If he can keep up the presure, the media will have to turn the corner relatively soon, I'd think. People are already getting tired of the same old talking points from the GOP.

Or ... it may be that Mr. Obama's plans (now that we are actually privy to them in borad outlines) don't strinke many of us (including some percentage of us who voted for him)as workable or even necessary. If the problem is government ... either Republican or Democrat lead ... how is more government a solution?

"I can only assume that Obama's entirely accurate remarks will be met with a new round of media complaints that the president isn't being nearly "bipartisan" enough."

That, or they won't be reported at all and the medias focus will be on other not quite as pressing issues that sort of have the scent of scandal.

Obama needs to do a national address, without Stephi or Matt Lauer interrupting him to ask about bipartisanship or Daschle, and get this out there. Some of that "fierce urgency of now" stuff.

I suppose Obama telling Republicans to f*ck themselves would be a bad idea, huh?

Obama is treating this like a war of ideas. It isn't. The public and much of the media is behind stimulus spending.

Instead, Obama made a huge error is conceding points to GOP prior to negotiation. They took this as a sign of weakeness.

And Reid and Pelosi just aren't that good at running their houses.

You can have great policies on paper, but if you can't implement them, they're not worth much.

It is just infuriating to see the Obama administration playing defense on an issue this important, and on which the president should be enjoying a natural advantage.

This is what happens when you open from a position of compromise, rather than from a position of strength.

Obama came into office with an undeniable mandate. He proceeded to squander it with appeals to "bipartisanship," rather than wielding the moral authority that his landslide victory provided him.

When you have your opponent dazed and leaning back on his heels, you don't splash cold water on his face. You throw the knockout punch.

I have been waiting for Democrats to figure this out.

I am still waiting.

If the problem is government ... either Republican or Democrat lead ... how is more government a solution?

I reject your premise that the problem is "government". In fact, if you look at the actual problem, it seems to be a failure of the private sector almost entirely. Banks didn't fail because the "government did too much" - they failed because they were bundling together crappy loans and pretending like 100 crappy loans were one good loan. AIG didn't fail because the government did too much - it failed because they were insuring the crappy bundles of loans that the banks were putting together. And GM and Chrysler aren't failing because the government did too much - they're failing mostly because the business models that the guys at the top were using to try to sell cars were giant pyramid schemes instead of long-term business models.

This isn't a failure of government. This is a failure of American-style hypercapitalism. Pretending like it's a failure of government is just sticking your goddamn head in the sand.

It's time to get rid of the kumbaya unity schtick baloney and lead. He didn't get a honeymoon, the economy wouldn't allow it. He's got to LEAD! He has precious little time and he had better get ahead of this.

Gibbs was asked already why Obama is stepping up the rhetoric. As though that now is a problem. Every move he makes is being hyper-scrutinized in a way I've never seen before.

If the problem is government ... either Republican or Democrat lead ... how is more government a solution?...A reader

PLEASE, SPARE ME THE REAGANESQUE RHETORIC!

Government is not the problem. People who hate government IN government is the problem you moron.

I suggest you pack up your shit and head to Somalia if you think government is so bad. They don't have one at all. A republican's wet dream.

Too little, too late.

Why now? Why not a week ago? Why not on national TV in prime time?

Sweet Jeebus, Demint is jabbering now on the senate floor. How can someone so dumb be a senator? He, and all of them, act like they had nothing to do with the disaster at hand. The wingnut dogma makes my teeth hurt.

"It's not "I won" rhetoric, but it is a pointed reminder. The president was effectively reminding folks, in an aggressive but non-confrontational way..."

My, what delicate creatures those Republicans are. Which reminds me, has anyone checked lately to see if any of them has fainted?

This is a good start.

If the problem is government ... either Republican or Democrat lead ... how is more government a solution?

Because government is not the problem.

Note: I did not add "you fucking moron" to the end of that sentence, but it should be read as if implied.

If the problem is government ... either Republican or Democrat lead ... how is more government a solution?

The problem isn't government, it's lack of government. It is that the GOP spent eight years monitoring everyone's sex lives, and paid no attention to the financial orgies on Wall Street. The right-wing fringe told us all through the primaries and the general election that Obama was the "most liberal senator." Oddly, some liberals actually believed it, and now some are upset because it wasn't true--imagine that! I haven't agreed with every decision he's made, but I can say with utter certainty that he's a far sight better than we've had for nearly a decade. I'm willing to take my chances that his idea of government is much more likely to change things for the better than anything suggested by the GOP.

If health care is the economic constraint that caused this downturn, then I wouold expect the correlation of sick people and unemployed people to be high.

It is not. Health care deflation did not cause this recession and Obama is lying.

"And Reid and Pelosi just aren't that good at running their houses."

Pelosi did just fine: only 11 defectors was adequate. Reid and Durbin - might as well have "kick me" on them. This is looking too much like 1993. I'm waiting for Obama's ju-jitsu move, but I can't see it coming. The bipartisanship schtick looked to much like weakness.

Democrats with balls - that really would be change we could believe in.

NontNont says:

"I reject your premise that the problem is "government". In fact, if you look at the actual problem, it seems to be a failure of the private sector almost entirely. Banks didn't fail because the "government did too much" - they failed because they were bundling together crappy loans and pretending like 100 crappy loans were one good loan. AIG didn't fail because the government did too much - it failed because they were insuring the crappy bundles of loans that the banks were putting together. And GM and Chrysler aren't failing because the government did too much - they're failing mostly because the business models that the guys at the top were using to try to sell cars were giant pyramid schemes instead of long-term business models."

No let me search his text in a scientific manner to see if NonyNony agrees with Obama that banks failed because they did not have national health care.

Whoops, I guess Nonynony disagrees with Obama.

No, you don't understand. Government is the problem; anarchy is the answer.

That's what the Republicans think, isn't it?

I'm curious to see what the final package will look like after all the dust settles between the two parties. Does anyone want to venture a guess as to what percentage will go to tax cuts vs. infrastructure, job creation, health care, etc.? And now we have Joe the Plumber giving his ever so knowledgable advice on killing it altogether (snark)...what a circus our political climate has turned into...I wish I could laugh but it's much too dire a time.

Reader: If the problem is government ... either Republican or Democrat lead ... how is more government a solution?

Who says "government" is the problem? Other than people whose governing ideology has been proven to be crap, I mean.

Who says the stimulus package represents "more government"? Other than the simpleminded morons who listen to Limbaugh, I mean.

M: If health care is the economic constraint that caused this downturn ...

Who's claiming it was causative? Other than people who are deliberately distorting the meaning of "contributory", I mean.

... then I wouold expect the correlation of sick people and unemployed people to be high.

So you think the only way healthcare is a financial constraint is if you don't pay for it?

Good lord.

...the very same people who are blocking his recovery package had already their say. Indeed, they were given a chance to do what they're proposing now, and it failed miserably. It's one of the reasons Republicans were rejected in some large numbers by voters.

One can only wonder how many members of "the loyal Opposition" have a skeleton or two in their political closets. Maybe Mr. Obama ought to "investigate" various rumors of "questionable behavior" on the part of these "loyal Opponents."

Should be good for at least---oh, let's say---5 or 6 votes from McConnell's side of the aisle....

This is the problem: "Democrats with balls - that really would be change we could believe in." We have had enough of "balls" in politics, national and global. It is time for the feminine to take ascendance and teach the masculine how to resolve conflict in process instead of in sound bites and anger. We have a White House with a strong feminine nature and it will produce results in the long run. Patience, cooperation/collaboration and compassion are the keys.

I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john

Obama never said banks failed because they didn't have health care. Grow up or become a Republican in Congress.

While the economy is tanking, the media will devote 90% of their coverage to something like "Obama's dog breeder failed to pay income taxes".

>"Obama needs to do a national address, "

BINGO! Bypass the talking heads... they are pwned by the Republicans.

>"Health care deflation did not cause this recession and Obama is lying."

Er... hmmm... please consider the following concept:

Lack of public healthcare coupled with staggering private-sector insurance costs [as benefit costs] render US businesses at a disadvantage when competing against other countries with better managed systems.

[That is what Obama is talking about... the US being the only modern industrial nation without public healthcare]

If health care is the economic constraint that caused this downturn

Obama didn't claim that. He claimed that "the high cost of health care" and "energy independence" were "fundamental challenges" that cannot be ignored. He did not say that the former was the cause of the downturn.

then I wouold expect the correlation of sick people and unemployed people to be high.

Even ignoring the false premise addressed above, this doesn't logically follow. There is no rational reason to expect that.

It is not.

<wikipedia>[citation needed]</wikipedia>

Brilliant! First, you set out a claim nobody made, and then attempt to refute it with a combination of invalid logic and an unsubstantiated fact claim.

"So you think the only way health care is a financial constraint is if you don't pay for it?"

No, Walker.

I said that this recession is not caused by health care deflation, low demand for health care.

Mo banks went to Ben and said that their health care investments were not paying off, nor did they go to Ben to complain that their financial workers could not afford health care.

There is no data presented to conclude that this recession was caused by unintended higher or lower health costs. Pelosi did not give Big Swinging Dick bankers $250 billion to upgrade their corporate health care.

Obama is flat out lying when he says this recession was caused by some deficiency in the health care market. Obama is a liar about this, and so are you if you believe that health care caused this recession.

Krugman is a liar if he claims that health care costs caused this recession, otherwise his entire stimulus proposal would about health care, it is not.

Steve is a liar if he agrees with Obama that health care caused the recession.

Prove to me by some data that health care caused this recession.

More like this, Mr. Prez.

The good news for Obama politically is that there's nothing but bad news economically. When the jobs report is released on Friday, we'll all get to see again just how much damage the Republican operation has done to the economy. The Republican collapse isn't quite over, folks, and Obama has only been president for two weeks.

Bring it back to them. Strong.

There is no data presented to conclude that this recession was caused by unintended higher or lower health costs. Pelosi did not give Big Swinging Dick bankers $250 billion to upgrade their corporate health care.

Then why the hell have Republicans spent months screaming about the evil unions bankrupting the auto companies with high healthcare costs?

I mean, Jesus, at least try to remember what your own side's talking points were just a few months ago before trying to make a dishonest and patently stupid argument.

Matt:

You know, you'd look a lot less like a total idiot if you informed yourself of what the phrase "caused by" actually means.

Many people here have tried to explain this to you in many ways. But then you know what they say about horses and water.

Better for you if you learn some basic reasoning skills before calling everyone whose statements you don't understand "liars".

Obama never said banks failed because they didn't have health care.

Exactly-- I seem to recall him saying that the financial damage to individuals affected by bank failures (via tightening credit, job losses, etc.) would be less if those individuals had health care, which is a fairly indisputable point given the havoc that losing one's insurance can create.

This stimulus debate is what debate sounds like without earmarks.

latts,

Art you saying that the majopr reason we should worry about job losses is the losses of health care benefits?

Cost per worker for health insurance, $7,900. Average income per year per worker $40,000.

So, you are explaining to me that the 20% we spend on health care, that is lost at unemployment, is more important than the other 80% we spend on housing, transportation, education and food?

I doubt it. The unemployed is likely to get sick, if he is sick at all, not because he cannot go to the hospital, but because he cannot afford food or housing.

They are different sectors, and I know you can define medical care as including a room, bath, and hospital food but we generally do not use your computation.

Yes, Matt. You're doing a bang-up job arguing against a position no one has taken.

Bully for you. Or, something.

Obama is flat out lying when he says this recession was caused by some deficiency in the health care market.

Actually, you are lying when you say that Obama says that this recession was caused by some deficiency in the health care market.

"what your own side"

When I find my side I will tell you.

DH Walker:

Tell me what caused the recession, health care?

Prove it. Has demand for hospital services suddenly shot up to astronomical heights? No, health care costs have been rising predictably for many years, there was no sudden shock of higher health care costs, unless you are implying that millions of baby boomers suddenly retired early. If that is the case, then you have a case, but I have not heard that case.

Also, as you make your case, why does a Keynesian stimulus help an industry that is already in high demand. The whole point of stimulus is to utilize underutilized resources.

If the problem is government ...

The problem isn't government. The problem is republicans.

Tell me what caused the recession, health care?

Nope, no one has said that.

Prove it.

You keep asking people to defend a point that no one has argued for, despite your desperate desire to argue against it -- which, incidentally, you've been doing a pretty poor job of doing, so I don't understand why you are so desperate to argue the point, since usually people set up strawmen because they've got a good argument against the position no one has taken.

Also, as you make your case, why does a Keynesian stimulus help an industry that is already in high demand.

Who says this bill is intended to be pure Keynesian stimulus? AFAICT, its intended to be part Keynesian stimulus to turn the economy around and part ameliorative programs to mitigate the harms of the recession until the economy turns around, both of which are urgent responses to the immediate crisis.

Matt: Tell me what caused the recession, health care? Prove it.

Remember earlier when I suggested you learn what "caused by" means?

That's still true.

"since usually people set up strawmen "

I did not set up this straw man, Obama did, Steve did by repeating his arguments. Kruugman came close by advocating that we cannot wait any more to fix health care, that is about as close as he is willing to come in favor of the "health care is the constraint" argument.

I am arguing that the straw man that Obama and Steve picked up is wrong. I am waiting proof that a sector that is in high demand is the cause of this recession, in whole or part.

What we need are some headlines from local papers like the NY Daily News -- "GOP to NY: Drop Dead." Film some irate local pols holding up the headlines on the evening news, that kind of thing. Sitting at your desk pointing at a computer screen just doesn't have the same impact.

People still read newspapers, right?

Reading comprehension is a useful skill:

the financial damage to individuals ... would be less if those individuals had health care

Being "bipartisan" in this issue is tantamount to a criticism that the RightWingnuts have espoused for decades- Inclusiveness at the expense of expedience. Sorry, but that cat won't scratch. It is becoming a dead philosphy- as witness by the corrosive debacle that the Bush years have brought us to. Chaos, corruption and despair- exit stage left, duck and cover now it's all Obama's fault...
So the RNC is going to become a gaggle of obstructionist crybabies, what else is new.

"the financial damage to individuals ... would be less if those individuals had health care"

Math skills would help also. Financial damage would be less if individuals had more housing. transportation, or food.

Which one actually caused the recession? Did we all quit work because we could not afford the co-payments on our workers benefits? I doubt it.

So, why is health care part of a stimulus package designed to utilize unused resources? Were these people laid off because they went to the doctor too often? I doubt it, I doubt that corporation retreated because they had to force higher co=payments on their works.

But I can be convinced, but I need better data.

If I recall the highest swing in costs, just prior to the recession was $5/gallon of gas. It is more likely people were laid off because they could not afford the gas co-payments. If gas stayed at $2.50 and we still had a recession, then maybe you might make the case, but the clear upswing in oil prices had something to do with the recession, more so than did medical co-payments.

It is pointless to attempt to debate with MattYoung.

Neither morons nor rethugnican trolls understand or care about logic or truthfulness.

Obama also pointed out several times during the campaign-- not that I remember seeing it noted in the MSM-- that universal healthcare can promote entrepreneurship because people aren't restrained from innovating due to the need for insurance. Not requiring a full-time job with benefits allows people to freelance/contract, start new businesses, have two part-time household earners who are then more engaged with their families, take temp assignments that allow them to network more easily, and so on. While I'm not a small-business type myself, there have definitely been periods in my life that shorter contracts and/or temping (which I did for 8 months without insurance-- scary) would have been far preferable to taking crappy full-time jobs. Tying healthcare to employment not only burdens employers, but also traps employees; neither result makes economic sense.

Just say no to cable news, folks. Boycott them. Drop your pay TV. I did. If jobs are to be lost, let's start with Mika and Joe.

My BP has dropped perceptibly since giving up cable, too.

"Obama also pointed out several times during the campaign..."

When in the camp[aign did Obama say that the next severe recession would be caused by i8nefficiencies in health care, or health care co-payment swere too high or that hospital services were underutilized, or any such thing.

Never once did Obama say that this or some near future recession was caused by health care costs.

Folks on this blog argue that the cause of underutilized resources, according to Krugman and Keynes, is medical services in which the unemployment rate is the lowest of all the sectors. Posters who argue this are arguing directly opposed to Keynes or Krugman. You may have a point, but you are not stimulus advocates according to Keynesian Theory.

The fact that you are arguing for something according to Keynes that Keynes wouyld not argue for, maybe, jst maybe you are giving mixed messages. Maybe you are causing paranoia by advocating something which does not solve the current recession.

I reject that theory, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change.

Resoundingly? By a few percent Americans voted for Obama over another interventionist candidate. Right now, only 37% of Americans support the "stimulus", and support has been declining as people have learned more about it. Poll results fluctuate, but support for this particular change is definitely not "resounding".

What I think a lot of people, especially Matt, are missing is that this is not simply a job stimulus bill. It's one of the most comprehensive packages put together in decades that encompasses a very broad strategy intended to spur not only job creation, but also address some long standing issues that have been largely neglected but have seriously impacted our economy negatively, case in point health care.

Once can argue all you want about whether lack of coverage has specifically caused the recession. However, having a healthier nation with less need for long term care, as well as offloading costs from businesses so they can use the freed up capital for innovation, investments, hiring, etc., will only help our economy and our long term security.

If government run health care is fine for our elected officials, why can't the American public also have some sort of similar plan. If you look at the costs of the health care system now as opposed to a nationwide medicare program of some sort for all, in the long run nationalized health is the far better choice.

The bill does indeed have some social safety net mechanisms; food stamps, unemployment benefits and such, but are we as a nation prepared to send millions of people out on the streets if a depression sets in? I'd hope that in the 21st century, we as a society would have evolved beyond that.

And anyway, republicans want to do away with social safety nets altogether, turning those types of functions to the private sector. See Katrina for the results.

i apologize in advance for posting without reading any of the comments, i'm late into the conversation.

i think it is time for obama to simply call bullshit. it is time to take off the gloves, and stand before the american people and say that the republicans are being obstructionists just to be obstructionists, and that they don't care about the fate of millions of americans.

just my opinion, and i'm sorry if i'm the 30th person to say so......

I did not set up this straw man,

Yes, you did.

Obama did, Steve did by repeating his arguments.

No, if you were addressing Obama or Steve's actual arguments, it wouldn't be a strawman at all.

Kruugman came close by advocating that we cannot wait any more to fix health care, that is about as close as he is willing to come in favor of the "health care is the constraint" argument.

No one has come anywhere close to claiming that, as you characterize the fictional argument you are responding to, "health care is the economic constraint that caused this downturn". A number of people, Obama and Krugman among them, have argued that addressing healthcare issues is important in the context of a response to the crisis, both in terms of making the US a more attractive place to establish business and in mitigating the harms of the immediate crisis on individual Americans, but no one that I am aware of -- certainly not Barack Obama, Steve Benen, or Paul Krugman -- has argued anywhere that healthcare is the single, or even primary, proximate cause of present crisis.

I am arguing that the straw man that Obama and Steve picked up is wrong.

I don't think you understand what a "strawman" is.

I am waiting proof that a sector that is in high demand is the cause of this recession, in whole or part.

I am waiting for proof that anyone has made the claim you are asking people to prove.

While Obama builds trust, the country and the planet continue to burn.

"But I can be convinced"

No, in fact, you cannot, and it's pointless to try. No amount of data, logic, or reason would suffice to convince you.

"This is what happens when you open from a position of compromise, rather than from a position of strength"

Exactly. Hopefully Mr. Obama has learned his lesson. What the Dems, ALL Dems need to do now is a full court press; a unified show of relentless strength, along w/ some insight and heavyweight rebuttal of the pathetic GOP talking points, will get what we want. If they sit on their collective heels, the bill's gonna look like a BushCo tax giveaway. I have to say, my team better deliver on this one. Get out and make the case, boys and girls. And make the Puglicans do a real filibuster. Let the country watch them obstruct. Pound that meme into the public's head - obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. Why is this STILL so hard for Dems to get/do? Kind of makes me sick in my soul, watching the Pugs pull the rug out yet again. It's almost as if Dems internalize the bullshit the Pugs spew, and enable it. Feh.

Obama ran on the promise that he wouldn't be the partisan *ss that Bush was. He's lived up to that promise. The problem is in our polarized political system, one of the poles of our political spectrum is just batsh*t crazy.

Obama, I hope, is just trying to give the Republicans enough rope. The President is absolutely right that you can't tax cut your way out of every problem. It's coming time to yank on the rope and let the Republicans swing on their own idiocy.

The recession was not solely caused by lack of affordability of health insurance, but it sure as hell will make it a lot worse. And anyone who who talks to a manufacturer that competes with overseas companies, our employer-based healthcare system is definitely one of their problems. Face it righties, Obama's correct.

spanky: The problem isn't government, it's lack of government.

exactly...

IF...tax cuts and de-regulation worked...

how come we are in this mess?

GOP 2009: Any Suckers Left?