If Obama loses Bob Herbert...

Was Herbert is a coma for the whole federal stimulus debate? What more does he reasonably think Obama could have gotten out of Congress? And frankly, deficits are what you worry about in good times, not when you're just starting to crawl out of a near depression and a global financial meltdown.

Mike

Mr. Dreher quotes one B. Herbert, @ 2:32 PM, as follows:

"The widespread feeling among people I've talked to over the past few weeks is that the only ones benefiting from deficits being driven to the moon are the big banks and Wall Street. Folks are not opposed to a health care overhaul, but they're understandably wary. They fear it will drive the deficits higher and they're not sure that this big, complicated, very difficult to understand system is the best thing for their families. There is genuine worry about what might happen if the new system -- whatever its final contours -- turns out to be unaffordable."

It's less a fear of the uncertainty of what may happen than a dawning realization of the following:

A) the political and economic elites really DON'T know what they're doing;

B) said elites don't really give a flying hoot about the long-term consequences of their actions, and

C) the average commoner has absolutely NO WAY of influencing any part of the elites' decision-making process.

This is why voter turnout has been slipping for years. The average commoner is coming to realize that, politically speaking, he can't win, he can't break even, and (thanks to taxes and widespread regulation) he can't even get out of the game.

In psychological terms, this is called "learned helplessness".

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Lord Karth: In psychological terms, this is called "learned helplessness".

But what happens when the next stage is reached: explosive, volatile rage when the commoners come to realize that they don't have any stake in, nor owe any loyaly to, the political system as currently constituted?

Things could get very ugly.

I understand where Herbert is coming from. But when IS a good time to tackle our monstrously large and inefficient healthcare system? This topic has been tabled, for the most part, going on 60 years. Costs are skyrocketing, too many people are uninsured (which raised premiums for everyone), and the quality of care is mixed at best. Health reform, coupled with information technology funding earmarked in the stimulus, is our best chance to reduce costs, raise quality and help the real health customer, the patient/consumer, become a more proactive decision-maker in their own health decisions. (In today’s system, the provider/hospital is the true customer, not the patient.) I firmly believe that kicking this problem down the road for another eight or 12 years is only going to make for an even more “big, complicated, very difficult to understand” crisis. Should citizens be wary of the pending legislation? Of course they should! It’s their job as citizens to ask tough questions and demand tangible results! It’s unfortunate that Republicans and conservatives are so bereft of ideas and legitimacy; we could really use constructive opposition to craft a better bill for all Americans.

Except that voter turnout in the last 2 presidential elections was the highest since the 1960s, the highest since 18 year-olds got the franchise.

But I concur that Obama's problem is not that he's been a Socialist, but that he appears to let Reid and Pelosi dither and to accommodate Wall Street.

My father, a rock-ribbed Republican for his whole life, just told me today that he wrote a letter to Obama asking to get the Democrats to adopt a public option under budget reconciliation terms (that is, by simple majority vote, not filibusterable). He feels that's what the country elected the Democrats to do, and they should do it, and to hell with being overly concerned with the nay-sayers.

I was floored.

*Voters are being told that the recession is over, but what they see in their daily lives are continuing job losses, an epidemic of foreclosures, families going bankrupt, homelessness rising and so on.*

Yes...and this is different from the past umpteen recessions how? Other than the scope of this one, and the number of people affected, we should be used to being told the recession is over LONG before jobs start turning around.

Maybe the writer is too young to recall the recessions that happened earlier in our history (the mid-70s, early 80s, and early 90s come to mind), but in each case we were given the good news that the recession was over quite a few months before businesses started hiring again. If you will note from the announcements this morning, the starting date of the recession is set well before many people began feeling a serious pinch. Jobs are a trailing indicator in these instances.

*“That’s the point”, the trainer said. As long as she can’t get her feet properly under her—as long as she is preoccupied with simply keeping upright on her stool—she can’t try to eat me.”*

Lord Karth, from my read of history this would seem to describe the state of the "commoner" for the past 100+ years, perhaps even since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Our economy is successful only as those on top keep those on the bottom poor, tired, desperate, and distracted.

But given the general laziness of the boomer generation, I seriously doubt that the critical mass of anger will be reached to generate the energy sufficient for this ADHD generation to actually act in a focused, sustained manner.

hlvanburen @ 4:37 PM writes:

"[F]rom my read of history this would seem to describe the state of the "commoner" for the past 100+ years, perhaps even since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Our economy is successful only as those on top keep those on the bottom poor, tired, desperate, and distracted."

This explains much about current levels of (all sorts of) taxes, modern corporate work practices and modern advertising. Not to mention reality television.

I am reminded of this passage, from one of my favorite novels (Theodore Judson’s "Fitzpatrick’s War"):

“As I was saying, on this unnamed island we have the complete archives of the Electronic Era. As you may suspect, General Bruce, those times were not as terrible as we paint them. Oh, there were those alive then who thought they were living in the worst portion of History. Everyone in every era thinks that.....

Although there were unhealthy trends before 2057, Sir Robert. Trends that had to be corrected. There were machines that made some people superfluous. Other machines that could kill people on their own initiative. People were sentimental, as we are today. But back then they had become disconnected from the sources of their sentiments. I mean their traditions, their beliefs. They were losing themselves, really. The small, particular things and places were all going away, all becoming part of an homogenized whole. Every city was the same city. Every man the same man. So the Timermen first built the pulse weapons, then the Storm Machines and the Blinking Stars, and we put an end to those trends. Nor can we allow the Yukons to devolve back to a condition similar to that prevailing during electronic times. If we had let you be born into an electronic world you, Sir Robert, would be an humbled nonentity doing meaningless work in an office containing 100 other drudges doing similarly meaningless labor. You would be pushed around in small ways by everyone in authority, married to a man-hating shrew, afraid of being attacked on the streets, and insulted by everything you saw, read or heard. Instead, look at you: a Double Knight, a hero, the lover of a woman who adores you, an actor in an epic chapter of History. You are Sir Brigadier General Robert Mayfair Bruce, and not a frightened, harassed nobody. Be happy in the life we have given you, sir, and fare well in this heroic world.”

It almost makes one want to live in General Bruce’s world. Almost, that is.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

P.S. If you don’t get the references, then read the book, silly ! It will prove very much worth your time.

"It's about time President Hope pulled his thumb out of his butt and helped create some jobs."

But, Crustacean, I thought the conservative mantra was that government could not create jobs? I thought that the conservative mantra was that the market created jobs...you know, entrepreneurs, investment, all that rot?

What happened? Did you lose faith in the holy of holies, the "free" market?

"rather than making the bread-and-butter issues of the American family their top domestic priority, have focused on reforming the health care"

Herbert is not making sense. Obama made it his number one issue in the campaign. After employment it is probably the most important issue for Obama's coalition. I agree that Obama and Bush have been too generous to wall street. If he fails to pass a health care bill after supporting the wall street bailouts his presidency will be judged a failure.

What does he expect Obama to do about unemployment-give everyone a government job?

Exactly what would Herbert have Obama do instead?

I'm sorry, but health care reform is nothing if not looking out for the little guy. As for not enough changing fast enough, well, it never does, eh?

*And that hurts even more -- and the hurt will get worse and worse until President Hope changes course or until we change course by changing Presidents to one who gives more cause for hope than President Hope has done so far.*

And how might that happen, Crustacean?

- Tax cuts? Been there, done that. The tax burden under Bush and Obama is lower than it was under Reagan, and yet the magic job creation did not happen for either (yet).

- Spending cuts? Cool...what should be cut? For years I have heard about cutting waste and pork from the budget, but when these deficit hawks are pressed for details they usually have none, and certainly offer up none that affect their state/district.

- Business incentives? So we take welfare from the individual and give it to the corporation? Do we put restrictions on this like we do with the individuals? Do we require these businesses that get incentives to actually use the money to create decent paying jobs here in the US? Do we tax the hades out of them when they decided that we are good enough to sell to but not good enough to work for them?

Conservatives, Republicans, Club of Growthers...whatever hat you choose to wear today...these folks are very good at admiring the problem. The trouble is that they offer little if anything in the way of solid solutions, or even cogent plans that might turn into a solution.

You got anything up your sleeve. Crustacean?

hlvanburen,

I don't need anything up my sleeve to know that President Hope has his thumb up his butt.

PS: "Conservative" is a hat I sometimes wear, as is "progressive." "Republican" and "Club for Growth" are hats I've never worn -- not even once. Sorry "harsh" your "buzz" by making you think.

Obama and his communist brethren are honk-bent on driving America into the ground. With HUGE new spending programs like this so-called "health care makeover" to run up even bigger deficits than the gargantuan ones already happening, the U.S. demise is being accelerated.