Tweet
In a New Republic article entitled “Obama’s Requiem for the Postwar Consensus,” Jonathan Cohn writes:
There is no Red America and there is no Blue America. Remember the first time you heard Barack Obama say that? I do. It was July, 2004, during the Democratic National Convention, when the young, skinny state senator from Illinois propelled himself into national politics.
The speech was a harbinger. Finding common ground was a recurring theme of Obama’s 2008 campaign and, arguably, of his first two years in office, although it rarely turned out as the new president hoped. Over and over again, he tried to compromise with Republicans—on the stimulus, on health care reform, and on deficit reduction—only to have Republicans walk away. (My colleague Noam Scheiber’s book, The Escape Artists, has plenty more on that, if you haven’t read it already.)
I thought about that 2004 speech twice this week, first when Obama criticized the Supreme Court and later when he criticized the proposed budget of Republican Congressman Paul Ryan. [....]
Where has Cohn been living. The “post war” consensus died 32 years ago with the election of Obama’s hero Ronald Reagan, whose announced goal was to repeal the New Deal and the Great Society. Until the inauguration of Barack Obama, liberals fought to save Social Security and Medicare, but four days before he took office Obama announced that he wanted to make “entitlement reform” a hallmark of his presidency, i.e., a new consensus has been achieved, the Obama Consensus.
But, Obama has the problem of getting re-elected and that won’t happen if he is seen as the president who ended these popular programs. He has to get the Republicans to accept the blame, and even if they agree to, he probably can’t get re-elected if he participates in such a deal this year.
But, once he is re-elected, his major agenda will be to go into the history books as the president who got entitlements under control. By contrast, if Romney gets elected, he would have re-election concerns and would be less bold about gutting the social safety net — also, the Democrats might then find leadership that would stop this gut-the-entitlements consensus and fight back.
Last week, Obama accused the Ryan budget of being “a Trojan horse.” IMHO, there is only one Trojan horse in Washington D.C. and that’s Obama himself.
62 Comments
So of course you support us not only voting for the Green Party, but actively working to build it?
Oddly enough, a liberal/progressive pushback might begin with the defeat of President Obama.
Many variables to consider; however, a second term for Obama could spell disaster with the final execution of hope and change (with austerity, deficit reduction, ‘entitlement reform,’ expanded national security state and military actions abroad, etc.)
Could things actually look up a bit if Mitt, Inc. wins? (Or are we fuct either way?)
Recommended. Obama plays clever 11-dimensional divide and rule. Criticism of the President, based on his Republican policies, is not merely valid, it is required. The old wars, the new wars, the financial fraud, the Police State controlled by secret corporations, the President has failed. Or succeeded, if his goal is to have a A New World Order Grand Bargain. And none of these, neo-con policies, are campaign issues.
The President falsely described the Teabagger Budget, claiming the Gingrich 1994, Contract on America “looks like the New Deal”. No.
The Gingrich Budget from 1994 is very much the same as the current Clown Soap Opera Budget. The President should have also mentioned the New Deal was a success. Further, the President with his Grand Bargains has destroyed much of the New Deal.
And it should be added that Ronald Reagan was one of the original Teabaggers.
Well, we’re probably fucked either way in the short term but I think we must just accept that and think about the future. The question you pose is one I’ve considered too: Whether Progressivism is better off if Obama loses to Romney. I think the answer is surely yes. As the diarist notes, Obama is a Trojan Horse Conservative and, as such, has done far more damage to Progressive causes than Romney possibly could. The Left will coalesce in opposition to President Romney while it will continue to engage in internecine, partisan-tainted conflicted if Obama wins again.
In any case, both Obama and Romney suck and the political duopoly has become effectively a single plutocratic party. So I’m voting for Jill Stein and the Greens.
Actually, there is a bipartisan consensus on the expansion of presidential power, a huge and growing military, war in the Middle East and elsewhere, and suppression of dissent at home.
@2 We’re fuct either way. Vote (or not) however you decides. Electoral politics is not going to mean much this year except for a few legislatures now controlled by the GOP that will snap back because of their overreach. Prime candidate is Wisconsin although there might be change in Michigan and Ohio.
The task for progressives and lefties is to change the frame (Dems won’t do it, so we have to take it into our own hands) and change the political culture from low-info to high-info. The Occupy movement is working on this but it is going to be a hard job to accomplish. It needs all the bodies and voices it can get in a lot of places that it has not yet reached. Time to break the bond between money and politics. Until that is done, we will continue to be fuct.
Don’t count on much pushback in Michigan. The state Democratic Party is the equivalent of the Soviet Politburo: aging, insular, inbred, and resistant to change. It has been headed by the same person for 15 years and the chances of a successful challenge are about the same as those of the Pistons winning the NBA title this year.
I’m glad you mentioned that bc I was meaning to bring it up with you in another thread. I do not agree that there is nothing to be accomplished this year through the political process. In fact, I think we are presented with a golden opportunity to achieve reform with the most precious asset we have: our votes. When Progressives abandon the DEmocratic Party in sufficient numbers the Democratic Party will have no choice but to move Left or collapse. You are correct, then, that the Democratic Party won’t do it voluntarily (largely bc they are captured by the financial elite) but when the Democratic Party stops producing sufficient votes it will be changed nonetheless. If Progressives turn away from Obama and the Democrats and vote for Progressive Third Party candidates in large enough numbers to register an impact, the Democratic Party will either mover Left or it will be replaced. Restoring the putative Progressive party, i.e., the Democrats, to their proper systemic role will be an ENORMOUS step forward. Much as I admire and respect OWS, it is unfair to burden them with changing the country alone. Moreover, there is no need for it: OWS can continue its direct action campaign at the same time we attempt to reform the political system from within by voting for Third Party Progressives in November.
Your first paragraph is on the money. Based on Obama and the Dems successes at implementing right-wing policy, I’d have to say they are the greater of the two evils.
As to who I’ll support, I haven’t made up my mind yet, but it won’t be Dem any more than it will be Repub. And that goes for any office, all the way down the line. If there’s no third-party candidate, I will write in a name.
I will also vote for Jill Stein in November.
I recently moved to California where I was able to list Green Party affiliation when I registered to vote.
Perhaps more progressives should change their voter registration affiliation to GP. I forget the percentages, but GP registration in California is very low, less than 2% if I remember correctly.
Also, note to FDL: I’d like to see more articles on the GP. You publish many articles on GOP and Dems — the GP deserves more coverage.
Namaste,
Antoine
I understand. Their rolling over for 546 pieces of “emergency legislation” says much about them.
I wish I could convince people in my own family not to keep falling into this trap of “we have to re-elect Obama because we can’t let the Republicans get in there”. They become hysterical when I say I won’t vote for Obama because he betrayed me, and they say that if Romney gets elected, it’ll be my fault, I and people who think like me. Not Obama and the Dems for betraying me, but my fault for not settling for the lesser of two evils.
We go through this every election cycle, “this is it we have to keep the Republican crazies out”. They are crazy, but voting for people who try make deals with them every chance they get is no better. The one argument the bots stand behind is, we must re-elect Obama because otherwise a Republican president would pack the Supreme Court with even more crazies. How about proposing an amendment to the Constitution that would establish term limits for federal judges including the Supreme Court? That would take away the whole lesser of two evils argument.
I assume the people you are talking to are Progressives at least to some extent. I think there is a good case to be made that Progressivism will be advanced if Obama losses. Obama and Romney are effectively equivalent on the major issues and certainly on the corporatism that is at the core of our national rot. Even if Obama wins, Progressives will get nothing just as we have during Obama’s first term. That being so, there is little to lose if Obama doesn’t win. Moreover, a Romney win will eliminate the Progressive dysfunction that has resulted from having a black Democratic President being the instrument of Conservatism. The Left is boiling with energy and will be immediately energized to challenge President Romney. Progressivism will then grow exponentially so that we can actually get a true Progressive president by 2016. In short, sometimes you must be willing to suffer a little to achieve a lot. No pain no gain. You must break a few eggs to make an omelette, etc. Use your own metaphor but the point is clear: myopic focus on immediate gratification achieves nothing for Progressives and, in fact, retards the Movement.
Recommended.
If a person is a NeoLiberal or a moderate CONservative then Pres Obama is their man. If a person is a progressive or actually cares about the working class of America then Obama does NOT deserve to be reelected.
The greatest damage of an Obama reelection will, IMHO, be a cosigning of his defining characteristic which is to advance NeoLiberal/CONservative policies while pretending to be a ‘progressive’.
IMHO this is more dangerous than letting a Rethug into the WhiteHouse because this sets us down a path (which I believe we are already on) which basically gives us a choice between Teabaglicans and just plain old Republicans or Teabaglican Lites…..with NO voice for progressives at all.
That’s why I’m voting 3rd party progressive in every race where such a candidate is available.
I absolutely agree that it is high time the FDL Front Pagers began covering the Greens. Here is an update on the Greens I posted at myFDL yesterday:
http://my.firedoglake.com/wbgonne/2012/04/06/green-party-update/
If so inclined, Rec it up so the Greens get to the Front Page indirectly at least.
I’m voting for Romney if I vote for anyone. The country is past saving and if a total collapse happens I want the racist republicans blamed in history.
I remember my first wife violating the trust I placed in her and o’s betrayal is worse in My opinion.
O is nothing if not incompetent, too young and immature.
Great post, and I agree w/ you sentiments, wbgonne.
I believe Obama is much more dangerous to progressive causes than Romney, BECAUSE he is a Democrat. I suspect the Left would respond to Romney (for merely pushing the same conservative policies as Obama) in the same way the Left responded to Scott Walker.
It would transform everyone on the Left into occupiers/protesters, and that would embolden Congressional Democrats to block anything Romney wanted to do. As of now, Congressional Democrats green-light all of Obama’s neocon/supply-side/deregulatory/civil liberties-crushing/2-tiered justice policies.
Oh and all you third party voters, if o loses be prepared to be vilified for the rest of your life for being the reason o lost by voting third party. Anderson and Stein have made a third party candidate unelectable by splitting the the protest vote, if there ever was a possibility of that.
See Nader voters.
And is you want the perfect example: Obama putting the social safety net on the chopping block. There was nary a peep of protest from the Democrats and scarcely more from what currently passes for the “American Left.” But just let Romney try it. Even with the damage Obama has already done to the Democrats’ credibility and self-respect, I believe the elected Democrats would rise to oppose President Romney’s scheme to dismantle the social safety net. Certainly, the rank-and-file Democrats would erupt. If, however, Obama wins again we can be certain that the “Grand Bargain” — sacrificing the welfare state that is the signature accomplishment of the Democratic Party in exchange for modest tax increases (that will AUTOMATICALLY kick in anyway unless Obama caves yet again) — will be Obama’s first priority. If that happens, the Democratic Party is finished and the American People are truly fucked.
I could not care less. In fact, I will be proud.
It’s too early to say that. In fact, I expect the Greens and Stein to emerge as the clear choice for a Progressive Third Party candidacy in 2012. But even if the Third Party doesn’t “win” — which it almost certainly will not — a strong showing of disapproval from Progressives will make the Democratic Party either move Left or collapse and be replaced. Works for me.
Greens in 2012!
Good post, recommended. With Romney, there is no “Crazy Republican” threat. He is a center right moderate corporatist pretending to be a hard righty, while Obama is a center-right moderate corporatist pretending to be a liberal.
Agree, we have to start building up the credibility of voters who just want to reject the duopoly. You can’t get that message fully delivered in one election, but making a start is a good thing. If we get attacked for it, we will be getting attacked by duoploy fans. Fuck ‘em. They are the problem.
I doubt most of the Left really gives a shit anymore about the talking points that Democratic partisans devise to pass blame for their losses on the ‘despised’ Left.
They can vilify us as the ‘professional left, or the ideological left’ — or whatever they want to call us, but it doesn’t change the fact that more and more Americans are increasingly classifying themselves as ‘undecideds & independents’ rather than aligning w/ either of the 2 parties, because they don’t believe the major parties represent their interests anymore.
Because Democrats have made it clear that they are incapable of solving our nation’s problems. They can pay lip-service to progressive prescriptions all they want, but their actions prove they either secretly don’t want those policies, or have no incentive or sense of urgency to actually pass them.
I would prefer to have my ideological opposites passing legislation I despise, rather than feeling taken and shafted by con-men, over and over and over again.
Well said!
I agree. Nader outlines Obama’s “Weak-kneed Regulatory Regime” and how it just cannot get the credit it rightly deserves from REPUBLICANS & the Tea Party.
You know, the more we discuss the very real problems we face persuading Democrats to rebel, the most convinced I am that Obama’s plan to cut the social safety net is the key. The American People overwhelmingly oppose efforts to cut social security, Medicare and Medicaid yet that is precisely what Obama has offered the GOP. And he stated that his offer remains on the table for the Republicans to accept, which they almost certainly will next time (we were only saved last time by the Tea Partiers who wanted to wring even more concessions from Obama). So tell your friends: Barack Obama is trying to cut Medicare, social security and Medicaid and he has formally offered to do so to the GOP.
Actually, he said that Ryan’s proposal makes Newt’s Contract on America “look like the New Deal” in comparison — that is, that Ryan is so much more extreme than 1990s-era Newt that he makes 1990s-era Newt look like FDR in comparison. Which is perfectly true.
What Obama doesn’t say is that he himself is, under the same cloak of deficit reduction that Republicans like Ryan and Gingrich wear, pushing policies that differ from Ryan’s not so much in kind, but degree.
Welcome to California. You’ll like it.
And wigwam is right: end the Obama administration asap.
For some, Nader is a convenient scapegoat and a way of avoiding looking in the mirror.
According to the San Fransisco Examiner, 12%, yes, that’s right, 12% of Florida Democrats voted for Bush (see link below). That’s over 200,000 votes. Where are the Nader-blamers over that? Getting pissy over people who voted their principles, that’s where.
Beyond that, there were other left-leaning candidates besides Nader who received enough votes to make up for the 500 plus votes Bush was ahead by in the final recount. Again, where are the Nader-blamers over that?
Setting aside the SCOTUS interference for a second, the Democrats lost because they had a lousy ticket. They have only themselves to blame.
http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html
My syntax got garbled, and there does not seem to be EDIT anywhere. Obama’s comparison was also awkward, Ryan’s Budget versus Contract on America, versus New Deal, Obama declares Ryan’s Budget much worse than Contract On America. Maybe, maybe not.
And Obama uses the Gingrich term “Contract With America” rather than the “Contract On America” that I always used implying a criminal “hit”.
But comparing Gingrich with FDR is typical double deception. What about the New Deal? What about Franklin Roosevelt. Obama cannot even say his name. Obama has an unnatural love affair with Ronald Reagan, always, explaining how great Ronbo was. The other smarty pants remark was that Ronbo Reagan could not be nominated today, being presumably too liberal.
NONSENSE. Reagan was a right wing thug, who had his own assassination squads, and mercenary armies. Reagan’s Military shot down an Iranian airliner killing hindreds. Evidence suggests this was terrorism against Iran, for revealing Iran-Contra, weapons for hostages.
I don’t mind Stein & Anderson splitting the vote. They have as much of a chance of winning as Gingrich or Paul, so in the end it doesn’t really matter.
What really matters is that votes are taken away from Democrats. In that regard, Anderson may be more of a threat than the Greens because he would be more attractive to Dems & ex-Dems.
Astute. It really doesn’t matter whether the Greens or Justice or some other Progressives get the votes. All that counts is that the Left abandon Obama Democrats and make it known through our voting why we are doing so, i.e., we want Progressives, not Republicans in Democratic Party clothing. Very good point. Of course, one might argue that it would also be helpful to launch a viable Progressive party and that, naturally, might be best served by focusing on a single vehicle. In any case, my own plan is to vote for the most viable Progressive Third Party and candidate which, right now, is the Green Party and Jill Stein.
I have to say that the dims didn’t lose because of a lousy ticket. Gore easily won the popular vote by around a million votes. The problem of losing came in three ways (perhaps someone can cite more): first there was obvious vote rigging for w in OH and some other states, there was the ‘white collar riot’ in Miami, and Gore was given, and took, very bad advice about how to call for a recount. This led to the blatantly rightwing scotus jumping in and saying that they were making a non-precedent-setting, totally disinterested decision to appoint w to the pres orifice. Of course, none of the rightwingers had a personal agenda. Was the advice to Gore to ask for a county recount mistaken or deliberate?
Yeah, and let us not forget if Gore had merely won his HOME STATE of Tennessee, then all that transpired in Florida would have been irrelevant. He would have won the election despite Bush taking Florida.
You can go back even further than that. Nader begged Gore not to run a corporatist campaign but he did it anyway (lest we forget, Joe Lieberman was Gore’s running mate). Had Gore heeded Nader, Nader wouldn’t even have run. But Gore went the corporatist route and the rest is history.
The front page of FDL is devoted to the duopoly. There seems to be a hope that continued attacking of the repugs and less than obsequious coverage of 0 and his followers will eventually bring 0 around to the correct course. Allowing alternate coverage, except by diarists on MyFDL, would weaken the thrust.
The problem with the Democratic Party is its disciples believe they are ENTITLED to all votes Left of center, despite their governing like Republicans.
They have to earn those votes. And if they do EVERYTHING possible in office to royally piss off their would-be supporters from their own ideological base, then they have ONLY themselves to blame. How can they honestly blame a third party candidate who runs on issues that resonate with voters, when Democratic politicians prove to not care about them?
Either govern as if you are actually accountable to voters, or they will turn their back on you. Pretty simple democratic concept.
Both you and wbgone are correct. I’m not trying to cover that over. I was totally underwhelmed with LIEberman, but that didn’t cut down on the popular vote in many states. The Gore ticket won the very populous states for the most part, but lost in many smaller population states which added up to too many electoral votes. The vote in TN was probably fixed for w also. I also have to agree with Somerby on the msm being heavily against Gore. I saw it at the time to some extent, but Somerby shows how pervasive it was.
0 has sent his minions after us too many times for it to be someone slipping accidentally.
Exactly.
The greatest damage of an Obama reelection will be the certain dismantling of Social Security and Medicare for future generations, thereby ensuring corporate Amerika millions of workers who will be forced to work until they die. Those who become disabled will have to find a street corner for themselves to beg at.
Start reading Dickens, Zola, and Flaubert, people. It’s about to get much uglier in what currently passes for America for the 99% of us who aren’t in the club.
Amen to that.
Once it is accepted that Teabaglicans and ‘moderate’ Rethugs speak for the U.S., it will just be a hop skip and a jump before all hell breaks loose, these people can and WILL f@K up a task as simple as boiling water.
Thank you for this post.
This has inspired me to write to MotherJones about permission to print and distribute their wonderful inequality charts. (I just emailed MJ about that.)
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
We also need simple to understand charts (or something similar) talking about social security, I think. Its solvency is not difficult to understand.
The Medicare situation is more complex, but it shouldn’t be too hard to explain.
Hear! Hear!
Also, it seems to be forgotten that the 1980s were a more liberal time, and Reagan who always had a Democratic house, and after 1986 a Dem Senate, was more circumscribed in what he could do. If he had Scott Walker’s powers or Rick Synder’s powers, you would have seen Reagan be just as extreme as either of Tea Party aficionado we have today.
-stewartm
Though I differ with the “stagnant income” for the 99 % bit. Wage incomes have actually been DECLINING, and the decline has been covered up by Reagan and Clinton monkeying around with the inflation numbers to make inflation appear less of a problem than it is (it also reduces SS payouts as well).
So MJ’s charts actually *understate* the problem.
-stewartm
I’ve always said that all the bruhahaa after 2008 about the Republican party “going the way of the Whigs” was nonsense. The Republicans are not going the way of the Whigs any more than the 1850s Democrats were.
The party which is in danger of blowing up like the 19th century Whigs is the *Democratic Party*, for the same reason–an inability to handle the great issues of the day, unable because they were trying to serve two masters which precluded taking any strong action or stand. The 1850s Whigs included northern anti-slavery types and Southern slave-owners. Today, on the issues threatening the 99 %, the 2012 Democrats include progressives and “Third-Way” corporatists. No wonder they can’t deliberately fumble away their golden opportunities for action like in 1993 and 2009.
Heck, I no longer even expect the Dems to undo any of the outrages in Wisconsin or Michigan when they take back power. There’ll be a million excuses given why they just can’t ram through the repeals just like the Repugs rammed through the outrages. Each Dem tenure makes the past Repug outrage “the new normal”.
-stewartm
I was a Nader voter. I voted FOR someone in 2000, rather than against. I am now proud of that.
Oh, the Obamabots and D-Team cheerleaders have accused me of being responsible for all of the deaths in the Iraq War, and of all of the evils Bush, Cheney & Company ever did. Like Gore would have been SOOOO much BETTTTER!
Maybe Gore would not have invaded Iraq. But Al Gore was a founding member of the Democratic Leadership Council.
‘Nuff said. Piss off, D-Team cheerleaders. Politics is not a sport. It’s life and death.
And the lesser of two evils is still, by definition, evil.
Third Way=Fascist.
‘Getting entitlements under control’ sounds like a good thing, not a bad thing. Are we conceding that Social Security and Medicare are ‘out of control’? Is the frame ‘entitlements’ (with or without the quote marks that the brain ignores) the one we want to use for Social Security and Medicare?
Just try running on the ‘Destroy Social Security’ platform and see how many votes you get before you are skewered with a pitch fork. But if you promise to get entitlements under control, you may get somewhere
Obama’s favorite euphemism for gutting SS and Medicare is “strengthening” them.
Speaking as one who was politically ignorant in 2000, I would have voted for Al Gore. Except, he kept Ralph Nader out of the debates, and ignorant as I was, I knew that was wrong. That was wrong, wrong, wrong. I voted for Mr. Nader, and that is the one vote I am proud of and will always be proud of.
I will vote third party this time around, probably Jill Stein. I want to be proud of my vote again.
And, wbgonne, your point that Obama will not have to worry about mollifying his ‘constituents’ in a second term is the important one. He is the greater of the two evils.
Recommended. [Love you all.]
PS I proudly made a decision to vote for the man who would not be beholden to either party in 2000- Nader
And Josh Marshall referred to ‘cutting Meicare’ as ‘saving Medicare from fiscal doom’.
Yeah. Right.
I was proud of voting for Obama. Then I quickly started regretting it.
The fate of Tennessee’s TennCare offers a warning for Medicare. TennCare was a model for providing health care for Tennessee’s poor–that is, until a Republican governor, Sundquist, effectively removed all the cost controls. The TennCare became unaffordable–not because it was providing more care or treating more people, but because companies could charge anything they wanted.
In short, a health care plan that largely worked was de facto sabotaged.
I think that puts the unfunded Medicare Plan B in a whole new light. Conservatives are trying to sabotage Medicare under the pretense of expanding coverage.
-stewartm
so good to see the usual everyone agrees with each other fdl comment board.
there’s less diversity here than at the republican conventions.
you want romney deciding the next two or three supreme assholes? good!
that’ll take care of the next 30 years, when i surely will be dead or certainly beyond
caring.
well if the 200 or so regular fdl loyalists vote against obama, it will certainly be
meaningful.
yes, i will vote for barry, hold my proboscis and hope. don’t have enough time for
charging at windmills.
good luck to idealists-i ain’t one.
On the subject of “educating people” re why Obama, the Democrats, and the entire political structure are worthless, go to the recent FDL “Movie Night” discussion of “Heist-the move” about who stole the American dream.
http://firedoglake.com/2012/04/02/fdl-movie-night-heist-who-stole-the-american-dream/
If there’s any way you can see the film, do so, or at least go to their web site.
The movie presents a clear description of the memorandum written by former Supreme Court justice William Powell, before he was on the court, while a consultant to the US Chamber of Commerce. Powell outlined a decades-long plan to “support business” and goals of eliminating regulations, attacking unions, taking over the media. It’s taken those decades, but almost everything he proposed has happened.
Folks need to see that this is not some “accident” or “pendulum swing,” but a strategy contemplated and funded by those who are the real threat to our democracy.
Urge people to see this movie; it will make them more open to your political analysis and suggestions
So vote for o out of fear.
What blistering dissents have Kagen and Sotomayor written that I may judge o’s picks ?
Kagen says she’s gone hunting with Scalia, finds it great, and can’t wait to shoot an antelope.
you can call it fear, i call it pragmatism.
like i say, i’m no idealist.
do you really think bush v gore, or citizen’s united or any other major cases
would have worked out the same if either another kagan or soto was on the court in place of one of the 5?
you think that they’re covering because they’re in a minority on this court, and their
dissent is meaningless?
Your point is valid. While what you say is true, IMHO, the bigger picture is this:
By cutting 2 points off the 7.65 percent payroll Tax, Obama has already made the first move to help defund Social Security and Medicare.
IMHO, Social Security and Medicare benefit cuts are another insidious step in the ultimate goal of Privatization.
Obama’s .1 percenter Wall Street Masters want that pile of money. Obama intends to help them get it.
AND
AHIP (Health Insurance Providers) wants the Medicare Premiums to go to them.
They will rake in the dough and deny care.
Then, most of the people you mentioned will not be a problem. They will have gone to heaven!
Republicans have the same goals.
BUT, Romney won’t be able to do it. The Democrats will have to oppose Romney if he tries to cut Social Security and Medicare. (Remember Dubya tried it.)
Sidebar:
The reason the Republicans oppose Obamacare – b/c they didn’t get to institute it themselves. They would benefit from the largesse of AHIP, instead of the feckless Dims.
Dubya’s Medicare Part D – b/c it had no cost controls – has become nearly useless for many seniors and their drug needs.
For many, the cost of drugs – along with the cost of the PArt D “Coverage” – is about the same as paying for the drugs out of pocket.
This is the way Obamacare is designed to work.
No cost controls.