Obama '08?

Come on guys. FF is just exerciseing her right of blind partianship.

Precisely why Obama is aiming at international cooperation -- the corporate greedy thieves and bumblers do not all live in New Jersey having lunch with Tony Soprano. The Bush administration and the conservatives (this also means the infected left wing who blindly follow suit) had set the tone for looking the other way so a Bernie Madoff can put his hand into his investors pants and pick their wallet. He was expert enough for them not to feel his hand grasping onto their investment dollar and secretly waving it in the air while thinking, "Gotcha!" The financial giants like AIG are the three monkeys for big business--the conservatives, neo, modern, or otherwise, feign help for the small business, but the Bush administration wanted to do away with the SBA). There has to be people in the government who pull the hands off the eyes, ears and mouth of the financial institutions (as in lunatic asylum), rife with avarice and downright malace for the common man.

I think you are overstating the matter. In fact, I thought his answer was pretty good, particularly under the circumstances. The media everywhere are generally looking for a story, and happy to exploit contentious issues and critical situations for a 'gotcha' that might get them (the reporters) a moment in the sun or a good byline. The European conceit on the economic crisis (the question) is that we did it and they are blameless. This, of course is nonsense, but the fact is that we were indeed a central (and very large) player in the ascent to the bubble.

Obama's hesitations and occasional equivocations, while not well-polished, were appropriate for the question, the sensitivities of his audience and the moment - not bad at all, and certainly no worse than other contemporary politicians in similar situations.

President Obama was trying to exploit his current popularity and the attention fixed on him in Europe to reach past the European leaders to the people there - all for his, and our, advantage. The currently swooning European public will be quite willing to drift back into their usual anti American postures soon enough, and the quoted commentary is a good illustration of how it happens. If this was his worst rhetorical moment, then my verdict is that he did very well indeed - and very likely much better than the European leaders around him.

I'm very skeptical about his inclinations to copy Europe on issues like carbon credit trading; energy development; government run health care systems; and more intrusive government regulation of our lives and economic activity. In some areas (nuclear power is an example) he has maintained a carefully crafted ambiguity that leaves a great deal of uncertainty about his intentions. However, those political fights are all ahead of us.

The swooning and the carping are equally off the mark. Obama is just a man, but he is also clearly an adept politician and no fool. Moreover, he represents some powerful contemporary currents in our country. For good or ill he is our elected President and, on this trip, our representative in a not-particularly-friendly world.

yeah and I'm sure Okie and Foxy would agree.

Try to sell those ideas in China, India, Indonesia and Africa.

Certainly. But you should consider that English is the second language for most - and some words sound similar in one's own language, but have a different meaning in English. (Ooops, that was PM Brown who used some French words.)

Foxy would like to turn us all into patients, reeling out all of the trite political arm chair psychiatry which has little to do with a true conservative core. Obviously, despite the sexual transgressions, Clinton was more conservative than the Republicans care to admit -- cutting the size of government and the deficit. Now there are Republicans who are admitting it is possible to come up with a health care safety net to make sure everyone can afford health insurance. If anyone today wants to put money into the market, would it go to GM or Pfizer? Americans obviously don't want American cars but will pop American overpriced drugs.

American health care is massively over priced for what it delivers (read inefficient), a problem that seemingly no one wants to even acknowledge much less fix. Obama has shown no understanding that fixing the health care would necessitate taking a whack at the cost structure.

That's why I wrote "very likely" -- I really don't know what they said, though I have read most of the news reports.

Besides, as you know, I don't like Europeans.

Those fffffffffing Hippes Were right

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKEZoY-TMG4

Oh dear. I doubt that is going to go over too well here, Maggin.

However, here's the top ten 2009 automobiles in each class from Consumer Reports:



Pickup Truck

Chevrolet Avalanche

This full-sized crew cab is one of the most versatile and comfortable pickups we've tested. Its unified bed and cab helps give it a solid feel and a comfortable, quiet ride. Its innovative partition, between the cab and the bed, can be folded to allow longer cargo to extend into the back of the cab. A lockable, waterproof, three-piece bed cover protects cargo from the elements and prying eyes. If you need a tough work truck with a larger bed, consider the Ford F-150, which was considerably improved for 2009. Price: $36,000 to $47,000.



Fun to drive

Mazda MX-5 Miata

The Miata is a true sports car at a reasonable price. With quick, precise steering, a crisp-shifting manual transmission, and balanced handling, it virtually tied the Porsche Boxster in our test scoring, but it costs about half the price. This roadster is available with a power-operated hard top or a manual top that can be raised and lowered from the driver's seat using one hand. Price: $22,000 to $29,000.



Small SUV

Toyota RAV4

Thanks to a more powerful four-cylinder engine and other upgrades for 2009, the RAV4 narrowly outscored the Subaru Forester to remain our Top Pick for the third straight year. It provides agile handling, a roomy and quiet interior, a comfortable ride, and an optional third-row seat. The four-cylinder version gets the best fuel economy of any automatic, nonhybrid SUV we've tested. And the spirited V6 version accelerates as quickly as a Mazda Miata, while getting only 1 mpg less than the four-cylinder. ESC and curtain air bags are standard. Price: $23,000 to $30,000.



Small Sedan

Hyundai Elantra SE

The Elantra SE is a comfortable, roomy small car that provides good fuel economy, a quiet and nicely finished interior, and plenty of features for the money. Only the SE version comes with standard electronic stability control, which is absent on many other small cars. The Honda Civic is more fun to drive, but ESC is available only on high-end versions. Price: $18,695.



Green car

Toyota Prius

Despite the arrival of more gas/electric hybrids, the Prius leads this category for the sixth straight year. The base model's 44 overall mpg is the best we've measured in any five-passenger car. The Touring model gets 42 mpg overall. The interior is roomy and versatile, and reliability remains excellent. A redesigned Prius will arrive in early summer, and Toyota promises even better fuel economy and power. Price: $22,000 to $24,000.



Minivan

Toyota Sienna

The Sienna offers a spacious, versatile, and comfortable way to carry up to eight people. We found that the quiet, well-finished interior rivals that of some luxury sedans. Electronic stability control is standard. This is the only minivan available with all-wheel drive. A redesign will arrive this summer. Another excellent choice is the Honda Odyssey, which is more agile but not as quiet. Price: $26,000 to $38,000.



Best overall vehicle

Lexus LS 460

With a road-test score of 99 out of 100, this is our highest-scoring vehicle. It provides a luxurious, uncompromising driving environment, with a supremely comfortable ride and a roomy, well-finished, and exceptionally quiet interior. The LS is brimming with electronic amenities, yet the controls are easy to use. Its 380-hp, 4.6-liter V8 and eight-speed automatic transmission deliver smooth, quick acceleration and relatively good fuel economy. All-wheel drive is available for 2009. Price: $64,000 to $77,000.



Upscale sedan

Infiniti G37

One of the highest-rated sedans we've tested, the G37 (formerly G35) combines sportiness and luxury in a very appealing package. It has a very lively powertrain, agile handling, a comfortable ride, and a nicely appointed interior. For 2009, it also has a larger, 328-hp, 3.7-liter engine and a seven-speed automatic transmission, which improves fuel economy. Rear-wheel drive is standard, with all-wheel drive optional. Price: $33,000 to $36,000.



Midsized SUV

Toyota Highlander

The Highlander is a very refined and versatile vehicle. It provides a comfortable and quiet ride, a nicely finished interior, three rows of seats, and decent fuel economy for its class. It is available with front- or all-wheel drive. The Highlander Hybrid's fuel economy, 24 mpg overall, is among the best of any SUV in our Ratings. Reliability has been excellent. Price: $26,000 to $41,000.



Family sedan

Honda Accord

This is a roomy, well-rounded sedan that's easy to live with and enjoyable to drive. It offers a comfortable ride, agile handling, and efficient, refined four- and six-cylinder powertrains. Electronic stability control is standard, and crash-test results are impressive. Though the Nissan Altima edged out the Accord in our Ratings, most Altima versions lack electronic stability control. Price: $21,000 to $31,000.

On the contrary, I believe Obama has fairly clearly signalled that he would like to "take a whack" at the U.S. health care structure. Unfortunately, it isn't clear what that means.

Much of the "overpricing" of U.S. health care is illusory. Canada (and Mexico) can get away with making the government the monopolistic buyer of pharmaceuticals and thereby shake down the manufacturers (often under threat of patent violations) for lower prices. The result is the consumers in relatively free markets subsidize them by paying for the required research & development through higher prices. I would favor legislation here requiring all drug manufacturers (of any country) to sell their products here for no more than what they charge such monopolistic government buyers - that would very quickly level the prices for all.

Our tort law and entitlement programs don't deal well with the issues of cost and benefit. Everyone is (sort of) entitled to the highest professional standard of care - whether or not the economic resources are available to pay for it. These contradictions are worked out in a rather disorderly way, but the effect is certainly to add to "defensive" medicine and open the door to the mere padding of services & costs by medical providers. The only alternatives being widely considered are government control of information and rationing of services. Somehow, I believe we can do better than that.

In government run systems like those in the UK and Canada, government in effect rations health care assets and investments, but does reasonably well in distributing what is available uniformly to all - in exchange for a general loss of freedom. Commercial insurance schemes reduce the feedback on the cost/benefit tradeoffs to the consumers of medical care, thereby distorting the market. However they do provide enough cost feedback to avoid brueaucratic management of supply & demand, and do smooth out some catastrophic situations. The free market delivers the highest quality and most efficient individual care (to those able & willing to pay for it) but leaves out those who can't (or simply won't) pay for it and who position themselves as a public responsibility. Tough tradeoffs here, but in general, I am strongly inclined to doubt the efficacy of public systems and prefer individual freedom and responsibility.

that would require the US system to do preventative medicine well, to take the incentive out of using the most expensive treatment option (read newest and/or most technology dependent), and cutting the bureaucracy (both public sector and private sector) that is the overhead which never touches a patient. It probably would also require changing patient law so that the drug companies would no longer be able to stick us up for outrageously priced drugs. I hear none of this from Obama.

As long as you keep in mind that public systems can be ran non-profit, it's easy to see how you could have lower prices and efficiency gains over the current system. How many dollars of our health-care spending go into the pockets of middle-men who do nothing to add value to the client, under our current system?

Private insurers greatly fear a non-profit public option, for they know they could never compete with it and retain their high profits at the same time.

Cycloptichorn

Our news is leading with the US joining the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Tell me we are having our leg pulled. Please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States

so there is 15% being pissed away. How much for overpriced drugs? How much for ineffective but popular treatments and screening tests? How much for procedures that are not required? How much for choosing the most expensive drug or the most expensive treatment when another would likely work as well or almost as well?

Those rationalizations were used by the central planners of the Soviet Union and the somewhat more moderate socialists of the Post WWII British labor governments as they nationalized successive industries and components of the general economy. The result was the end of innovation, grossly distorted capital investments, shoddy goods and services, and uniform, drab poverty for all (except those in charge of it all).

Nothing seems more rational and efficient than centrally-planned socialism, and nothing more wasteful than the endless duplication and middle-men of capitalism. However, repeatedly it doesn't work out that way. All those middlemen it turns out do a much better job of allocating capital and stimulating innovation, investment and the delivery of what people really want than do the listless, complacent, authoritarian bureaucrats of centrally planned systems.

A great deal of human misery has been created by misguided Platonists who decide they know (better than we) what is good for us and impose authoritarian versions of their idealizations on us. In the real world freedom is generally much better.

well yeah, I bean saying the same for so many years I can't remember.

Once again, I'm going to ask you to try and discuss central planning/other ways of doing things without Appealing to Extremes. Yes, the Soviet Union showed how many of these ideas can fail when taken to their logical limits. But surely you realize there is a large spectrum between the US and the USSR. We can make many changes without turning our system into a copy of their failed one.

Cycloptichorn