsetting social spending and defense spending reductions generally, as if it were a disarmament deal, makes sense to me, because the logrolling that goes on now resembles an arms race. Just reducing the amount of it is likely to make the world a more peaceful place, and I mean literally, because we are at a point where the budget threatens everyone. Swap fiscal restraint for monetary restraint, in the best of all possible worlds, because we can't have Keynesian Dems arguing we need more spending and the monetarist GOP arguing we need more credit anymore. We need less of both and more savings, hard work and common sense. Greenspan, Bernanke and co belong to the last century as much as FDR.

This is a little more complex than the UK situation, but with the same elements. A bunch of "Tories" confronting some "Labourites" who need to have a contingent of libertarians on board. If they are smart, IMHO the latter will take as much advantage as possible of their situation.