Monday, August 17, 2009

Obama: That's About Enough

In which I rant about the things that are pissing me off about this administration.

Last year, I spent a great deal of time cheering for Obama, supporting him in my blog, and celebrating joyously after his election.

Now maybe it's because when the last Democratic president was elected I was too busy getting stoned and chasing tail in college to give much a shit about politics other than "Yay Clinton!" *gurgling bong noise*, or maybe it's because I own my own business and keep a tight watch on money, but as of today I'm disillusioned by Obama. I'm done; that's enough.

I'm not turning Republican (what kind of monster do you think me?), and while I float in the direction, am not going fully Libertarian. I'm still with the Democratic Party. For now.

Wha - happen?

Bailout
Wait. America's hurting and we're pissing money into bad-decision banks and car companies? What. The. FUCK.

Will letting them fall lose jobs? Sure. But when companies fail and other, larger companies purchase them and people move and shift and, basically, the brush has burned and the bigger trees are nurtured and some big trees fall and nurture smaller, smarter ones. And the market rebounds.

But we shit out money and many banks and car companies still failed. And they're weaker for it. As are we.

Stimulus Bill Stalls
I'm looking at Obama, checking out the stimulus bill, cheering "Hell yeah!" and really hoping for the best from all this spending. And then I see that after months maybe 10% of that money has actually gone out. Months? 10%? Is a flood of money and projects and money something to be scared about when we've been hearing that it's ALL going to help the economy?

Where's the f'ing money? Where's the f'ing stimulus?

Pelosi
Honeslty, I'm an enormous proponent of female equality. If a man can be a feminist, I'm one of them. But power apparently corrupts. And Pelosi is doing some things that are total amateur wanker shit.

There's some illogical argumentation, a request for giant planes, and the stuttering and side-stepping you don't like to see in an official leader. I don't know if it's her tone of voice or general demeanor, but she doesn't present herself as a confident leader, not like Hillary does, not like Michelle does.

Cash for Clunkers
A cash incentive program to get people to buy cars with better GPM? Excellent! But we're going to destroy the car they're trading in? Retarded. For parts, for donation, for ...anything! If the program were really about going green, someone with a brain in the administration would've spoken up and said "Um, hey, since the carbon footprint of the car that's already been manufactured cannot be un-done, perhaps the best thing is for someone to get viable use out of the vehicle. Y'know? Like recycle, reuse, and all that other crap we keep saying?"

flag@whitehouse.gov
We just got out of an administration that lived and breathed big brother contempt for privacy. And you decided it would be a good idea to start up a snitch email where people can forward "fishy" information. That's fishy, shady, and stupid.

Single-Payer
One of the biggest parts of the '08 election, for me, was my support of Dennis Kucinich. His support for a not-for-profit medical program that overrided the madness of insurance companies - that are rationing NOW and operating as "death panels" NOW and preventing people from getting coverage that will save their lives NOW.

And today I read that The White House is positioning to drop single payer option.

So Obama and friends: I am well aware that you state that single payer is only a part of the health care reform plan. Unfortunately, insurance companies are most of the problem. If there is no public option and you pass a bill to just pass a bill, you will achieve NOTHING for the American people. You will shimmy just a little bit, just enough to make it look like things changed, but you'll still be wearing the girdle of the insurance companies, and you will be no better - actually, worse - than the Republicans lining their pockets with insurance company money.

America wants prescription drug costs bargained down. America wants a not-for-profit health care system. Call Dennis. Do lunch. He'll explain the way it needs to be.


And before my generally liberal readers have any negative feedback to pass along, I'd like to say that I post because I care. I know this is not the best the administration can do. I know that they know better. I think all of us who brought him to the Oval Office need to remind them all what their best is, and that before a general election in '12 there will be a Democratic Party primary.

4 comments:

Randal Graves said...

Sadly, none of this is surprising.

Martin said...

Ricky,

Bailouts – I don’t think I understand the intricacies. In general, I’m not happy with bailing out the car companies. I agree with letting free market pressures do what they will. If we can’t build competitive cars, let’s not do it. The one issue that lingers as a doubt is the connection between a robust auto industry and supplying our military with vehicles. Perhaps that’s passé, but a big issue in WWII was our ability to build a lot of vehicles. I do worry about having the auto industry go the way of the steel industry.

As for bailing out the banks – it all seems so comical, if it were just somebody else’s money. But, again, I don’t think I understand the connections between banks and loan rates and house ownership and consumer spending and joblessness and economic recovery. Of course, it’s not clear that anyone does.

[One thought I have had in this direction is: We have spent the last three decades or so buying a lot of useless shit (a new cell phone, another car, DVD players, bigger-screen TV’s, yada, yada.) And, it has been largely financed by phony debt. The phony debt jig is up and we stopped buying useless shit. That has repercussions for people whose livelihood depended on supplying it to us. But, if my premise is right (that the stuff is useless), then we really shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. So what to do? In my nice little world, we wouldn’t have 20% unemployment; rather everyone would be working 20% less and enjoying 20% more. And it wouldn’t make much difference in the long run, because we wouldn’t need the 20% more money to buy useless crap.]

I agree with your stance on Pelosi - she is doing us no favors it seems. Her excuses and explanations raise more questions than they answer. Besides, it looks foolish.

I don't think I understand your comment about the "single-payer option". Do you mean "public option"? I thought that “single-payer” means “government replacing private insurers”. Do I have that wrong?

Nonetheless, I was disheartened with the talk about dropping the public option from the proposals. The point is to reintroduce competition into the insurance industry, yes? Without that, the insurance companies go right on excluding anyone they can while raising their rates.

flag@whitehouse.gov – I’m not so wound up about this. It was tone-deaf, but it doesn’t seem to me to be a privacy issue. If someone sends me an email (particularly a forwarded email), I don’t have any compunction about forwarding it on to someone else (unless the sender identified it as private.) I don’t see the expectation of privacy.

And maybe you should add “sweetheart deals with Big Pharma” to your list.
Martin

Ricky Shambles said...

Martin,
Excellent points. Thanks for commenting!

As far as single-payer and public option, it's kind of the same thing - they're both options, both run by the government, and neither would wipe out the insurance companies but provide some actual competition in the insurance industry as opposed to the malicious collusion that currently exists. Nothing right now is proposing government takeover as far as I can tell.

And 100% agreed about the Big Pharma bit. It's sickening to see Obama directly put down one of the most cost-saving pieces of what many people consider positive reform: negotiating with Pharma for lower pricing. Boo.

Martin said...

Upon reflection, I probably over-interpreted the deals with Big Pharma. We don't know what was promised - maybe it is limited or no price negotiation, maybe not. The point is more that we don't know. But, the drug companies are certainly helping out the cause, and it is unlikely they would do it so wholeheartedly without a quid pro quo. A little more transparency, please.