Obamacare
Replies
-
There are a lot of good things in this law. How pre-existing conditions are dealt with and that you cannot be dropped if you get sick are a couple of items that make sense. I just don't like that they bundled it all up into a package and shoved it down our throats. The federal government will now force people to buy health insurance and tax them if they do not. What's next? Most adults need transportation. Maybe the federal government will mandate that everyone when buying a car must buy a new car made in the U.S. to prop up the US auto industry? If you don't buy a US made car you get taxed.
In the end, it has almost no effect on me. I have health insurance today and I will still have health insurance tomorrow. My rate will probably go up a bit but I can handle it. In addition, I am happy I can shelter my children until they are 26.
I don't think the supporters of this law realize that they still have to BUY health insurance. I really think they think they are getting something for free. I am going to have a good laugh when those that can't afford insurance today STILL can't afford insurance tomorrow and start *****ing because they have to pay the penalty tax which is still cheaper then the insurance policy. In fact, I am willing to bet most of the penalty money will have to be paid by people making less then 50k per year.
The estimates are that individuals who have to pay the "penalty" will only be about 1% of the population.
And the problem with some of your answer is the same challenge that has faced those trying to improve the health care system for decades. First of all, it's a complex system that employs hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people and generates huge profits. Even if Obama had the magic wand that most people think he possesses, he could not eliminate it overnight. (A point often lost on my liberal friends who want an instant single-payer system).
And the American system is built on the (increasingly mythical IMO) idea that we should all have "freedom of choice" of our health care providers. So any alterations to the system had to preserve the appearance of that tradition as well.
Lastly, everyone wants the goodies (no preexisting conditions, keep kids on the plan), but people seem to think those benefits are left by the health care fairy with no bill. The only way to pay for that is to enlarge the risk pool. Even republicans know this--they're just not allowed to say it aloud.
While certainly flawed, the ACA, like most of Obama's programs, represents an attempt to improve the lives of the vast majority of Americans who have found it more difficult to get by and enjoy a quality of life for the past 30 years. It is also an attempt to start to get health care costs under control--or to at least slow down the increase.
I don't have any problem with people who criticize the particulars of the bill itself--although I do require that they propose a viable alternative if they want me to take them seriously (or at least just honestly admit they don't give a crap about anyone but themselves). But a lot of the comments you read in various places from conservatives or others about "destroying America", blah, blah, blah, are just beyond ridiculous IMO, especially since conservatives have said pretty much the exact same thing about every social advance made during the past 100 years.
I am going to ramble a bit...
There are parts of the law that I liked. Many of those parts major insurance companies said they were going to keep regardless of how the Supreme Court ruled so it didn't matter. I don't dislike the law because of Obama. On the contrary, I liked Obama enough to vote for him and nothing would make me happier then if he kicked *kitten*. That said, I think he missed on this.
I have seen different numbers on how many people are uninsured right now. The one that the census bureau reported was 15% so I will use that. 15% of 300 million people gives you 45 million uninsured people. That is a terrible number. Now.. 33% of those people made over 50k per year so I have to assume they either didn't want insurance or had a pre-existing condition that blocked them from insurance. Either way i have to assume they will all be able to afford insurance now. That leaves 30 million people making less then 50k per year that didn't have insurance but are now mandated to purchase insurance or get taxed. Of those, 3 million (your numbers - 1% of 300 million) will have to pay an additional tax they didn't have to pay before. So basically 10% of the people this law is suppose to help will end up with no insurance AND have to pay a tax on top of it
This law helps a lot of people but its going to hurt a lot too. It doesn't solve the problem. As far as coming up with an alternative... I like health insurance vouchers but they have their own issues. Oh well.. If i could solve the problem I wouldn't be a software engineer
Anyway.. lets close with the new law to be passed when the republicans take over Congress.
The Homestead Protection and Affordable Arms Act - All Americans need protection. Congress mandates that all Americans must purchase a firearm for their protection. Anyone that does not purchase a firearm for their protection must pay a tax.
Cheers! :drinker:0 -
Oops Looks like that cartoon got blocked.0
-
Wait, I thought the individual mandate was meant as a tax penalty so that people would take responsibility for themselves. I mean that's how Romney described it in his own op ed about Romney care in MA.0
-
Oops Looks like that cartoon got blocked.
I don't know about that--the site was down for awhile last night. I lost a fairly detailed comment when I tried to post it, and then I got the "maintenance" screen.0 -
There are a lot of good things in this law. How pre-existing conditions are dealt with and that you cannot be dropped if you get sick are a couple of items that make sense. I just don't like that they bundled it all up into a package and shoved it down our throats. The federal government will now force people to buy health insurance and tax them if they do not. What's next? Most adults need transportation. Maybe the federal government will mandate that everyone when buying a car must buy a new car made in the U.S. to prop up the US auto industry? If you don't buy a US made car you get taxed.
In the end, it has almost no effect on me. I have health insurance today and I will still have health insurance tomorrow. My rate will probably go up a bit but I can handle it. In addition, I am happy I can shelter my children until they are 26.
I don't think the supporters of this law realize that they still have to BUY health insurance. I really think they think they are getting something for free. I am going to have a good laugh when those that can't afford insurance today STILL can't afford insurance tomorrow and start *****ing because they have to pay the penalty tax which is still cheaper then the insurance policy. In fact, I am willing to bet most of the penalty money will have to be paid by people making less then 50k per year.
The estimates are that individuals who have to pay the "penalty" will only be about 1% of the population.
And the problem with some of your answer is the same challenge that has faced those trying to improve the health care system for decades. First of all, it's a complex system that employs hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people and generates huge profits. Even if Obama had the magic wand that most people think he possesses, he could not eliminate it overnight. (A point often lost on my liberal friends who want an instant single-payer system).
And the American system is built on the (increasingly mythical IMO) idea that we should all have "freedom of choice" of our health care providers. So any alterations to the system had to preserve the appearance of that tradition as well.
Lastly, everyone wants the goodies (no preexisting conditions, keep kids on the plan), but people seem to think those benefits are left by the health care fairy with no bill. The only way to pay for that is to enlarge the risk pool. Even republicans know this--they're just not allowed to say it aloud.
While certainly flawed, the ACA, like most of Obama's programs, represents an attempt to improve the lives of the vast majority of Americans who have found it more difficult to get by and enjoy a quality of life for the past 30 years. It is also an attempt to start to get health care costs under control--or to at least slow down the increase.
I don't have any problem with people who criticize the particulars of the bill itself--although I do require that they propose a viable alternative if they want me to take them seriously (or at least just honestly admit they don't give a crap about anyone but themselves). But a lot of the comments you read in various places from conservatives or others about "destroying America", blah, blah, blah, are just beyond ridiculous IMO, especially since conservatives have said pretty much the exact same thing about every social advance made during the past 100 years.
I am going to ramble a bit...
There are parts of the law that I liked. Many of those parts major insurance companies said they were going to keep regardless of how the Supreme Court ruled so it didn't matter. I don't dislike the law because of Obama. On the contrary, I liked Obama enough to vote for him and nothing would make me happier then if he kicked *kitten*. That said, I think he missed on this.
I have seen different numbers on how many people are uninsured right now. The one that the census bureau reported was 15% so I will use that. 15% of 300 million people gives you 45 million uninsured people. That is a terrible number. Now.. 33% of those people made over 50k per year so I have to assume they either didn't want insurance or had a pre-existing condition that blocked them from insurance. Either way i have to assume they will all be able to afford insurance now. That leaves 30 million people making less then 50k per year that didn't have insurance but are now mandated to purchase insurance or get taxed. Of those, 3 million (your numbers - 1% of 300 million) will have to pay an additional tax they didn't have to pay before. So basically 10% of the people this law is suppose to help will end up with no insurance AND have to pay a tax on top of it
This law helps a lot of people but its going to hurt a lot too. It doesn't solve the problem. As far as coming up with an alternative... I like health insurance vouchers but they have their own issues. Oh well.. If i could solve the problem I wouldn't be a software engineer
Anyway.. lets close with the new law to be passed when the republicans take over Congress.
The Homestead Protection and Affordable Arms Act - All Americans need protection. Congress mandates that all Americans must purchase a firearm for their protection. Anyone that does not purchase a firearm for their protection must pay a tax.
Cheers! :drinker:
The ACA has subsidies built in to offset the cost for those at lower income levels--I don't think think the situation is as simplistic as you describe.
And I believe the "mandated gun purchase" law was already tried -- in 1792. In any case, it's not a valid comparison--but I'm sure you already knew that and were just trying to have some fun. 0 -
Just curious....How did US government spending of private sector tax revenue make the country economically prosperous in the last century? Wouldnt the economy have to be "successful"(profit-generating) first to supply the government with money to spend? What came first the egg or the chicken?
Secondly, could you define "sucky" healthcare?
I don't actually care to give you a history lesson (at least without getting paid by someone--perhaps the government?). The information is widely available. Suffice to say, what makes you think that it came from tax revenue initially? Your assertion that it would have to be successful is false. How do you think we've recovered from previous economic disasters? It wasn't because we tightened our budgets and used all that non-existent surplus.
As to our craptastic health system, it depends on what ranking system you're looking at. Most notably and recently, we could look at the Commonwealth Fund that put the U.S. in 7th place out of 7 industrialized nations based on: quality, efficiency, access, equity, and healthy lives. I bet more specific information can be found on their site if you care to dispute it.
We didn't recover from the deep recession of the late 1970's with government stimulus. It was done primarily through deregulation (smaller government), the lowering of income taxes and capital gains taxes and inflation reduction by controlling the monetary supply. Reagan experienced unemployment rates as high as 10.8% in his first term yet by the end of his first term unemployment had dropped to 7.2%. We have had over 40 months of 8.0% unemployment or higher since Obama has taken office and this number is not a true indication of the real unemployment in this country. The U-6 unemployment rate which includes individuals "looking for and not looking for" employment hasn't been below 14.2% anytime during Obama's first term. Your assertions that US government spending is what made this country prosperous couldn't be more wrong. The current administrations failed attempts of spending us back into prosperity is a clear example of this. "Your view of economics is laughably myopic at best."
And yet government spending through war efforts and government contracts did end the Great Depression. I never said anything about intended stimulus as such. You did. Government spending is government spending, after all. I wouldn't suggest we start a world war to boost the economy; it isn't doing much for us these days. But taking care of our infrastructure might be a nice start. Works Project Commission, anyone? Private industry isn't about to do that, though. There's no profit in it, unless the government pays them.
Laugh on, skippy. You're not convincing anyone. You vote your way, and I'll vote mine
EDIT: and as a fun side note, don't you think it's a tad ironic to call Obama out for unemployment numbers that are being driven by a shrinking public sector?
Funny you say that you're not suggesting starting a war yet you use the example of WWII as a way government can reverse an economic downturn. How then do we recover from cyclical dowturns without causing WWIII? You merely state the obvious result of WWII yet you fail to explain how that can be translated to tangible economic policy. If you agree with the notion of government spending as the answer then you must agree with the current administration's stimulus(government spending) policies in trying to stoke our economy. Unfortunately it has, time an again, proven to be failed policy. I agree infrastructure should have been front and center, yet again, politics trumps sound reasoning and the stimulus was primarily used to prop up public sector(union) jobs, temporarily. If the stimulus was used for infrastructure, private industry would have been involved as subcontractors. This would have had a much more profound effect on the economy compared to handing the money over to public sector workers who are takers and not producers.
Oh and as for your shrinking public sector. The stimulus that was used primarily for public sector jobs in the form of payments to states to cover budget shortfalls, was only 2/3 spent by 10/10 and yet the unemployment rate was still climbing. Where do you think those jobs were coming from? It wasn't from the public sector, genius.
You might not be listening but I know you hear me. I look forward to your response.:drinker:
Yes the WWII example was used as an example of stimulus spending, although perhaps not the best example, given the extreme circumstances.
And, yes, stimulus spending still does work, if applied appropriately. The ARRA worked almost exactly as predicted when it was passed. It can only be considered a "failure" by someone who believes in the "Obama had a magic wand" theory of economics or the "Waaaah! I didn't get a pony" theory of economics.
The ARRA was never intended to be the "magic bullet" solution. It's effect was constrained by a number of factors--some economic, some political--but it never intended to be more than a "first step" to deal with the severe economic crisis that existed in January 2009. (A crisis that turned out to be much, much worse than anyone realized at that time. The initial estimates of GDP shrinkage in Q4/2008 turned out to be an underestimate by about 150%).
The maintenance of public sector jobs was a key component of the ARRA--it didn't just happen by accident. Our economy is driven by consumers--they are the real "job creators" --not some d!ck in a $2000 suit. After the funds from the ARRA ran out, states across the country began slashing public sector jobs--and the effects have been obvious. Since Obama took office, the economy has generated 4.3 million private sector (actually that's an older number, and that's just since February 2010). That exceeds the private sector jobs generated in GWB's first term. The difference is that, while public-sector jobs increased under bush by 3.7 percent in his first term, under Obama, public-sector jobs have declined by 2.7%, or over 600,000 jobs.
Just repeating talking points is not going to get you very far. I am not an economist, but it is fairly simple to find those who are much smarter than any of us and they have lots of facts n' stuff that make for interesting reading.0 -
Oops Looks like that cartoon got blocked.
I don't know about that--the site was down for awhile last night. I lost a fairly detailed comment when I tried to post it, and then I got the "maintenance" screen.
I think some electrical storms caused massive trouble with amazons cloud, and they do a ton of hosting. I would not be surprised if it caused a problem for both the image and this site itself0 -
Just curious....How did US government spending of private sector tax revenue make the country economically prosperous in the last century? Wouldnt the economy have to be "successful"(profit-generating) first to supply the government with money to spend? What came first the egg or the chicken?
Secondly, could you define "sucky" healthcare?
I don't actually care to give you a history lesson (at least without getting paid by someone--perhaps the government?). The information is widely available. Suffice to say, what makes you think that it came from tax revenue initially? Your assertion that it would have to be successful is false. How do you think we've recovered from previous economic disasters? It wasn't because we tightened our budgets and used all that non-existent surplus.
As to our craptastic health system, it depends on what ranking system you're looking at. Most notably and recently, we could look at the Commonwealth Fund that put the U.S. in 7th place out of 7 industrialized nations based on: quality, efficiency, access, equity, and healthy lives. I bet more specific information can be found on their site if you care to dispute it.
We didn't recover from the deep recession of the late 1970's with government stimulus. It was done primarily through deregulation (smaller government), the lowering of income taxes and capital gains taxes and inflation reduction by controlling the monetary supply. Reagan experienced unemployment rates as high as 10.8% in his first term yet by the end of his first term unemployment had dropped to 7.2%. We have had over 40 months of 8.0% unemployment or higher since Obama has taken office and this number is not a true indication of the real unemployment in this country. The U-6 unemployment rate which includes individuals "looking for and not looking for" employment hasn't been below 14.2% anytime during Obama's first term. Your assertions that US government spending is what made this country prosperous couldn't be more wrong. The current administrations failed attempts of spending us back into prosperity is a clear example of this. "Your view of economics is laughably myopic at best."
And yet government spending through war efforts and government contracts did end the Great Depression. I never said anything about intended stimulus as such. You did. Government spending is government spending, after all. I wouldn't suggest we start a world war to boost the economy; it isn't doing much for us these days. But taking care of our infrastructure might be a nice start. Works Project Commission, anyone? Private industry isn't about to do that, though. There's no profit in it, unless the government pays them.
Laugh on, skippy. You're not convincing anyone. You vote your way, and I'll vote mine
EDIT: and as a fun side note, don't you think it's a tad ironic to call Obama out for unemployment numbers that are being driven by a shrinking public sector?
Funny you say that you're not suggesting starting a war yet you use the example of WWII as a way government can reverse an economic downturn. How then do we recover from cyclical dowturns without causing WWIII? You merely state the obvious result of WWII yet you fail to explain how that can be translated to tangible economic policy. If you agree with the notion of government spending as the answer then you must agree with the current administration's stimulus(government spending) policies in trying to stoke our economy. Unfortunately it has, time an again, proven to be failed policy. I agree infrastructure should have been front and center, yet again, politics trumps sound reasoning and the stimulus was primarily used to prop up public sector(union) jobs, temporarily. If the stimulus was used for infrastructure, private industry would have been involved as subcontractors. This would have had a much more profound effect on the economy compared to handing the money over to public sector workers who are takers and not producers.
Oh and as for your shrinking public sector. The stimulus that was used primarily for public sector jobs in the form of payments to states to cover budget shortfalls, was only 2/3 spent by 10/10 and yet the unemployment rate was still climbing. Where do you think those jobs were coming from? It wasn't from the public sector, genius.
You might not be listening but I know you hear me. I look forward to your response.:drinker:
Yes the WWII example was used as an example of stimulus spending, although perhaps not the best example, given the extreme circumstances.
And, yes, stimulus spending still does work, if applied appropriately. The ARRA worked almost exactly as predicted when it was passed. It can only be considered a "failure" by someone who believes in the "Obama had a magic wand" theory of economics or the "Waaaah! I didn't get a pony" theory of economics.
The ARRA was never intended to be the "magic bullet" solution. It's effect was constrained by a number of factors--some economic, some political--but it never intended to be more than a "first step" to deal with the severe economic crisis that existed in January 2009. (A crisis that turned out to be much, much worse than anyone realized at that time. The initial estimates of GDP shrinkage in Q4/2008 turned out to be an underestimate by about 150%).
The maintenance of public sector jobs was a key component of the ARRA--it didn't just happen by accident. Our economy is driven by consumers--they are the real "job creators" --not some d!ck in a $2000 suit. After the funds from the ARRA ran out, states across the country began slashing public sector jobs--and the effects have been obvious. Since Obama took office, the economy has generated 4.3 million private sector (actually that's an older number, and that's just since February 2010). That exceeds the private sector jobs generated in GWB's first term. The difference is that, while public-sector jobs increased under bush by 3.7 percent in his first term, under Obama, public-sector jobs have declined by 2.7%, or over 600,000 jobs.
Just repeating talking points is not going to get you very far. I am not an economist, but it is fairly simple to find those who are much smarter than any of us and they have lots of facts n' stuff that make for interesting reading.
Obama's administration projected unemployment rates would not top 8% IF stimulus was passed. It has not been below 8% since the stimulus as passed. It is a failure based solely on Obama's projections. How much more objective can it be.
This stimulus that you speak of has increased our yearly budget deficit by more than $1 trillion/year which has added in excess of $5 trillion dollars to the country's debt. This led to a downgrade of the United States' credit rating by S&P and yet this is only the "first step"?
Obama was either politically motivated or incredibly incompetent when he decided to bail out the states. If his purpose was to stimulate the economy how is that done by funding jobs that inherently do not produce or stimulate production in the private sector. It is well known that the majority of the funding went to his largest donors; unions. It was merely a political move to appease his base which is unfortunate because he sacrificed the greater good of the economy. If he would have spent the money on "shovel ready" jobs, this would have had a much more stimulating affect to the private sector which is where job creation occurs in this country. By bailing out the unions, it clearly shows it was no more than a political move.
You are correct. You are not an economist although you may play one on T.V. It should be quite apparent that this country is heading in the wrong direction. Not only are we heading into a financial calamity, SCOTUS just rewrote the Constitution and expanded the governments power to shape its citizen's behavior with the threat of taxation. UNPRECEDENTED.0 -
I want to see private profit phased out of or minimized and heavily regulated when it comes to essential goods and services like energy, food, and healthcare.
That does not mean I want to see small farms and groceries and family doctors put out of business, however. I simply want to see all of the large corporations moved out of essentials and into entertainment, as well as things like luxury clothing and cars.
It is not good that profit is gained from illness. This encourages cost cutting, triage, and price gouging. It is good that profit is obtained from television and sports cars. We don't have to have those things, and non-essential goods are regulated by consumers. Essential goods, however, can not be regulated nearly as well. If you must have it or die and everyone is charging the same ridiculous price for the same horrible service, you have no power at all.
Those who say putting government in charge will create a wasteful, poor quality system, are you for privatization of our military? The removal of our tax dollars from roads and airports and police?
Also, if you eat beef and you don't want to pay almost a hundred bucks for a steak, you should be glad of government interference in the 'free' market. Because beef is heavily subsidized.
As for Obamacare, it gives way too much to corporations and way too little to the American people.0 -
Obama's administration projected unemployment rates would not top 8% IF stimulus was passed. It has not been below 8% since the stimulus as passed. It is a failure based solely on Obama's projections. How much more objective can it be.
This stimulus that you speak of has increased our yearly budget deficit by more than $1 trillion/year which has added in excess of $5 trillion dollars to the country's debt. This led to a downgrade of the United States' credit rating by S&P and yet this is only the "first step"?
Obama was either politically motivated or incredibly incompetent when he decided to bail out the states. If his purpose was to stimulate the economy how is that done by funding jobs that inherently do not produce or stimulate production in the private sector. It is well known that the majority of the funding went to his largest donors; unions. It was merely a political move to appease his base which is unfortunate because he sacrificed the greater good of the economy. If he would have spent the money on "shovel ready" jobs, this would have had a much more stimulating affect to the private sector which is where job creation occurs in this country. By bailing out the unions, it clearly shows it was no more than a political move.
You are correct. You are not an economist although you may play one on T.V. It should be quite apparent that this country is heading in the wrong direction. Not only are we heading into a financial calamity, SCOTUS just rewrote the Constitution and expanded the governments power to shape its citizen's behavior with the threat of taxation. UNPRECEDENTED.
1. There is no way to stimulate production in the private sector other than creating incentives for people to actually spend money. For people to spend money, they have to have money, so that turns into a vicious circle very quickly.
2. It is not the purpose of the private sector to create jobs or lower unemployment. It is the purpose of the private sector to make a profit. If they could do this without a single human being on payroll, they wouldn't hesitate - human capital is usually the biggest cost of a company, and that cost brings down profits.
3. It is the purpose of governments - both federal and state - to take care of the people for which it is responsible. Does that include finding ways to help them pay the rent and buy food? Yes. Does it include trying to ensure they have healthcare? Yes. Does it include stimulating the economy so that, through public spending, they can buy things that will *hopefully* lead to increased sales in the private sector that will *hopefully* lead to private sector companies hiring more people that will *hopefully* lead to more money being in circulation and more spending that creates a positive feedback loop? Yes - because if it didn't, the unemployment rates would be up closer to 10-11% instead of 8%. If the private sector got off its *kitten* and actually started hiring with some of the record profits they've been making, unemployment would already be below 7%. But, back to my original point, that's not their purpose. No private sector company cares at all about who's employed and who isn't. It's not their functional role in the economy. Private sector hiring is a beneficial side effect of companies doing what companies do. But, and I know I'm repeating myself, companies will gladly shed as much of their staff as possible, if they have a way to do the same work with fewer people. Depending on private sector companies to create jobs is like hiding under a dragon to stay out of the rain. It might work from time to time, but the dragon really doesn't care about your well being.
4. I am a raging capitalist. I am a consultant who has worked across almost every industry sector, all over the world. I'm paid pretty well to do it, and I work the system to my own benefit. But that doesn't mean it's a good system.0 -
Obama's administration projected unemployment rates would not top 8% IF stimulus was passed. It has not been below 8% since the stimulus as passed. It is a failure based solely on Obama's projections. How much more objective can it be.
This stimulus that you speak of has increased our yearly budget deficit by more than $1 trillion/year which has added in excess of $5 trillion dollars to the country's debt. This led to a downgrade of the United States' credit rating by S&P and yet this is only the "first step"?
Obama was either politically motivated or incredibly incompetent when he decided to bail out the states. If his purpose was to stimulate the economy how is that done by funding jobs that inherently do not produce or stimulate production in the private sector. It is well known that the majority of the funding went to his largest donors; unions. It was merely a political move to appease his base which is unfortunate because he sacrificed the greater good of the economy. If he would have spent the money on "shovel ready" jobs, this would have had a much more stimulating affect to the private sector which is where job creation occurs in this country. By bailing out the unions, it clearly shows it was no more than a political move.
You are correct. You are not an economist although you may play one on T.V. It should be quite apparent that this country is heading in the wrong direction. Not only are we heading into a financial calamity, SCOTUS just rewrote the Constitution and expanded the governments power to shape its citizen's behavior with the threat of taxation. UNPRECEDENTED.
1. There is no way to stimulate production in the private sector other than creating incentives for people to actually spend money. For people to spend money, they have to have money, so that turns into a vicious circle very quickly.
2. It is not the purpose of the private sector to create jobs or lower unemployment. It is the purpose of the private sector to make a profit. If they could do this without a single human being on payroll, they wouldn't hesitate - human capital is usually the biggest cost of a company, and that cost brings down profits.
3. It is the purpose of governments - both federal and state - to take care of the people for which it is responsible. Does that include finding ways to help them pay the rent and buy food? Yes. Does it include trying to ensure they have healthcare? Yes. Does it include stimulating the economy so that, through public spending, they can buy things that will *hopefully* lead to increased sales in the private sector that will *hopefully* lead to private sector companies hiring more people that will *hopefully* lead to more money being in circulation and more spending that creates a positive feedback loop? Yes - because if it didn't, the unemployment rates would be up closer to 10-11% instead of 8%. If the private sector got off its *kitten* and actually started hiring with some of the record profits they've been making, unemployment would already be below 7%. But, back to my original point, that's not their purpose. No private sector company cares at all about who's employed and who isn't. It's not their functional role in the economy. Private sector hiring is a beneficial side effect of companies doing what companies do. But, and I know I'm repeating myself, companies will gladly shed as much of their staff as possible, if they have a way to do the same work with fewer people. Depending on private sector companies to create jobs is like hiding under a dragon to stay out of the rain. It might work from time to time, but the dragon really doesn't care about your well being.
4. I am a raging capitalist. I am a consultant who has worked across almost every industry sector, all over the world. I'm paid pretty well to do it, and I work the system to my own benefit. But that doesn't mean it's a good system.
In all the years I've argued against pure free market capitalism, I've never broken it down as well as you just did. Bravo. And next time the subject comes up somewhere, I'm wholeheartedly stealing this explanation.0 -
Obama's administration projected unemployment rates would not top 8% IF stimulus was passed. It has not been below 8% since the stimulus as passed. It is a failure based solely on Obama's projections. How much more objective can it be.
This stimulus that you speak of has increased our yearly budget deficit by more than $1 trillion/year which has added in excess of $5 trillion dollars to the country's debt. This led to a downgrade of the United States' credit rating by S&P and yet this is only the "first step"?
Obama was either politically motivated or incredibly incompetent when he decided to bail out the states. If his purpose was to stimulate the economy how is that done by funding jobs that inherently do not produce or stimulate production in the private sector. It is well known that the majority of the funding went to his largest donors; unions. It was merely a political move to appease his base which is unfortunate because he sacrificed the greater good of the economy. If he would have spent the money on "shovel ready" jobs, this would have had a much more stimulating affect to the private sector which is where job creation occurs in this country. By bailing out the unions, it clearly shows it was no more than a political move.
You are correct. You are not an economist although you may play one on T.V. It should be quite apparent that this country is heading in the wrong direction. Not only are we heading into a financial calamity, SCOTUS just rewrote the Constitution and expanded the governments power to shape its citizen's behavior with the threat of taxation. UNPRECEDENTED.
1. There is no way to stimulate production in the private sector other than creating incentives for people to actually spend money. For people to spend money, they have to have money, so that turns into a vicious circle very quickly.
2. It is not the purpose of the private sector to create jobs or lower unemployment. It is the purpose of the private sector to make a profit. If they could do this without a single human being on payroll, they wouldn't hesitate - human capital is usually the biggest cost of a company, and that cost brings down profits.
In theory you are right, however, the reality is that private industry is made up of primarily small business which do not have the capital nor the technology to "automate" there operations to the point where human labor would be made obsolete. This primarily relates to the manufacturing sector. The Service, Food, Technology and Entertainment sector, to name a few, are all extremely labor dependent so your point is moot when put into context. As an aside, the private sector employs 5x's the number of people in the public sector which means 80% of the working population is employed by private business.
[/quote]
3. It is the purpose of governments - both federal and state - to take care of the people for which it is responsible. Does that include finding ways to help them pay the rent and buy food? Yes. Does it include trying to ensure they have healthcare? Yes. Does it include stimulating the economy so that, through public spending, they can buy things that will *hopefully* lead to increased sales in the private sector that will *hopefully* lead to private sector companies hiring more people that will *hopefully* lead to more money being in circulation and more spending that creates a positive feedback loop? Yes - because if it didn't, the unemployment rates would be up closer to 10-11% instead of 8%. If the private sector got off its *kitten* and actually started hiring with some of the record profits they've been making, unemployment would already be below 7%. But, back to my original point, that's not their purpose. No private sector company cares at all about who's employed and who isn't. It's not their functional role in the economy. Private sector hiring is a beneficial side effect of companies doing what companies do. But, and I know I'm repeating myself, companies will gladly shed as much of their staff as possible, if they have a way to do the same work with fewer people. Depending on private sector companies to create jobs is like hiding under a dragon to stay out of the rain. It might work from time to time, but the dragon really doesn't care about your well being.
[/quote]
You may be a Capitalist but an economist you are not. It is called Supply and Demand. The marketplace(private industry) creates products which are in demand by the public. This results in demand for workers who are in turn compensated by a wage. This individual then has the means to procure food, shelter, and healthcare if they so decide, however, none of these are guarantees provided to us by the Constitution. It is called personal responsibility and that is accompanied by personal liberty. Where in the Constitution does is say the government is responsible for the care of its citizens? Your assertions that the government must provide, in essence, a cradle to grave or a nanny state is what is wrong with America. Healthcare is not a right. It is a privelege. A privelege that I did not have growing up yet have worked extremely hard to provide for my family. It is not the governments job to stimulate the economy. Government interference hinders economic growth. From 1800 to the early 1900's, the US experience extraordinary growth and innovation. The birth of the automobile, aviation, the steel industry and numerous other amazing innovations occurred during a very deregulated time in America. Do you think this is coincidence? Of course not. Many innovations that occurred during that time period could never occur now. Why? Because government restrictions/regulations/taxes would smother it. The private sector is not hiring because of financial uncertainty. This administration wants to raise taxes on the same individuals who do the majority of the hiring in this country. It makes no financial sense to hire in this hostile climate if a business wants to survive and make a PROFIT.
[/quote]
4. I am a raging capitalist. I am a consultant who has worked across almost every industry sector, all over the world. I'm paid pretty well to do it, and I work the system to my own benefit. But that doesn't mean it's a good system.
[/quote]
May I suggest a new line of work?0 -
Yes, this administration discussed raising the top marginal tax rate from 36% to 39.5%. Clearly this is the reason companies are not hiring. If I make a million dollars next year, I don't know if my after-tax profit will be $640,000 or if it will be a mere $605,000. Clearly the only prudent thing to do is stuff my capital in a mattress and support myself as an assistant manager at Sizzler 'til there's more "certainty". That makes total sense. :huh:
Businesses are not hiring 'cause demand for their products is soft, and because they (we) have again learned how to do more with less people. If Ford Motor can sell 25,000 mustangs a month, they need maybe 1,000 people to build them. If they make tons of money, they might have the cash on hand to put on a second shift and make 50,000 mustangs a month. BUT they're not going to do that because they can't sell the cars. "Job creation" isn't stalled because of uncertainty,,, it's stalled because demand is soft because unemployment is high. A lot of people are un/under-employed, and have no money, and a lot more are scared they might soon be un/under-employed, so they're not going to spend any money.
Something/somebody has got to get off of the swing and push. That's what stimulus (1/2 tax cuts BTW) did, and didn' do enough of. Doing something smarter with health care so small businesses can be more 'certain' they won't lose half their staff to an epidemic of untreated hangnails would be a plus also. Part of the plan maybe?
"Where does the constitution....?" General clause.
The purpose of a business is not to make cars or copies or create jobs or anything like that - those are side effects. The purpose of a business is to make money. It's written right into the charter of most corporations - "Increase shareholder equity". Not only don't they care about people,,, they're not ALLOWED to care about people unless it helps the bottom line. Corporations are not immoral, they are amoral, and there's a big difference. I too have worked for them all my life and know and understand them well. Great tool for what they do (make money, create wealth, drive industry), lousy for what they don't do (give a damn about human beings). We need a strong private sector AND a strong public sector. The dragon analogy is dead on.0 -
Yes, this administration discussed raising the top marginal tax rate from 36% to 39.5%. Clearly this is the reason companies are not hiring. If I make a million dollars next year, I don't know if my after-tax profit will be $640,000 or if it will be a mere $605,000. Clearly the only prudent thing to do is stuff my capital in a mattress and support myself as an assistant manager at Sizzler 'til there's more "certainty". That makes total sense. :huh:
1.)Unfortunately, your assistant manager at Sizzler's isn't a small business owner so he doesn't have to make payroll or worry about cash flow issues. This example is irrelevant to the discussion.
Businesses are not hiring 'cause demand for their products is soft, and because they (we) have again learned how to do more with less people. If Ford Motor can sell 25,000 mustangs a month, they need maybe 1,000 people to build them. If they make tons of money, they might have the cash on hand to put on a second shift and make 50,000 mustangs a month. BUT they're not going to do that because they can't sell the cars. "Job creation" isn't stalled because of uncertainty,,, it's stalled because demand is soft because unemployment is high. A lot of people are un/under-employed, and have no money, and a lot more are scared they might soon be un/under-employed, so they're not going to spend any money.
2.)Demand being soft has nothing to do with (we) having learned to do more with less people. It is soft because of the policies put in place by this administration. Ronald Reagan inherited, arguably, a worse situation than Obama did yet by his 3 year in office, the economy had added over 3 million jobs in 1983 alone with the same amount being added in 1984. In 1984 the economy grew 7.3% and all of this was done with no goverment stimulus. It was done through the cutting of taxes, deregulation(shrinking government) cutting government spending(budgetary spending) and control of the monetary supply to strengthen the dollar. The unemployment rate was 7.2%, by the end of his first term, from a high of 10.8% and dropping. Reagan left office with a 5.3% unemployment rate and had added over 15 MILLION jobs in his 8 years in office. The blueprint already existed. Obama is doing the exact opposite. He is growing government when shrinking government is what is needed and what has worked in the past.
Something/somebody has got to get off of the swing and push. That's what stimulus (1/2 tax cuts BTW) did, and didn' do enough of. Doing something smarter with health care so small businesses can be more 'certain' they won't lose half their staff to an epidemic of untreated hangnails would be a plus also. Part of the plan maybe?
3.)Someone/somebody(government) has got to get out of the way. It has already been proven to work. Stimulus didnt work and will never work with the current administrations policies in place. If the small business could afford private healthcare more power to him/her, but who is the government to dictate what he/she must do with his/her own business.
"Where does the constitution....?" General clause.
4.)No where does it state Healthcare in the general clause.
Corporations are not immoral, they are amoral. Big difference. I too have worked for them all my life and know and understand them well. Great tool for what they do (make money, create wealth, drive industry), lousy for what they don't (give a damn about human beings). We need a strong private segment AND a strong public segment. The dragon analogy is dead on.
5.)I'm not sure how long you've been around but the disloyalty goes both ways. Loyalty can and has been bought for many years. Employees leave to the highest bidder as well so it goes both ways. I'm not saying thats a bad thing since it means people are being justly compensated for their skillset. Capitalism at its best. As long as a strong public segment means lean and not unionized, I'm all for it.0 -
In the first piece - my point was that nobody really has a great idea to run a successful business and holds off because of "Uncertainty" about the tax code in the future. That doesn't even make sense. If you were raring to go with AlphaOmega.com and you thought you could do well, would you really hold off because you suspect that next year's tax rate might be 3% Higher than this year's? Of course you wouldn't. Sorry if I was unclear.
Reagan grew government through defense. I know, I was on one of his "600 ships".
Tax cuts and government out of the way? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-22/democrats-recall-reagan-s-tax-increases.html
Thinking 1981 and 2009 were about the same is just delusional. Ciao,,,0 -
In the first piece - my point was that nobody really has a great idea to run a successful business and holds off because of "Uncertainty" about the tax code in the future. That doesn't even make sense. If you were raring to go with AlphaOmega.com and you thought you could do well, would you really hold off because you suspect that next year's tax rate might be 3% Higher than this year's? Of course you wouldn't. Sorry if I was unclear.
1. Your point is taken. Unfortunately we are not just talking about a difference of 3% in the marginal tax. There is uncertainty with Obamacare which will not ony usher in a slew of new taxes but will mandate businesses to provide healthcare to its employees, a potential business killing proposition.
Reagan grew government through defense. I know, I was on one of his "600 ships".
2. I'm all for a strong defense!
Tax cuts and government out of the way? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-22/democrats-recall-reagan-s-tax-increases.html
3. You fail to mention one key point. The top marginal rate was dropped from 70% to 28%. Yes, he did raise taxes, yet even with the tax increases it was a net decrease, overall. When Obama drops the top rate to 28% we can talk.
Thinking 1981 and 2009 were about the same is just delusional. Ciao,,,
4. Obama has run trillion dollar budget deficits on what? He has spent trillions of dollars on stimulus and has absolutely nothing to show for it.
Question(seriously): Would you consider Obama's first term a success? If so, how so?0 -
Obama has run trillion dollar deficits because of unfunded wars, vastly reduced revenues due to a tanked economy and slashed tax rates, and huge mandatory outlays to keep people from starving to death. There was also the stimulus and TARP, initiated by GWB, that kept unemployment out of the 20's it was heading for.
Obama's first term a success? Well, we held off cannibalism, which is where we were headed. The Senate majority leader declared "making Barack Obama a one term president" to be his #1 priority and used the filibuster more than any delegation in history - and the house majority leader couldn't stop crying long enough to get his caucus to do anything remotely reasonable.
SO - given the unreasonable intransigence from the other side, I'd say that Jesus H. Christ himself could not have had a truly "successful" term, and all in all BHO has done Ok.0 -
0
-
Nice breakdown. It would be wonderful if people actually researched before forming their opinions esides spouting talking points they've heard over and over again. All sides.0 -
Obama has run trillion dollar deficits because of unfunded wars, vastly reduced revenues due to a tanked economy and slashed tax rates, and huge mandatory outlays to keep people from starving to death. There was also the stimulus and TARP, initiated by GWB, that kept unemployment out of the 20's it was heading for.
Bush initiated the wars, passed the tax cuts early in his administration and still never had more than a $500B deficit, aside from 2008 with the passage of TARP. Unemployment now is effectively 15% according to the U-6 unemployment rate.
Obama's first term a success? Well, we held off cannibalism, which is where we were headed. The Senate majority leader declared "making Barack Obama a one term president" to be his #1 priority and used the filibuster more than any delegation in history - and the house majority leader couldn't stop crying long enough to get his caucus to do anything remotely reasonable.
The Democrats had a super majority in Congress from 2008 to 2010 and they held the presidency so Republicans in Congress had absolutely no say in policy. The current economic "recovery" can be attributed all to this President.
SO - given the unreasonable intransigence from the other side, I'd say that Jesus H. Christ himself could not have had a truly "successful" term, and all in all BHO has done Ok.
The Gulf shore oil moratorium, rejecting the construction of the Canadian oil pipeline, increasing the national debt by over $5 Trillion dollars in 3 and half years, more debt than Bush 43 accumulated in 8 years, the subsequent lowering of US credit rating due to out of control spending, Unemployment rates exceeding(officially) 8% for the last 40 months, circumvented congress and gave amnesty to over a million illegal immigrants, mandates religious institutions to provide contraception eventhough in doing so goes contrary to everything they stand for, and to top it off, the passage of a Universal Health Care bill(through shady practices, no less. Reconciliation ring a bell?) that will end up bankrupting the country. Yea... he did OK...for a Socialist.
Just so you don't think I'm too hard on him. I'll give him props for giving the go head to take out OBL.
It appears you don't have too many expectations from our elected leaders. Ironic since you once served. I will agree to disagree.
Thanks for playin. It's been fun.0 -
When Bush left office the economy was in freefall and losing 750K jobs a month. That's like moving out with the house on fire and blaming the next guy for the damage.
There was no Supermajority. When the minority party is willing to filibuster a dry cleaning bill, it takes 60 disciplined votes to do anything, and Democrats are nothing if not undisciplined.
The Gulf shore oil moratorium was the result of a couple jillion barrels of crude getting dumped in my shrimp cocktail. Any reasonable leader would try to take steps to prevent that happening again.
Keystone XL would send oil directly to China, make a couple of key Conservative campaign contributors trillions, dump a jillion tons of C02 in the air, and affect the domestic price of oil not a whit. You do understand that you have to burn 2 gallons of oil to extract 3 from tar sands, right? So 2/3rds of the production goes straight up the stack right at the wellhead. If your next door neighbor did it you'd call the cops.
GWB raised the debt ceiling 14 times and nobody made a peep.
The folks who lowered the credit rating are the same folks that were rating exotic "Mortgage backed securities" at AAA+ in 2008, so forgive me if I'm not concerned with their opinion.
Amnesty? I hadn't heard about amnesty. I heard something about not deporting innocent kids who don't speak espanol. It was an old Rick Perry and John McCain idea, but once BHO signs on it becomes toxic. I understand.
Nobody would work on ACA in good faith. The individual mandate is an old conservative idea and was the Heritage Foundation's alternative to HillaryCare back in 94 - and also a plank of Romneycare,,, but now that BHO has signed on it's poison. Gotcha. It passed through the sausage factory on the potomac, and the SCOTUS says it's legal. It will save money over what we're doing now, (which is why Romney did it - and it works famously in Mass BTW). Healthcare costs are spiraling out of control and have to potential to really bankrupt the country and something has to be done and nobody on the R side would consider doing anything that BHO might get credit for,,, so he did what he hadda,,, but Ok.
Fun indeed, thanks for playing. Think of me this November, I'm the guy you're cancelling out. :laugh:0 -
When Bush left office the economy was in freefall and losing 750K jobs a month. That's like moving out with the house on fire and blaming the next guy for the damage.
1. I must say this is fun. The house burnt down. The insurance paid for the loss and the new owners moved in to a new home, with a jacuzzi tub I might add, with an equity loan ready to use for the first mishap. Why is the original owner still being blamed???
There was no Supermajority. When the minority party is willing to filibuster a dry cleaning bill, it takes 60 disciplined votes to do anything, and Democrats are nothing if not undisciplined.
2. Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate and held the house. This plus the Presidency = Super Majority
The Gulf shore oil moratorium was the result of a couple jillion barrels of crude getting dumped in my shrimp cocktail. Any reasonable leader would try to take steps to prevent that happening again.
3. Isn't that like throwing the baby out with the bath water? The FAA doesnt ground every single plane after an aviation accident. It is no secret that there is no love lost for the petroleum industry by the left.
Keystone XL would send oil directly to China, make a couple of key Conservative campaign contributors trillions, dump a jillion tons of C02 in the air, and affect the domestic price of oil not a whit. You do understand that you have to burn 2 gallons of oil to extract 3 from tar sands, right? So 2/3rds of the production goes straight up the stack right at the wellhead. If your next door neighbor did it you'd call the cops.
4. Agreed, the oil wouldnt stay in this country which is a problem that needs to be dealt with, however, in the short run who cares. We need jobs, DESPERATELY. The production is in Canada anyway so the environmental impact wouldnt affect us, if that is a huge concern of yours. The oil is already being extracted in Canada so either we cash in or someone else does. Again, we need jobs, DESPERATELY.
GWB raised the debt ceiling 14 times and nobody made a peep.
5. Maybe because the trajectory of his spending was much more subdued, especially compared to the spending trajectory we are currently on. Obama has not had a budget deficit of less than 1.2 Trillion. GWB's highest was $1.2 Trillion and TARP was a part of that. Its all perspective.
The folks who lowered the credit rating are the same folks that were rating exotic "Mortgage backed securities" at AAA+ in 2008, so forgive me if I'm not concerned with their opinion.
6. Point taken.
Amnesty? I hadn't heard about amnesty. I heard something about not deporting innocent kids who don't speak espanol. It was an old Rick Perry and John McCain idea, but once BHO signs on it becomes toxic. I understand.
7. The problem is BHO completed sidestepped Congress. That is unamerican when either party does it.
Nobody would work on ACA in good faith. The individual mandate is an old conservative idea and was the Heritage Foundation's alternative to HillaryCare back in 94 - and also a plank of Romneycare,,, but now that BHO has signed on it's poison. Gotcha. It passed through the sausage factory on the potomac, and the SCOTUS says it's legal. It will save money over what we're doing now, (which is why Romney did it - and it works famously in Mass BTW). Healthcare costs are spiraling out of control and have to potential to really bankrupt the country and something has to be done and nobody on the R side would consider doing anything that BHO might get credit for,,, so he did what he hadda,,, but Ok.
8. If Obamacare was so desirable why couldn't it pass the Supermajority Obama had in Congress? It was too radical and the Senate knew it. That is why they had to remove parts of it such as the public option even before the Democrats themselves would pass it. There are many things that can be done to lower cost without having government take over healthcare. The IRS can't get my taxes right why should I trust them with my health? Healthcare can exist in the framework of free enterprise if given the chance. Politics unfortunately gets in the way of sound reasoning. Ok, I'm done. If you respond, I will not.....probably =0)
Fun indeed, thanks for playing. Think of me this November, I'm the guy you're cancelling out. :laugh:
9.I do enjoy reading others view points. It's enlightening. I'm sure we'll square off again. Take care0 -
Should the government be in the position of providing for people's needs?
Seriously.
I need water to survive, but I still have to pay my water bill myself. I need food and shelter, but it's on me to make sure I am fed and housed.
But food stamps, but housing programs. OK.
How do we decide which needs get subsidized?
How do we decide if you 'need' the expensive treatment or the cheaper one? Because if the government is paying, it puts them squarely in charge of what gets paid for. It's my understanding that socialized medicine is OK at responding to everyday conditons and preventative services, but when it comes to specialized services/treatments/care, many people travel to the US for superior care, because their socialized medicine either can't or won't pay for such things.
The community is responsible for the lives of its members. The government is supposed to be representative of that community, so yes. Times have changed, everything is intertwined.
You pay your bill, yes, but you don't pay the full bill if you eat beef. Because water is subsidized for ranchers.
You pay your bill, yes, but I bet you hope regulations keep the worst of the contaminants out of your water.
It isn't corporations' business to see that kids don't starve when their parents are out of work, and if it isn't the governments', well, it's the parents. So what are you saying to them if they can't find work? That it's okay to rob and kill to feed their kids? Or maybe that it's okay to let them starve. What kind of community will we have if it ever comes down to that?
No community at all. Just endless riots and violence.0 -
I lack time and energy to continue this point by point (less),,, but this one I just got to respond to:
""The production is in Canada anyway so the environmental impact wouldnt affect us, if that is a huge concern of yours."" Really? Are you not kidding?Keystone XL would send oil directly to China, make a couple of key Conservative campaign contributors trillions, dump a jillion tons of C02 in the air, and affect the domestic price of oil not a whit. You do understand that you have to burn 2 gallons of oil to extract 3 from tar sands, right? So 2/3rds of the production goes straight up the stack right at the wellhead. If your next door neighbor did it you'd call the cops.
4. Agreed, the oil wouldnt stay in this country which is a problem that needs to be dealt with, however, in the short run who cares. We need jobs, DESPERATELY. The production is in Canada anyway so the environmental impact wouldnt affect us, if that is a huge concern of yours. The oil is already being extracted in Canada so either we cash in or someone else does. Again, we need jobs, DESPERATELY.
A - yes, I'm an air breathing mammal, so this a concern.
B - "The production is in Canada anyway so the environmental impact wouldnt affect us" - ever heard of this wierd phenomena called "Wind"? Does your pool have a urinating area? (He's pissing in the deep end, we're Ok over here - :huh: ).0 -
When Bush left office the economy was in freefall and losing 750K jobs a month. That's like moving out with the house on fire and blaming the next guy for the damage.
...
GWB raised the debt ceiling 14 times and nobody made a peep.
...
If your benchmark for the job Obama has done is based on GWB's record you have already lost. Every time I see someone criticize Obama, supporters are quick to point out GWB did this or GWB did that or Obama inherited a mess and it's all GWBs fault. Here is a news flash for you. Everyone already knows Bush was a disaster. Everyone already knows that the economy sucked when Bush left office. One of the reasons Obama had so much support in the election was because Bush soured the country on another republican president. Obama got elected to show some leadership and fix the mess. Instead we've gotten excuses and blame on the previous administration.
Obama didn't have a super majority but he got his stimulus bill passed which was supposed to fix unemployment. When it didn't work he talked about all the jobs it saved which is convenient since that is impossible to quantify. There are more people unemployed today then there were 3.5 years ago on inauguration day. Whose fault is it? Bush's? Maybe the conservatives in Congress. How about Europe? There has to be a point where it becomes Obama's economy or at the very least no longer Bush's economy. That point may be election day for some of the people that have been out of work for multiple years with no relief in sight. I voted for Obama the first go around but I can tell you if things don't improve with the economy he will not have my vote come November.
Oh.. I guess I should say something about Obamacare to stay on topic. Still waiting for a supporter to tell me how Obamacare helps the projected 3 million lower income people that will not be able to afford healthcare AND will be saddled with a tax/penalty (no need to debate semantics as its all the same crap in the end) that they currently do not have to pay.0 -
The economy was dipping at the end of Clinton's final term. Is it coincidence that he opened trade up with China and other countries, making it easier for more corporations to profitably move jobs overseas where wages were lower and worker protections almost non-existent?
It's true as someone said that companies don't have the tech to truly automate everything, but they don't have to. All they have to do is race each other to the bottom when it comes to the cost of producing their goods, then happily sell them for a huge markup.
Or that works for awhile, anyway. I don't know what they think they're going to do when it gets to the point where very few people can afford to buy their goods anymore because they don't have decent jobs.0 -
I certainly did not 'benchmark' anything based on the performance of GWB. I was asked a specific question, "would I call BHO's first term a success?".If your benchmark for the job Obama has done is based on GWB's record you have already lost. Every time I see someone criticize Obama, supporters are quick to point out GWB did this or GWB did that or Obama inherited a mess and it's all GWBs fault. Here is a news flash for you. Everyone already knows Bush was a disaster. Everyone already knows that the economy sucked when Bush left office. One of the reasons Obama had so much support in the election was because Bush soured the country on another republican president. Obama got elected to show some leadership and fix the mess. Instead we've gotten excuses and blame on the previous administration.{{snip}}
My answer to the question is: Given the monumental disaster left by GWB,,, and the profound obstructionism, blind seething hatred and naked attempts at utter destruction by the opposition party - I think he's done as well as possible. If he has been unable to work with people who are congenitally incapable of acting in good faith for the good of the country - that is certainly not his fault. Nobody can turn this economy around when 48% of the congress - 5/9ths of the Supreme Court and over half of the Governors have proven time and again that they are willing to crash the economy (again) for electoral gain.
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
Mitch McConnell - Senate minority leader. He said it and he meant it, and he's done everything in his power to make it happen - including refusing to support policies that Conservatives and Republicans supported in the past if they believe those might work and make things better. (See most of the framework of Obamacare - Romneycare - Heritage Foundation proposal of 1994). If the economy is better come November Romney loses - they know it and they've known it for a while - so they've done everything possible to prevent recovery.
I was asked the question and I answered it. I can't answer it without framing the argument. The framework of the argument is GWB and the R's (and a few idiot Dems) massive, monumental screwup. Sorry.0 -
...
... Still waiting for a supporter to tell me how Obamacare helps the projected 3 million lower income people that will not be able to afford healthcare AND will be saddled with a tax/penalty (no need to debate semantics as its all the same crap in the end) that they currently do not have to pay.
The Affordable Care Act, while flawed, is a vast improvement over the current system. But first, let me answer your pressing question. It truly IS hard to get a straight answer, though I did skim the 974 page act!!!
It is deceptive to believe the lie that those who pay nothing now for care will be newly burdened. Low income people will be able to enroll in an expanded Medicaid program...IF their states accept it. Of course, many states will object BUT the pressure from the population, including medical staff in the states, will pressure them to accepting it sooner rather than later (one can only hope). By being able to enroll in Medicaid, they pay nothing. In fact, here is the breakdown of those under the ACA who have to buy coverage (from http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/reform/a/Affordable-Care-Act-What-You-Should-Know-About-The-Affordable-Care-Act.htm) :
Required to buy private coverage
Annual income:
• $43,321 and above for an individual
• $88,201 and above for a family of four
Comments:
• You are not eligible for a subsidy, or financial assistance at this salary level.
• If you remain without health insurance, you may have to pay a penalty of up 2.5% of your income unless you qualify for certain exemptions
Those who currently can't buy health insurance because they can't afford it and who don't fall into the extreme poverty level, have nothing but emergency care. So it is a crock to believe that these people would suffer unduly under the new law. The only way they will suffer under the new law is if individual states decide to continue to exclude them by not adopting the expanded Medicaid.
I love that, and the following:
In every State and for the first time ever, insurance companies are required to publicly justify their actions if they want to raise rates by 10 percent or more and more states have the authority to reject unreasonable premium increases.
Under the new health care law, insurers can no longer impose lifetime dollar limits on care and annual limits are being phased out by 2014.
No more preexisting condition block for employees laid off and forced to get a new insurance plan if they manage to find a new job that actually offers benefits.
There are additional benefits for health professionals. While flawed, it is a huge step in the right direction of modernizing and putting sanity back into "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." No one can convince me that affordable health care for all is not in line with these words from the Declaration of Independence. No one can convince me that the monied in this country should have any better access than those who run their industries, produce their goods, harvest their crops, mow their lawns, cook their food and, dare I mention, breed so that this unskilled workforce continues into the future!!!
-Debra0 -
I certainly did not 'benchmark' anything based on the performance of GWB. I was asked a specific question, "would I call BHO's first term a success?".If your benchmark for the job Obama has done is based on GWB's record you have already lost. Every time I see someone criticize Obama, supporters are quick to point out GWB did this or GWB did that or Obama inherited a mess and it's all GWBs fault. Here is a news flash for you. Everyone already knows Bush was a disaster. Everyone already knows that the economy sucked when Bush left office. One of the reasons Obama had so much support in the election was because Bush soured the country on another republican president. Obama got elected to show some leadership and fix the mess. Instead we've gotten excuses and blame on the previous administration.{{snip}}
My answer to the question is: Given the monumental disaster left by GWB,,, and the profound obstructionism, blind seething hatred and naked attempts at utter destruction by the opposition party - I think he's done as well as possible. If he has been unable to work with people who are congenitally incapable of acting in good faith for the good of the country - that is certainly not his fault. Nobody can turn this economy around when 48% of the congress - 5/9ths of the Supreme Court and over half of the Governors have proven time and again that they are willing to crash the economy (again) for electoral gain.
“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
Mitch McConnell - Senate minority leader. He said it and he meant it, and he's done everything in his power to make it happen.
I was asked the question and I answered it. I can't answer it without framing the argument. The framework of the argument is GWB and the R's (and a few idiot Dems) massive, monumental screwup. Sorry.
The facts are the facts. In some people's minds, there seems to be a statute of limitations wherein past reality ceases to exist and can no longer affect the present.
Reality doesn't always fit neatly into election cycles.0 -
There are wayyy too many quotes to keep straight...Obama's administration projected unemployment rates would not top 8% IF stimulus was passed. It has not been below 8% since the stimulus as passed. It is a failure based solely on Obama's projections. How much more objective can it be.
This stimulus that you speak of has increased our yearly budget deficit by more than $1 trillion/year which has added in excess of $5 trillion dollars to the country's debt. This led to a downgrade of the United States' credit rating by S&P and yet this is only the "first step"?
Obama was either politically motivated or incredibly incompetent when he decided to bail out the states. If his purpose was to stimulate the economy how is that done by funding jobs that inherently do not produce or stimulate production in the private sector. It is well known that the majority of the funding went to his largest donors; unions. It was merely a political move to appease his base which is unfortunate because he sacrificed the greater good of the economy. If he would have spent the money on "shovel ready" jobs, this would have had a much more stimulating affect to the private sector which is where job creation occurs in this country. By bailing out the unions, it clearly shows it was no more than a political move.
You are correct. You are not an economist although you may play one on T.V. It should be quite apparent that this country is heading in the wrong direction. Not only are we heading into a financial calamity, SCOTUS just rewrote the Constitution and expanded the governments power to shape its citizen's behavior with the threat of taxation. UNPRECEDENTED.
1. There is no way to stimulate production in the private sector other than creating incentives for people to actually spend money. For people to spend money, they have to have money, so that turns into a vicious circle very quickly.
2. It is not the purpose of the private sector to create jobs or lower unemployment. It is the purpose of the private sector to make a profit. If they could do this without a single human being on payroll, they wouldn't hesitate - human capital is usually the biggest cost of a company, and that cost brings down profits.
In theory you are right, however, the reality is that private industry is made up of primarily small business which do not have the capital nor the technology to "automate" there operations to the point where human labor would be made obsolete. This primarily relates to the manufacturing sector. The Service, Food, Technology and Entertainment sector, to name a few, are all extremely labor dependent so your point is moot when put into context. As an aside, the private sector employs 5x's the number of people in the public sector which means 80% of the working population is employed by private business.
Lol, 'in theory I'm right"? Dude, no, I'm just plain right, and my point is not moot simply because you say it is - you trying out for a Fox Entertainment anchor spot?
Yes, there are people-instensive industries, like hospitality, of course. But that old line about 'most businesses are small businesses and they need to hire people' is crap, because small businesses are the *last* to hire people, and they are certainly the last to hire people and give them benefits - and hospitality and food service, btw, is famous for this. This simply contributes to under-employment, and people are still treated like ****. So, laws like the healthcare law because even *more* important.
Also, nowhere did I advocate that the government should hire everybody. But what I would like is regulation to make sure that the people who are hired aren't screwed left, sideways, and center by the companies that hire them - things like minimum wage and a solution to healthcare problems is a step in the right direction.
Seriously, keep your silly head-in-the-clouds convervative, arrogant armchair economic platitudes to yourself. You sound like you don't have a clue how the world actually works.3. It is the purpose of governments - both federal and state - to take care of the people for which it is responsible. Does that include finding ways to help them pay the rent and buy food? Yes. Does it include trying to ensure they have healthcare? Yes. Does it include stimulating the economy so that, through public spending, they can buy things that will *hopefully* lead to increased sales in the private sector that will *hopefully* lead to private sector companies hiring more people that will *hopefully* lead to more money being in circulation and more spending that creates a positive feedback loop? Yes - because if it didn't, the unemployment rates would be up closer to 10-11% instead of 8%. If the private sector got off its *kitten* and actually started hiring with some of the record profits they've been making, unemployment would already be below 7%. But, back to my original point, that's not their purpose. No private sector company cares at all about who's employed and who isn't. It's not their functional role in the economy. Private sector hiring is a beneficial side effect of companies doing what companies do. But, and I know I'm repeating myself, companies will gladly shed as much of their staff as possible, if they have a way to do the same work with fewer people. Depending on private sector companies to create jobs is like hiding under a dragon to stay out of the rain. It might work from time to time, but the dragon really doesn't care about your well being.You may be a Capitalist but an economist you are not. It is called Supply and Demand. The marketplace(private industry) creates products which are in demand by the public. This results in demand for workers who are in turn compensated by a wage. This individual then has the means to procure food, shelter, and healthcare if they so decide, however, none of these are guarantees provided to us by the Constitution.
You're bringing the Constitution into it? And you think I'm not an economist? What the heck does the Constitution have to do with economics?It is called personal responsibility and that is accompanied by personal liberty. Where in the Constitution does is say the government is responsible for the care of its citizens? Your assertions that the government must provide, in essence, a cradle to grave or a nanny state is what is wrong with America. Healthcare is not a right. It is a privelege. A privelege that I did not have growing up yet have worked extremely hard to provide for my family. It is not the governments job to stimulate the economy.
Where to begin? Ok, first, about the Constitution, since you went there... did you miss, oh, the *FIRST SENTENCE*, where it says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
1. insure domestic Tranquility
2. promote the general Welfare
So, did you just skip that part?Government interference hinders economic growth. From 1800 to the early 1900's, the US experience extraordinary growth and innovation. The birth of the automobile, aviation, the steel industry and numerous other amazing innovations occurred during a very deregulated time in America. Do you think this is coincidence? Of course not. Many innovations that occurred during that time period could never occur now. Why? Because government restrictions/regulations/taxes would smother it. The private sector is not hiring because of financial uncertainty. This administration wants to raise taxes on the same individuals who do the majority of the hiring in this country. It makes no financial sense to hire in this hostile climate if a business wants to survive and make a PROFIT.
Sometimes, growth needs hindering if the path to growth has a negative overall impact on the 'general Welfare,' and the people it is built upon. That's why unions came into existence (not saying unions are perfect, or that the union system doesn't need its own reform). But yes, like I said, it is the job of business to make a profit, not take care of the people who work for it. Again, that's where the government comes in, to make sure business, in its pursuit for profit, doesn't destroy the world in the process.4. I am a raging capitalist. I am a consultant who has worked across almost every industry sector, all over the world. I'm paid pretty well to do it, and I work the system to my own benefit. But that doesn't mean it's a good system.May I suggest a new line of work?
Hell no... did you miss the part about me making a killing doing what I do? I help companies get better, and I provide a valuable service - so says the market, since I have no problem keeping old clients and getting new ones. Plus, I really enjoy it.
[/quote]
[/quote]0
This discussion has been closed.