Last November, the country elected Barack Obama, the first African American President of the United States. His election victory was won mainly on his promise of change, and the nation was more than ready for that change, particularly after eight years of George W. Bush and all that it meant: incompetence at the highest levels of government, unprecedented government spending which wiped out the budget surplus left over from the Clinton administration, an imperial presidency (or vice presidency), assaults on civil liberty and wanton abuse of power. The collective euphoria, both here at home and abroad, could only have been the result of the relief felt by those who saw the end of the Bush presidency as the beginning of a new era which would usher in that change in all its ramifications. Mostly, the change would reassert America’s ideals and its standing as the bastion of freedom and democracy. The expectations of Americans and the rest of the world for the Obama era were as high as the euphoria over his electoral victory.
It is now a little over six months into the Obama presidency and there are signs of an ebbing of the euphoria and enthusiasm that followed his election as the Commander-in-Chief. One can argue that this was not entirely unexpected, given the enormity of the problems he inherited from the Bush administration. At the top of the list of the problems was the economy. America was on the brink of economic disaster, comparable to that of the Depression era. The widespread bank failures, the crash of the housing market, AIG near collapse and the intervention by the government to bail out Wall Street with taxpayer money combined to present an unprecedented challenge to the new Obama administration. Compounding these were the protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and yes, Pakistan too. The jury is still out on how well the president is handling these enormous and formidable problems, despite recent polls that indicate a decline in his job approval rating, particularly over the recent added problem of health care reform. His personal popularity, however, is scarcely diminished.
What is now clear is that the change promised by Obama during the campaign is proving to be easier said than done (or delivered). The president is clearly the object of attacks from all quarters, particularly from the GOP and the vociferous right wing faction of the party. Some of these attacks, granted, were evident during the campaign but have intensified lately amidst the president’s struggle to get his legislative agenda to pass through Congress. He is accused of trying to achieve too much at once, of plunging the nation further into debt with his unfettered spending (mostly from the Wall Street and auto industry bailouts). His attempt to reform health care is being assailed by special interest groups from the insurance industry and big pharma, whose proxies in Congress are working surreptitiously and sometimes not so subtly to thwart his efforts. The cruel irony is that some of these industry proxies are from the president’s own party. The attacks on the president have also turned personal, ranging from those who question his legitimacy as a citizen of the US to those who accuse him of being a socialist, a Muslim and an enemy of the American tradition of free enterprise.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Baronius
"Clearly, there are those who would prefer the status quo or worse; a return to the era of white domination"
Really? Is that clearly true? You might want to back that up with evidence and names.
2 - Dan
Interestingly, I find the philosophical foundations of "Ecape from Freedom" and "Shock Doctrine" to be at odds.
In "Escape" the author describes how the fear of the demands and responsibilities of individual freedom most often lead people to conformist thinking and a desire for authoritarianism.
The author of "Shock" seems to fall into this category in that she blames societal failures on free markets. Such as the failure of post apartheid South Africa to live up to expectations.
Historically, it seems evident that free market capitalism has been such a constant force for economic prosperity to all class strata that it is hard for me to relate to terms Naomi Klein uses, like "imposing free market capitalism".
Clearly though, as you say, this is the "core of the cultural, political and ideological split we are witnessing today."
As witnessed by the last election, many Americans seem to court authoritarianism. This seems alien to traditional Americans. Many who predicted that changing demographics would alter the national character but were told that diverse people were a strength, and they aspired to assimilate to the free market capitalism that worked so well for previous generations.
3 - zingzing
baronius: i think the point is that you DID like it better when a white man ran the game. you're unhappy now, and there's a black guy running it. i don't think you prefer the white man over the black, but you certainly don't like the way the black man is running it, do you? one's got nothing to do with the other, but there's a truth in it.
dan: "As witnessed by the last election, many Americans seem to court authoritarianism. This seems alien to traditional Americans."
where's the authoritarianism? you going to jail? your taxes go up? what's a traditional american? you? (of course.)
"Many who predicted that changing demographics would alter the national character but were told that diverse people were a strength, and they aspired to assimilate to the free market capitalism that worked so well for previous generations."
what does that mean? it kinda trails off without a point. looks kinda like you don't like the fact that this nation isn't as white anymore. i could be wrong. really. explain.
4 - Clavos
...you certainly don't like the way the black man is running it...
Which statement, in and of itself doesn't mean that he doesn't like it because he's a black man (which, btw, he isn't -- I'm neither Irish nor Swedish, I'm half of each, much as I hate to admit to either.)
You libs are so pissed that libertarians and conservatives don't like what your guy is doing, that you're all trying to pin the dislike on racial motives.
I have no problem whatever with his being black -- I greatly admire Thomas Sowell, he's a conservative/libertarian like me; what bothers me about Obama is he's a liberal democrat, not his "blackness."
It's not racial with most folks, zing, and it's a specious tactic to try to make it about race.
5 - zingzing
"Which statement, in and of itself doesn't mean that he doesn't like it because he's a black man"
read the rest of what i said before you hurt yourself.
"You libs are so pissed that libertarians and conservatives don't like what your guy is doing, that you're all trying to pin the dislike on racial motives."
which i BLATANTLY DIDN'T...
"It's not racial with most folks, zing, and it's a specious tactic to try to make it about race."
and i didn't.
i just said the following, if you care to ACTUALLY READ WHAT IS WRITTEN: "i don't think you prefer the white man over the black, but you certainly don't like the way the black man is running it, do you? one's got nothing to do with the other, but there's a truth in it."
see that?
i was running it from the angle that baronius doesn't like IT the way IT's being run, and IT is not being run by a white man, IT is being run by a black man. and now he don't like it. has nothing to do with his race, just the fact that he (looks) black and he's running it, and baronius doesn't like it. i was very careful to point out that baronius probably doesn't prefer it one way or another when it comes to color, because i know him better, but the fact is that we do have a black president. even if he's not black.
so people can get away with saying "it's not because he's black!" and i know that both you and baronius are honest when you say that. you don't like his policies. i know that.
but there are some out there who don't like his policies and don't like his skin.
and there are some out there who plainly don't like his skin.
and there are some out there who plainly don't like his name.
and don't deny it.
6 - zingzing
and then dan went and proved my point, i think. i can't tell because he can't write a sentence properly. but you, clavos--grammar queen--didn't point it out.
it's been a while since i've been here. maybe i missed out on your resignation of that crown.
i swear there's another phrase that has to be added to his sentence for it to make sense. comma splice or something. it's fucked.
7 - zingzing
and yeah, i missed a "'s" in there. so don't start up again, ms. queen.
8 - Clavos
but you, clavos--grammar queen--didn't point it out.
Heh. when I do, everyone jumps on me. When I don't -- I still get jumped on.
Gringos...
9 - zingzing
i'm white! you hate me! xoxo, i love you more than you love me, i love YOU more than YOU LOVE ME...
10 - zingzing
the capital letters are where neil tennant comes in.
if you don't get the reference, you weren't there, in england, in 1989.
not that i was.
11 - Dan
"where's the authoritarianism? you going to jail? your taxes go up? what's a traditional american? you? (of course.)"--zing
Why would my going to jail represent authoritarianism to you? I'm specifically speaking of government control and regulation of previously private sector enterprises. Yes I'm a traditional American.
"what does that mean? it kinda trails off without a point. looks kinda like you don't like the fact that this nation isn't as white anymore. i could be wrong. really. explain."
Simply stated, (as before) many non-white people did not assimilate to a preference for a free market capitalist system. It was promised by politicians that diversity would be a strength, and would not compromise the fundamental character of the Country. One fundamental character of the Country was a successful free market capitalist system. Diversity has not been a strength, and the free market capitalist source of Americas wealth is being scrapped because of the changing voter demographic that helped elect Obama.
12 - zingzing
so you don't like minorities coming into the american voter block? good for you!
and authoritarianism to me means that you can't say what you want. so, you say what you want, obviously, and you aren't taken away. therefore, i don't see authoritarianism yet. maybe you're too small yet. i'd bet that's the case. yep.
you represent all that is left behind (oooh) in america at this point. if that's "traditional," i want it gone. the real tradition of america is inclusiveness and freedom to be who you want to be, not "i'm american if i can make money and the gov'ment won't tax me."
grow old with us. we're in our growing pains, and it might hurt, but you'll walk again.
13 - Baronius
"one's got nothing to do with the other, but there's a truth in it"
Quoted for Gibberish
14 - zingzing
that's what i'm here for.
15 - STM
Bailouts. You do understyand that the recovery has started and ther only reason it has is that the Obama administration - like every other major western government - pumped in truckloads of money to ensure we didn't have a repeat of the Great Depression, when nothing was done.
If Americans are becoming disillusioned with Obama over that, they don't know shit from clay. If they want to be disillusioned, it should be with the deregulated Wall Street shysters who did whatever they needed to do to line their own pockets in what amounted to a giant, corporate ponzi game.
Obama inherited the problem.
Down here in Oz, there are still tough times but we are starting to come out of it. The economy grew slightly last month and there are positive signs.
Except it wouldn't have happened had the government here not guaranteed savings, bailed out various institutions left, right and centre and launched a number of multi-billion stimulus packages aimed at getting Australians spending and keeping people in jobs.
I'm sure the situation is the US is identical.
Don't make the mistake of pointing the finger at governments, unless you are going to point the finger at previous US administrations' belief in near-total total deregulation in an industry that needs more regulation than most.
The tsunami has an epicentre: Wall St, New York, and their mates in the City of London.
Credit where credit's due, please. Pun intended.
16 - Dan
If banks were not forced to make housing loans to unqualified people, the credit crisis would never have happened, and we would still be enjoying the 2.5% average economic growth throughout the Bush term.
Few people understand this, and that's by design. Easy credit was a result of Government regulation intervention.
"you represent all that is left behind (oooh) in america at this point. if that's "traditional," i want it gone. the real tradition of america is inclusiveness and freedom to be who you want to be, not "i'm american if i can make money and the gov'ment won't tax me.""---zing
If I decipher you correctly, "freedom to be who you want to be" is not inclusive to traditional americans that want to make money without excessive taxation.
I'd prefer to be left behind.
17 - STM
Dan: "If banks were not forced to make housing loans to unqualified people, the credit crisis would never have happened."
Sorry, with respect: That's ridiculous. They were partly behind the drive to sell more credit derivatives that had parcelled up tranches that included sub-prime loans.
The more mortgages the mortgage brokers sold, the more the banks made and the more credit derivatives the shysters and fast talkers on Wall St were able to sell, which created ever more demand for more mortgages.
It was all about a select few making money at the expense of the rest of us, with little thought of the consequences should it all turn pear-shaped: the consequence turned out to be toxic debt that almost - almost - brought the global financial system to a grinding halt.
What they had invented on Wall St: shonky debt packaged up as safe investment, all sprinkled in magic golden fairy dust, and in this case predicated on the idea that housing prices in the US would never fall.
The banks in the US (and in Britain, and much of Europe) were at the very least complicit in this process. That's why you've all had similar problems, especially the US and UK.
And Iceland's crisis is a classic example of what happens when there is no prudential regulation.
We were spared the worst of it in Australia compared to much of the western world precisely because sensible regulations applied to the banking and finance sector.
When everything went arse-over-tit up there, at least the banks here didn't need huge bailouts and managed to a) keep operating, b) keep lending and c) keep their good credit ratings.
Those regulations (APRA) were introduced by a conservative government, too. Very smart, even if I didn't agree with their black-shirt politics.
If America had regulated to stop the worst of the financial-sector excesses, you wouldn't be in the knee-deep sh.t you're in at the moment.
And it has nothing to do with Obama.
Like I say, anyone who doesn't know that doesn't know sh.t from clay.
18 - Dave Nalle
Except it wouldn't have happened had the government here not guaranteed savings, bailed out various institutions left, right and centre and launched a number of multi-billion stimulus packages aimed at getting Australians spending and keeping people in jobs.
I'm sure the situation is the US is identical.
Hardly. I'll read up on what Australia has done for stimulus, but the Obama stimulus has not been directed at productive programs that help people out and create jobs and most of the money has not even been put into play yet. If there is some recovery in the near future it has nothing to do with the stimulus because for all intents and purposes the vast majority of stimulus will not hit for 2 more years.
Dave
19 - hsr0601
The 'innovative' idea of a 'pay for value / outcome' pack came after the CBO had previously pointed out this health care reform wouldn't work without 'fundamental' change in the out of date system. It is said that as much as 30 percent of all health-care spending in the U.S. -some $700 billion a year- may be wasted on tests and treatments that do not improve the health of the recipients, and this 700 billion dollars a year can cover a lot of uninsured people.
The expected Benefits of this 'innovative idea' are as follows ;
1. Meet the objective of revenue-neutral.
Supporters of the agreement say it could save the Medicare System more than $100 billion a year and 'improve'
care, that means more than $1trillian over next decade, and virtually needs no other resources including tax on the
wealthiest. Supposedly even the 'conservative' number of such savings might be able to meet the objective of
revenue-neutral.
2. Quality and affordability.
If you are a physician, and your pay is dependant upon your patient's outcome, you will most likely strive to
prescribe the best medicine earlier in the process, let alone skipping the wasteful, unnecessary treatments.
3. No intervention in decision-making.
The innovative idea of 'a pay for outcome' will more likely prompt team approach and decision, as at Myo clinic.
Under the 'pay for outcome' pack, for good reason, best practices as 'recommendations' would simply help them
make a better decision, and the government won't still have to meddle in the final, actual decision-making
process as a non-expert.
4. Speed up the introduction of IT SYSTEM.
The pay for 'Outcome' pack is most likely to expedite the introduction of Health Care IT SYSTEM.
The synergy effect of the combined Health Care IT & a pay for 'outcome' system may allow the clinicians to
'correctly' diagnose and effectively treat a patient earlier in the process so that it can measurably scale back the
crushing lawsuits and deter the excuse for unnecessary cares to make fortunes.
5. Accelerate the progress in medical science, in return, it saves more cash.
6. Settle the regional disparity.
7. Reduce the emergency room visits & save immense costs.
Public health insurance plans such as Medicare and Medicaid paid for more than 40 percent of U.S. emergency
room visits in 2006, according to government figures released recently. Many experts say reducing these hospital
visits would be an important way to lower the enormous, and growing, expense of U.S. health care.
I share the opinion that unlike the insurer-friendly senate plan by 'some' members, only a strong public option will be capable of getting the premium inflation under control and saving the U.S in turbulence.
To my knowledge, a dual system tends to deliver better results than a pure single payer system. Supposedly, to be or not to be might be up to the innovations like a pay for value program, otherwise, the forthcoming start-ups may fill the void with competitive deals. The competition based on 'fair' market value would be a beauty of true capitalism, not monopoly, an objective for anti-trust.
Thank You !
20 - Bliffle
Dan says:
"If banks were not forced to make housing loans to unqualified people, the credit crisis would never have happened, and we would still be enjoying the 2.5% average economic growth throughout the Bush term."
Who 'forced' banks to make bad loans?
The actual 'average economic growth' was mare like 1.5%, and most of that due to increased productivity.
But that was swamped out by a 50% decrease in the value of the dollar and $4.5trillion increase in national debt.
21 - Ruvy
The attacks on the president have also turned personal, ranging from those who question his legitimacy as a citizen of the US
That is not a personal attack at all. The faker who occupies the oval office has refused to produced a long form birth certificate (his opponent did) to demonstrate he is a natural born citizen of your country.
Instead he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to prevent such release, and acts like a man with something to hide. Even those of us who wanted to see him elected (like me) can smell a rat.
I you Americans accept this faker without demanding proof and being outraged at his refusal to provide it, you may as well burn your constitution and bow to any warlord who seizes power in your land.
And this is what you will wind up doing.
22 - roger nowosielski
Ruvy,
All I am saying - if this is an issue, it should be the issue prior to elections.
23 - Doug Hunter
"Who 'forced' banks to make bad loans?"
HUD, through the CRA.
From Wikipedia:
"The CRA is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods"
AND
"To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions."
In other words, you bank is not allowed to grow/expand/merge unless you give enough loans to low/moderate income people (who are less likely to be able to pay you back). I'm not claiming this is the sole cause of the crisis but it certainly contributed. If this is an example of how the government felt about the issue, I don't know how more of the same bad regulations would have helped.
24 - Baronius
"Even those of us who wanted to see him elected (like me) can smell a rat."
Ruvy, you wanted him elected *because* you smelled a rat.
25 - Baronius
Doug, City Journal did a great article on the subject of government-enforced bad loan practices over the past century.