Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.Here
and
Now
opinions
Debt deal will do little to help Obama get re-elected
By Charles Babington WASHINGTON©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
17 Comments
Login to comment
Smorkian
Instead of solving problems for the express purpose of getting elected, how about just solving problems and doing what's best for the country? It seems the US has a huge problem with elected official spending over half their time worrying about the next election and not worrying about doing their jobs.
In short, I could care less about Obama's popularity or next year's elections. Just create some jobs and fix the economy.
nath
Change the presidency to one 6 year term, and the same for members of congress. See the Dow today?
TheTim
And addendum to Smorkian's comments..."And don't shove nationalized Health Care down our throats!".
If Obama manages to get elected again, we're all in the happy place of the magical world of fairies. However, there has not really been a break out Republican candidate as of yet. We'd be better of if some of the more fiscally responsible Dems challenged the Obaminator.
tkoind2
I think many Americans realize that Obama is not the only issue here. Congress has utterly failed to do anything in the best interests of the people. So if anything, people are displeased with the entirety of government.
This article seems GOP leaning in general. I am not a DEM, so let's get that out of the way. But I am an American voter.
The GOP have nothing to offer for the upcoming election cycle. Palin is a nut and too many Americans understand that too clearly to give her any kind of a chance. There are no other stellar leaders on the GOP side who can really inspire the kind of political power push that would be needed to unseat Obama at the moment.
While there is a lot of polar hatred for Obama out there, I would expect that he still has considerable sway over any of the current GOP options. What may be interesting is to see how much damage is done to congress as it stands today over the next couple of elections. There are a lot of very unhappy working class people out there who want someone to do something to help them. Congress has dropped this ball in an epic manner that there will certainly be consequences for.
Now... who should be president? From a working man's point of view, none of these guys inspire me. I don't see a leader who can really look after working families in America. Neither side has looked to our needs for a long time and that includes Obama.
Where does the fault rest? It rests with the insane polarization of American politics today. Nothing can be done because we have two opposing sides who can't be bothered to put American before their party lines. So working people are suffering while our parties fight and prevent anything meaningful from happening. From useless DEMS, to rich interested GOP to nut job Tea Party types, not one of these groups is doing right by American working people.
What is really needed, is for the working people to form new parties of elected officials who work for us and not for themselves. It is time for a voter revolt.
Smorkian
Really? That' a prime example of not getting things done. Everyone can agree health care reform is needed in some way, shape or form in the US. But rather than working towards a plan that introduces genuine reform, decreasing costs for people and allowing more to get coverage the plan gets bastardized, sliced, and diced until it does nothing but spend money and piss everyone off.
Congress and the president are simply incapable of working together towards a common goal right now. Both sides would rather the other be wrong than do what's right.
AerosX
I find it ironic reading comments about how the govt and the presidency are doing too little or nothing to help the American people. The truth is the exact opposite. Govt is doing TOO MUCH work. Nationalized health care? EPA,, FDA, FAA regulations? countless entitlement programs? any many more. Govt spending causes bubbles and inflation. Massive regulations that choke the private sector forcing business people to spend more time and money on not hiring and creating jobs. Just recently in the state of Maryland a group of 9-10 year olds were fined for not having a permit to open their own lemonade stand. It is insanity. If govt just got out of HC all together by getting rid of the affordable hc act, SS, medicare and medicaid all of which are forms of subsidies for HC raises the price of HC making it unaffordable for the lower income citizens. It's just like how the price of education keeps sky rockets semester after semester the more govt aid is handed out.
melguy
The US is no longer a "Western" nation in the traditional sense of that word. The US is a country where the system of government has fallen firmly into the hands of the elite. Society is not only divided socially and politically -- in its ideological blindness the nation is moving even farther away from the core of democracy. It is losing, or has lost, its ability to compromise.
Smorkian
No they weren't. That was changed.
Yes, giving people less access to healthcare will be better. I'm sure the old folks who need medicine and doctors visits will appreciate dying quicker due to being unable to visit the hospital once their healthcare is removed. And all the people who live off their SS? Well too bad for you. These are great ideas, Basically, you are saying Obama can fix the country by letting a bunch of people die broke of treatable conditions.
Of course, if there's fewer people to treat because people are dying in the street, costs WILL go down!
Yes, let's return to the days of Upton Sinclair! People lived so much longer, better lives back when the government didn't regulate food and medicines and had no social programs. After all, the average man lived to be almost 50 then - almost!
AerosX
Proof:
Of course, if there's fewer people to treat because people are dying in the street, costs WILL go down!
Your full of it and resorting to spin. Taking away HC? are kidding and make it unaffordable for people are you kidding me? If the market is allowed to operate freely then naturally the cost of goods and services drops over time. Ad quality increases. Plastic surgeries and technology is not subsidized by govt spending, and therefore become easier to afford over time. Of course govt cannot provide HC because of then massive spending that will soon follow it as Medicare and medicaid prove. And don't even get me started with govt run HC where there is massive inefficiencies and massive endless waiting lines.
Did you know that the FDA is inefficient when it comes to approving drugs? basically what it does, is that it protects the bigger pharma companies from the smaller ones reducing competition. Also when a new drug is created by a small company ad wish to profit from it on the market, FDA approval often happens to be tedious and takes years.... YEARS! here is one good example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7PdO8yzXIQ&feature=channel_video_title While people are dying waiting for that miracle drug to reach them, the FDA continues to lag behind o the much needed drugs and medicines needed, often leaving patience with no hope what so ever.
Smorkian
@AerosX
I know the incident happened - what I SAID is the fine was rescinded. Reading is fundamental!
Source: http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Montco-Allows-Kids-Lemonade-Stand-to-Stay-Open-124110204.html
I'm full of "Spin"? This is not the O'Reilly Factor, this is real life discussion. I didn't "spin" anything! I'd like you to tell me with real world examples -not talking point examples and theories - of examples where people's health care improved because of less medical insurance. Go look at the list of longest life expectancies - what is one common factor for the top countries? Yup, government health care.
They sure are. And if you let less regulation into the market you"ll get - what - less testing? More unsafe, unproven drugs? Companies allowed to put whatever supplements they want in foods? Oh, there might be the occasional "miracle drug" that gets to market quicker but more likely you"ll see many more "miracle drugs" that do nothing and possibly do more harm.
This is not theoretical, we have been down this road before. It's the entire US history before food and drug regulation was established. People lived much shorter, much more miserable lives then.
AerosX
Hardly true. By your logic i can just say that people are more healthier if they rely on govt. Life expectancy is not even a good example to back up your argument, else Cuba would have higher L.E then the U.S. In Venezuela just like in they U.S has both private and Govt H.C. Private H.C in Venezuela operates with quality and results comparable to the U.S. Where as the govt counterpart is far worse. Govt H.C goes against the laws of free market economics http://mises.org/daily/3586 ad don't think that Scandinavian H.C is any better under govt control. There have been cases where scav politicians travel to the u.s for HC, although i cannot remember their names at the moment. But even King Abdulla prefers U.S HC over Saudi national H.C
This is not theoretical, we have been down this road before. It's the entire US history before food and drug regulation was established. People lived much shorter, much more miserable lives then.
.......
The drug companies are the ones that invent the drugs and test them. The FDA only approves of them. http://mises.org/daily/1805 We certainly have been under this road too long and too many times, the operation of the FDA is just indefensible no matter how noble it's intentions may sound.
Smorkian
Funnily enough, they have the same!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
And I wouldn't say people would be more healthy if they rely on government. For the record, I'd love to see less government. I'd just like to see it start with the defense department before before taking away people's pensions and access to doctors. But heaven forbid the right suggest cutting the defense budget!
Great! Because the laws of free market economics go against compassionate treatment of other humans. After all, old people and handicapped kids are supremely expensive. Can't make money off poor people, why give them health care?
Oh, there's plenty of ways to make a ton of profits by not delivering a quality product. See Madoff, Bernie. Made all kinds of profits for himself! Never underestimate the power of greed, especially in a free, unregulated market!
AerosX
The last century clearly refutes this when big govt murdered 80 million+. Govt programs cannot show compassion to individuals, that is impossible. Compassion is show individual towards individual/group, not some bureaucrat whom you will never in life meet.< http://mises.org/daily/3921/The-Curse-of-Good-Government>. Even the poorest of Americans can afford Ipod nanos. And that is because in a free market prices inevitably fall and quality increases. Now some doctors in some hospitals btw are actually willing to give such individuals free H.C at their own individual expense. But when govt forces them to do so, then it becomes a loss of scarcity. There are generous orgs as well that more efficiently help the marginalized under private charity. Now if the free market were to be allowed to operate freely with all the subsidies gone and entitlements then naturally the cost falls.
Your point on this? I was typing about a quality product, not a bad product. Now since were on the topic of madoff now, did you know this ponzi scheme was a govt failure to stop? http://mises.org/daily/3273 http://mises.org/daily/3260. The free market already spotted Bernies scheme from a mile away. Yes never underestimate the power of greed. Were all greedy, and that includes you and govt. Greed is about looking after your ow self-interest, of course it's important to distinguish between greed and corporate greed. http://mises.org/daily/1371
Look, you have good intentions with your govt sponsored ideals, by they foolishly have unintended consequences http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij4H9M55c64
Smorkian
Wow. They most certainly the heck cannot. I think you have little idea what poor means in the US, and it doesn't mean "I can't get the latest smartphone". More like "I'm lucky if I can get a decent meal at the thrift bakery".
No offense, but this is the silliest claim I have read on this site in a while. What does that even mean????
My point on this is obvious: companies act in THEIR self interest, not yours. Their goal is to make them (and their shareholders) money, not to provide you with the best possible product.
Or I take it you haven't noticed that free market principles have flooded the US retail market with cheap overseas crap, and US manufacturers who make higher quality products can't compete? Well I guess they could if their labor costs were as cheap as China's, so hey, let's abolish benefits and the minimum wage. Then the US can be a free market paradise!
AerosX
Certainly the heck yes. Ipod nano's when they were first released was about $190-$220. Now they are about $130-150. The trends continue for all existing tech.
Or I take it you haven't noticed that free market principles have flooded the US retail market with cheap overseas crap, and US manufacturers who make higher quality products can't compete? Well I guess they could if their labor costs were as cheap as China's, so hey, let's abolish benefits and the minimum wage. Then the US can be a free market paradise!
The companies and you share the same interest. But the companies have to also take your interest to heart, when a business angers consumers or does not satisfies them then it fails and goes bankrupt. Of course massive regulations make it impossible to star a manufacturing business in America forcing entrepreneurs to go over seas. Now I agree with you that the U.S and even European markets have been flooded with cheap Chinese products many of which has low quality. But their is a price to be payed for this. Did you know that the average Chinese workers lives on a govt minimum wage of about 3-5 dollars a day? heir wages can't increase. Let's say your a Chinese worker manufacturing plasma T.V sets. It takes scarce resources to build those T.V's in all lets say you require $1500 to build/assemble and gather the proper precious metals needed to build the set. Now you have to sell it off into the market for a profit. That means about $2000. But instead you sell it for about $1450, that is a loss. And exactly what is going on in China. So why bother selling high quality goods if your not going to. It's a result of govt mis-allocations of resources, think of the countless nameless ghost cities sitting across China, that's a city bubble as opposed o a housing or property bubble. H.C is a resource as well.
I agree. Lets abolish M.W and benefits. China and the U.S are on M.W's. Minimum wage is a generous govt proposal meat to alleviate poverty, but instead has the opposite effect. M.W discourages competition amongst workers and innovation. It also forces business owners to pay the some of the less productive workers and earning that is not deserved. M.W also causes unemployment and poverty because then they must pay a forced amount to all workers or more. This hurts the backbones of all nations, the "mom and pops business". Forcing them to layoff/fire workers in order to maintain the business. It gets even worse when the M.W is raised. In a free market no business owner will pay below living standards, because then no employee would want to be hired by such an employer. This means bankruptcy and failure of a bad business and a and business owner. Wages and benefits should instead be discussed and jointly agreed upon under a private contract between employer and employee. http://mises.org/daily/2130
Smorkian
You miss the greater point - POOR PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD $130-150. THEY ARE POOR.
Yes, it's that durn government sending jobs overseas, not the insanely low cost of labor! After all, why should Ford pay Americans to build trucks when Mexicans can make less than a waiter in the US and do the same thing. Or how about Foxconn in China - workers benefit so much from employment there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#Controversies
You know who isn't subject to minimum wages in the first world? Illegal laborers. How are their wages and working conditions? Crap, and crap. At least your Wal Mart job gives you enough to pay rent and buy food without living 10 to an apartment. Why? There's a minimum wage.
Unless they need a JOB. Again, you don't have a very firm grasp on what it means to be POOR. Educated people with marketable skills can follow this logic. That's not everybody by a long shot. Some will have to take any job they can get to put food on the table. You know, like it was before minimum wages existed. Have you even read labor history, or looked at what a "Free Market Paradise" the US was before all this regulation and labor protection existed? Widespread worker exploitation including workplace death (but wait! OSHA is regulation and must be abolished, after all companies are inherently good and would never put their precious workers in harm's way. Except in the entirety of history without labor protections, that is.)
Again, you have missed the point. The US used to have less regulation, no minimum wage, no social programs. And you know what? It sucked. People lived shorter, poorer lives then. WHY would you want to go back to those days? It's lunacy.
AerosX
Even the poorest of Americans can afford ipods periods. The only exceptions are the homeless. Anyone with even a M.W can afford an ipod. Everyone you see that is living on the brink making ends meet has a iphone and ipod. Or even a labtop/P.C with internet.
Govt does not send jobs over seas. Private individuals do. There are about 500 million Chinese on a fixed M.W of about 2-5 U.S.D a day. There about about 60 million making about 40k-44k, those that do all happen to live on the very coast of China, not a good representation of the nation as a whole. About another 100-200 million making about 1k. And many that are unemployed.
Then again, they are illegal. They also seem content on what little they are making and also including they are not given income tax without SS which means more saved up for them. Then again, they do get generous benefits via govt programs, which is only and incentive for more to arrive illegally, that is certainly govt "compassion". Again, no business owner not even walmart in a free market would pay below living standards at the risk of mass exodus by laborers which means bankruptcy.
Those less regulation are what heavily tackled poverty, improved living standards and worker conditions. http://mises.org/daily/1590/Markets-Not-Unions-Gave-us-Leisure Of course people i those days lived a much shorter life span then we do today, but you know what? people in those days also had a much longer life span then people before that. The free market is what allowed this to happen via innovations and tech advancement. Such as mass production of food with radiation and the assembly line. 50 years from now and people will look back and say that we "lived" short life spans. Also, did you know that Upton Sinclair was mostly wrong about everything? and the regulation he wanted were turned against the intentions he wanted. http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7229