Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Let’s Not Make a Deal

Zen Peach





Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 10:01 AM
Let’s Not Make a Deal
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Back in 2001, former President George W. Bush pulled a fast one. He wanted to enact an irresponsible tax cut, largely for the benefit of the wealthiest Americans. But there were Senate rules in place designed to prevent that kind of irresponsibility. So Mr. Bush evaded the rules by making the tax cut temporary, with the whole thing scheduled to expire on the last day of 2010.

The plan, of course, was to come back later and make the thing permanent, never mind the impact on the deficit. But that never happened. And so here we are, with 2010 almost over and nothing resolved.

Democrats have tried to push a compromise: let tax cuts for the wealthy expire, but extend tax cuts for the middle class. Republicans, however, are having none of it. They have been filibustering Democratic attempts to separate tax cuts that mainly benefit a tiny group of wealthy Americans from those that mainly help the middle class. It’s all or nothing, they say: all the Bush tax cuts must be extended. What should Democrats do?

The answer is that they should just say no. If G.O.P. intransigence means that taxes rise at the end of this month, so be it.

Think about the logic of the situation. Right now, the Republicans see themselves as successful blackmailers, holding a clear upper hand. President Obama, they believe, wouldn’t dare preside over a broad tax increase while the economy is depressed. And they therefore believe that he will give in to their demands.

But while raising taxes when unemployment is high is a bad thing, there are worse things. And a cold, hard look at the consequences of giving in to the G.O.P. now suggests that saying no, and letting the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule, is the lesser of two evils.

Bear in mind that Republicans want to make those tax cuts permanent. They might agree to a two- or three-year extension — but only because they believe that this would set up the conditions for a permanent extension later. And they may well be right: if tax-cut blackmail works now, why shouldn’t it work again later?

America, however, cannot afford to make those cuts permanent. We’re talking about almost $4 trillion in lost revenue just over the next decade; over the next 75 years, the revenue loss would be more than three times the entire projected Social Security shortfall. So giving in to Republican demands would mean risking a major fiscal crisis — a crisis that could be resolved only by making savage cuts in federal spending.

And we’re not talking about government programs nobody cares about: the only way to cut spending enough to pay for the Bush tax cuts in the long run would be to dismantle large parts of Social Security and Medicare.

So the potential cost of giving in to Republican demands is high. What about the costs of letting the tax cuts expire? To be sure, letting taxes rise in a depressed economy would do damage — but not as much as many people seem to think.

A few months ago, the Congressional Budget Office released a report on the impact of various tax options. A two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts, it estimated, would lower the unemployment rate next year by between 0.1 and 0.3 percentage points compared with what it would be if the tax cuts were allowed to expire; the effect would be about twice as large in 2012. Those are significant numbers, but not huge — certainly not enough to justify the apocalyptic rhetoric one often hears about what will happen if the tax cuts are allowed to end on schedule.

Oh, and what about confidence? I’ve been skeptical about claims that budget deficits hurt the economy even in the short run, because they undermine confidence in the government’s long-run solvency. Advanced countries, I’ve argued, have a lot of fiscal leeway. But anything that makes permanent extension of obviously irresponsible tax cuts more likely also sends a strong signal to investors: it says, “Hey, we aren’t really an advanced country; we’re a banana republic!” And that can’t be good for the economy.

Last but not least: if Democrats give in to the blackmailers now, they’ll just face more demands in the future. As long as Republicans believe that Mr. Obama will do anything to avoid short-term pain, they’ll have every incentive to keep taking hostages. If the president will endanger America’s fiscal future to avoid a tax increase, what will he give to avoid a government shutdown?

So Mr. Obama should draw a line in the sand, right here, right now. If Republicans hold out, and taxes go up, he should tell the nation the truth, and denounce the blackmail attempt for what it is.

Yes, letting taxes go up would be politically risky. But giving in would be risky, too — especially for a president whom voters are starting to write off as a man too timid to take a stand. Now is the time for him to prove them wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/opinion/06krugman.html?_r=1&ref=paulk rugman

 

____________________


 
Replies:

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3106
(3106 all sites)
Registered: 5/16/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 10:36 AM
Now Allen,

You're not seriously expecting for Obama to "grow a set"? Obama is a talker, not a walker.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 10:41 AM
Armed with a bit of knowledge to add to Krugman's mostly inane comments, one can finally put to rest the issue of the Bush tax cuts "for the rich" only.

Washington pols have been bantering around the figure of $700 billion - or $70 billion per year - as the amount of estimated additional revenue over the next 10 years if we preserve all existing rates and only increase the tax on those with greater than $250k/yr incomes. We've heard that figure time and time again from all the Obama and Democrat Congressional leaders. Aside from the fact that people will alter their behaviors to avoid increased taxes, thus meaning that actual revenue will not reach the estimate, let's use that figure for now.

Ok, so Krugman states the following...

quote:
He wanted to enact an irresponsible tax cut, largely for the benefit of the wealthiest Americans.
quote:
We’re talking about almost $4 trillion in lost revenue just over the next decade
Huh? Where does the $4 trillion figure come from? I thought it was $700 billion if we raised rates on only those "wealthy" earners.

Well, it would appear that $4 trillion is the estimated additional revenue if ALL the Bush rates were allowed to expire, meaning that everyone would face a tax increase - not just the rich.

So wait a minute. If the amount of estimated additional revenue on those >$250k/yr earners is $700 billion, then the difference - $3.3 trillion - must be the amount from the lower income earners. In other words; the Bush rates give far more actual $'s to the lower wage earners as a group. Wow, the media hasn't exactly portrayed it that way...... well........ ever.

I'm sure Paul will continue on with his one-sided, totally-politicized, spend-crazy view of economics. But it looks like he let a little sliver of truth slip out today. Small miracle.

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1853
(1853 all sites)
Registered: 10/20/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 10:48 AM
One reason I voted for Obama was because he promised to end the tax breaks for the rich and increase taxes on the rich and lower taxes on the poor.

I feel like I've been lied to.

I guess he's just like every other lying politician. And I was hoping for more this time. Oh well....

 

____________________
Green is Good

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 10:59 AM
This could be Obama's Waterloo.

I like bartering, but trading tax cuts for the wealthy for the possibility of extended unemployment benefits for the working class and working poor doesn't sound like a good deal for me.

Fred, Obama better grow a set fast, or his presidency is dead in the water. If he caves on this, he will have a host of Democrats ready to vie for his job in 2012. He has not ended DADT, Guantanamo is still open, and the war in Afghanistan is being escalated. If he gives tax cuts to the same class of Americans that oversees the banking, financial, insurance, health care, and other industries, which are already sucking all the money out of the wallets of the working class who built this country, he is dead meat. I think that will be the last straw for a lot of people, on the right and on the left.

 

____________________



 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 11:14 AM
quote:
This could be Obama's Waterloo.
The D's have had all year - 2 years really - to do whatever they wanted to on this issue without needing any bipartisanship from the R's. And they've let it go to the last possible second, along with the other issues you mention. Instead, we got a year and a half of healthcare nonsense that almost everyone hates. So much for faith in politicians...

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46654
(46655 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 11:19 AM
Whatever happens with these tax cuts still has zero effect on the inevitability of the looming entitlement crush.

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3106
(3106 all sites)
Registered: 5/16/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 11:22 AM
Well Allen, maybe Ohio's Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy might be one of those Democrats. Perhaps America needs a President who can truely identify with the "wants and needs" of America's working and middle class. And like it or not, Obama IS NOT that person. Indeed he has to much of the Ivy League mindset and when you think about it, just about all your banking CEOs on Wall Street are Ivy Leaguers. Basically, Obama helps those who are most like him.

quote:
From Ohio, Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy describes "the worry, the anguish and sometimes despair" among her constituents and urges President Obama to spend more time with people who don't make "six-figure incomes."

Improvement is what Kilroy's constituents, bludgeoned by long-term economic difficulties, are desperately seeking. The party's heavy losses this year among white working-class voters, she said, should not have come as a shock.

"I watched them in the last four years go from being anxious about the future to being worried, but also hopeful during the 2008 campaign, to being very angry." To explain, she invoked the world as seen by a person "who worked at Siemens for 25 years."

"You have a son who is a high school basketball player and wants to go to college - and then your factory goes off to Mexico," she says, "And you're a man of a certain age and another factory or another employer won't give you a second look. Think of the despair felt by that person."

Such voters see Washington as "a place where their interests get sold out." What they want, she says, is "to feel they're being treated as well as the bankers who get bailed out."

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 19618
(20084 all sites)
Registered: 1/19/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 11:23 AM
I watched Senator Tom Harkin's passionate testimony about the plight of the unemployed and the tax cut/tax increase situation. He did his research, had charts and facts and figures.

There is 17-18% unemployment with 26 million people out of work (that includes p/t workers and those who have given up looking)
There is 1 job for every 5 workers,
6 million people have been out of work for half a year or more.

The cost to extend benefits for unemployed workers is $56 billion dollars to extend benefits for one year. The Republicans say that money to fund this extension should come out of the infrastructure fund. (the fund that pays for roads, bridges etc).

The Republicans would vote for $700 Billion in tax cuts for the wealthy, but the funding for that would have to be added onto our national debt (deficit).

Unemployment benefits are lower than the poverty wage in this country.

For every dollar of unemployment spent the govt. gets back $1.62 in gross domestic product increase, for every dollar spent on food stamps, the goct. gets back $1.74 in gross domestic product spending because people use their unemployment benefits to pay rent, or buy good, or essential things they need. Their spending helps keep, create jobs for people providing these services.

The Republicans said they will shut down the govt. if they do not get their tax cuts continued, so the Democrats created two resolutions, one for those making $200,000 or less (whom they call the middle class) which was passed by both sides, and the other one for the wealthier Americans which has not been passed.

Harkin pointed out that Clinton raised taxes in 93 and created jobs and pulled our economy out of the recession Bush Sr. had allowed to happen.

Remarks: If the govt. is shut down, their payments to states will be held back. Like what happened in California, people will be laid off or work for minimum wage, not be able to make their mortgage payments, lose their houses etc. If this happens to enough people, a movement will be started (like a revolution), and then, martial law would have to be imposed. So the tax cuts for the wealthy have to be passed or this will be America's future.

 

____________________
"Mankind is a single nation" "Allah did not make you a single people so he could try you in what he gave you, to him you will all return, he will inform you where you differed". Quran Chapter 2 Sura 213

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 11:27 AM
quote:
quote:
This could be Obama's Waterloo.
The D's have had all year - 2 years really - to do whatever they wanted to on this issue without needing any bipartisanship from the R's. And they've let it go to the last possible second, along with the other issues you mention. Instead, we got a year and a half of healthcare nonsense that almost everyone hates. So much for faith in politicians...


Fuji, I don't blame Obama for doing what every president has tired to do, or at least talked about doing, and that is putting a rein on the insanity of having insurance companies manage our health care. The obstructionist Republicans threw a grenade into that effort, so we got a bill that went too far for some people, and not far enough for others. Obama should have stood up to the Republicans and the insurance industry then, and made Congress keep single payer on the table. The "nonsense" of the past year and a half is the fault of the Republicans in Congress, wealthy white men trying desperately to hold onto power and their wealth. Obama's downfall is trying to work with those people, when he should have run right over them when he had the chance.

 

____________________



 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 11:34 AM
quote:
Well Allen, maybe Ohio's Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy might be one of those Democrats. Perhaps America needs a President who can truely identify with the "wants and needs" of America's working and middle class. And like it or not, Obama IS NOT that person. Indeed he has to much of the Ivy League mindset and when you think about it, just about all your banking CEOs on Wall Street are Ivy Leaguers. Basically, Obama helps those who are most like him.

quote:
From Ohio, Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy describes "the worry, the anguish and sometimes despair" among her constituents and urges President Obama to spend more time with people who don't make "six-figure incomes."

Improvement is what Kilroy's constituents, bludgeoned by long-term economic difficulties, are desperately seeking. The party's heavy losses this year among white working-class voters, she said, should not have come as a shock.

"I watched them in the last four years go from being anxious about the future to being worried, but also hopeful during the 2008 campaign, to being very angry." To explain, she invoked the world as seen by a person "who worked at Siemens for 25 years."

"You have a son who is a high school basketball player and wants to go to college - and then your factory goes off to Mexico," she says, "And you're a man of a certain age and another factory or another employer won't give you a second look. Think of the despair felt by that person."

Such voters see Washington as "a place where their interests get sold out." What they want, she says, is "to feel they're being treated as well as the bankers who get bailed out."



She clearly has her finger to the pulse of the working class in America. I don't think Obama does. As you say, he identifies with his peer group, wealthy, educated elite from all races.

 

____________________



 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 11:37 AM
quote:
The Republicans would vote for $700 Billion in tax cuts for the wealthy
Ah, wrong Gina. They are voting not to increase current tax rates. There are no new cuts. And the $700 billion figure is an estimate of an estimate. It was calculated by taking CBO's estimated incomes for the next 10 years, then statically applying the higher rate, and estimating that those affected would not change behaviors to avoid the higher taxes. Talk about wishful thinking...

How about Senator Harkin voting to reduce spending by $70 billion a year? It would be the same thing, and were talking less than 2% of the Federal budget. How about letting people keep their money and govt doing with less? How about reducing the Federal workforce that has exploded in size over the past 8 years, or reducing their wages in a similar fashion to what middle class and lower income taxpayers have faced? Why isn't that the solution, instead of giving more to a govt that knows nothing but spend, spend, spend and never makes tough decisions?

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46654
(46655 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 11:44 AM
The GOP always gets the upper hand in these things because when it comes to crafting their messages, notions and talking points, they're just better at it.

They've boiled this one down to "tax cuts for everybody, or tax cuts for nobody."

If anyone does go to the wall insisting that the "wealthy pay more," those people get instantly painted as class warfare-mongering socialists.

There are those who think that there are no people out there that resent the "rich," especially in times of a hard economy, or if they are, they must have been egged on by politicians. That's not true, but, it is what it is.

quote:
How about reducing the Federal workforce that has exploded in size over the past 8 years, or reducing their wages in a similar fashion to what middle class and lower income taxpayers have faced?


Political poliarization plays a huge part here. If Obama cut half the Federal workforce, he'd be flayed for adding to the unemployment rate.

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 11:46 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
This could be Obama's Waterloo.
The D's have had all year - 2 years really - to do whatever they wanted to on this issue without needing any bipartisanship from the R's. And they've let it go to the last possible second, along with the other issues you mention. Instead, we got a year and a half of healthcare nonsense that almost everyone hates. So much for faith in politicians...
Fuji, I don't blame Obama for doing what every president has tired to do, or at least talked about doing, and that is putting a rein on the insanity of having insurance companies manage our health care. The obstructionist Republicans threw a grenade into that effort, so we got a bill that went too far for some people, and not far enough for others. Obama should have stood up to the Republicans and the insurance industry then, and made Congress keep single payer on the table. The "nonsense" of the past year and a half is the fault of the Republicans in Congress, wealthy white men trying desperately to hold onto power and their wealth. Obama's downfall is trying to work with those people, when he should have run right over them when he had the chance.
Nice try. He had all the votes necessary to do whatever they wanted without needing a single Republican. And they constructed a nightmare that does nothing but cost more, explode the bureaucracy, give govt more control - while at the same time forcing everyone to buy and spend more... with the insurance companies. The D's have no cover and absolutely no one else to blame; for the disaster of Obamacare, the ignorance of other more important matters, and the unfinished business now pressing upon the lame ducks.

I'm not saying Republicans are any better, but the D's have been a train wreck these past two years.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46654
(46655 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 11:55 AM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
This could be Obama's Waterloo.
The D's have had all year - 2 years really - to do whatever they wanted to on this issue without needing any bipartisanship from the R's. And they've let it go to the last possible second, along with the other issues you mention. Instead, we got a year and a half of healthcare nonsense that almost everyone hates. So much for faith in politicians...
Fuji, I don't blame Obama for doing what every president has tired to do, or at least talked about doing, and that is putting a rein on the insanity of having insurance companies manage our health care. The obstructionist Republicans threw a grenade into that effort, so we got a bill that went too far for some people, and not far enough for others. Obama should have stood up to the Republicans and the insurance industry then, and made Congress keep single payer on the table. The "nonsense" of the past year and a half is the fault of the Republicans in Congress, wealthy white men trying desperately to hold onto power and their wealth. Obama's downfall is trying to work with those people, when he should have run right over them when he had the chance.
Nice try. He had all the votes necessary to do whatever they wanted without needing a single Republican. And they constructed a nightmare that does nothing but cost more, explode the bureaucracy, give govt more control - while at the same time forcing everyone to buy and spend more... with the insurance companies. The D's have no cover and absolutely no one else to blame; for the disaster of Obamacare, the ignorance of other more important matters, and the unfinished business now pressing upon the lame ducks.

I'm not saying Republicans are any better, but the D's have been a train wreck these past two years.


Please explain how the creation of 35 to 40 million new customers to the private sector healthcare insurance companies equals the government expansion of power you describe.

Have you been to the healthcare HHS website? I'm sure you're familiar with sales and I'm sure you're familiar with what a lead-generation system is. Tell me how it isn't one.

The insurance companies got the healthcare "reform" they wanted established by the Democrats and now the Republicans are going to fine tune it to their needs. Tell me how that won't happen.

Don't misinterpret this as some sort of cheerleading for Obama or the Democrats. This whole healthcare reform business looks pretty clear to me...the private sector using the government to get what it wants. This is not new.

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

A Peach Supreme



Karma:
Posts: 2145
(2145 all sites)
Registered: 5/9/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 12:04 PM
If they don't extend the tax cuts for the wealthy and do cut middle class taxes the Republicans will never stop accusing the Democrats of "raising taxes". Because it would be technically true to a degree they will be allowed to repeat it endlessly and the ignorant, reactionary public will believe it. That tactic is the single most disgusting aspect of Republican politics and it never fails.
 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 12:30 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
This could be Obama's Waterloo.
The D's have had all year - 2 years really - to do whatever they wanted to on this issue without needing any bipartisanship from the R's. And they've let it go to the last possible second, along with the other issues you mention. Instead, we got a year and a half of healthcare nonsense that almost everyone hates. So much for faith in politicians...
Fuji, I don't blame Obama for doing what every president has tired to do, or at least talked about doing, and that is putting a rein on the insanity of having insurance companies manage our health care. The obstructionist Republicans threw a grenade into that effort, so we got a bill that went too far for some people, and not far enough for others. Obama should have stood up to the Republicans and the insurance industry then, and made Congress keep single payer on the table. The "nonsense" of the past year and a half is the fault of the Republicans in Congress, wealthy white men trying desperately to hold onto power and their wealth. Obama's downfall is trying to work with those people, when he should have run right over them when he had the chance.
Nice try. He had all the votes necessary to do whatever they wanted without needing a single Republican. And they constructed a nightmare that does nothing but cost more, explode the bureaucracy, give govt more control - while at the same time forcing everyone to buy and spend more... with the insurance companies. The D's have no cover and absolutely no one else to blame; for the disaster of Obamacare, the ignorance of other more important matters, and the unfinished business now pressing upon the lame ducks.

I'm not saying Republicans are any better, but the D's have been a train wreck these past two years.


There are two trains on that track, both of them wrecks.

 

____________________



 

Banned


Karma:
Posts: 362
(363 all sites)
Registered: 4/10/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 12:37 PM
quote:
Whatever happens with these tax cuts still has zero effect on the inevitability of the looming entitlement crush.


Hawk is right on, and I'll add that there needs to be SIGNIFICANT reductions in government spending...otherwise this is all just kabuki theater, and we're all screwed.

 

A Peach Supreme



Karma:
Posts: 2145
(2145 all sites)
Registered: 5/9/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 12:39 PM
quote:
quote:
Whatever happens with these tax cuts still has zero effect on the inevitability of the looming entitlement crush.


Hawk is right on, and I'll add that there needs to be SIGNIFICANT reductions in government spending...otherwise this is all just kabuki theater, and we're all screwed.


Would that include ending the wars or just causing suffering in America?

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 12:47 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
This could be Obama's Waterloo.
The D's have had all year - 2 years really - to do whatever they wanted to on this issue without needing any bipartisanship from the R's. And they've let it go to the last possible second, along with the other issues you mention. Instead, we got a year and a half of healthcare nonsense that almost everyone hates. So much for faith in politicians...
Fuji, I don't blame Obama for doing what every president has tired to do, or at least talked about doing, and that is putting a rein on the insanity of having insurance companies manage our health care. The obstructionist Republicans threw a grenade into that effort, so we got a bill that went too far for some people, and not far enough for others. Obama should have stood up to the Republicans and the insurance industry then, and made Congress keep single payer on the table. The "nonsense" of the past year and a half is the fault of the Republicans in Congress, wealthy white men trying desperately to hold onto power and their wealth. Obama's downfall is trying to work with those people, when he should have run right over them when he had the chance.
Nice try. He had all the votes necessary to do whatever they wanted without needing a single Republican. And they constructed a nightmare that does nothing but cost more, explode the bureaucracy, give govt more control - while at the same time forcing everyone to buy and spend more... with the insurance companies. The D's have no cover and absolutely no one else to blame; for the disaster of Obamacare, the ignorance of other more important matters, and the unfinished business now pressing upon the lame ducks.

I'm not saying Republicans are any better, but the D's have been a train wreck these past two years.
Please explain how the creation of 35 to 40 million new customers to the private sector healthcare insurance companies equals the government expansion of power you describe.

Have you been to the healthcare HHS website? I'm sure you're familiar with sales and I'm sure you're familiar with what a lead-generation system is. Tell me how it isn't one.

The insurance companies got the healthcare "reform" they wanted established by the Democrats and now the Republicans are going to fine tune it to their needs. Tell me how that won't happen.

Don't misinterpret this as some sort of cheerleading for Obama or the Democrats. This whole healthcare reform business looks pretty clear to me...the private sector using the government to get what it wants. This is not new.
You know I respect the hell out of you Hawk, but if all they were doing was handing everything over to the insurance companies, why did it require 2.700 pages of legislation to make that happen? They've created all sorts of new bureaucracies, given the HHS Secretary discretionary powers over hundreds of healthcare-related policies, and will dictate much of the choices available to the health care consumer. Those options may be carried out by the insurance companies (for now), but they will be dictated from Washington. More govt power and size that will only make life more difficult for the average citizen.

I still don't believe that we'll ever see Obamacare instituted in its full form, either due to it's impossible complexity, political opposition, inability to fund it, or reversals to it's very existence (either through the courts or legislatively). But the D's wasted a lot of these past two years on something that was and still is a controversial monster, while at the same time paying little heed to more pressing economic problems. I stand by the fiscal description I gave to this President over 18 months ago: economic kryptonite.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 12:48 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
This could be Obama's Waterloo.
The D's have had all year - 2 years really - to do whatever they wanted to on this issue without needing any bipartisanship from the R's. And they've let it go to the last possible second, along with the other issues you mention. Instead, we got a year and a half of healthcare nonsense that almost everyone hates. So much for faith in politicians...
Fuji, I don't blame Obama for doing what every president has tired to do, or at least talked about doing, and that is putting a rein on the insanity of having insurance companies manage our health care. The obstructionist Republicans threw a grenade into that effort, so we got a bill that went too far for some people, and not far enough for others. Obama should have stood up to the Republicans and the insurance industry then, and made Congress keep single payer on the table. The "nonsense" of the past year and a half is the fault of the Republicans in Congress, wealthy white men trying desperately to hold onto power and their wealth. Obama's downfall is trying to work with those people, when he should have run right over them when he had the chance.
Nice try. He had all the votes necessary to do whatever they wanted without needing a single Republican. And they constructed a nightmare that does nothing but cost more, explode the bureaucracy, give govt more control - while at the same time forcing everyone to buy and spend more... with the insurance companies. The D's have no cover and absolutely no one else to blame; for the disaster of Obamacare, the ignorance of other more important matters, and the unfinished business now pressing upon the lame ducks.

I'm not saying Republicans are any better, but the D's have been a train wreck these past two years.
There are two trains on that track, both of them wrecks.
All too true SCB - unfortunately for all of us.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 12:56 PM
I'm not sure how the health care thing is going to play out, but I do know that aspects of it are being implemented in California, as i assume they are everywhere. My congresspeople are very proud of the work they did on this bill, and while they don't think it goes far enough, they think it is a good start. The bill is not universally hated as some want us to think. It is a start. The banking and insurance industries, and all the Americans who are in the upper levels of those industries, have grown wealthy on the backs of working Americans. Those Americans are waking up and they don't like it. This story isn't over by a long shot, and I expect the smug looks on the faces of Republicans in Congress won't be there long.

 

____________________



 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46654
(46655 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 12:56 PM
quote:
You know I respect the hell out of you Hawk, but if all they were doing was handing everything over to the insurance companies, why did it require 2.700 pages of legislation to make that happen? They've created all sorts of new bureaucracies, given the HHS Secretary discretionary powers over hundreds of healthcare-related policies, and will dictate much of the choices available to the health care consumer. Those options may be carried out by the insurance companies (for now), but they will be dictated from Washington. More govt power and size that will only make life more difficult for the average citizen.



I know it pains you to think of any private business being less than perfect, but who do you think wrote this legislation? Do you really believe that the government and megabusiness are totally separate? Who wrote the massive amount of new energy legislation during the Bush Administration? It wasn't legislators. No difference here.

One example. Several Republicans have talked about eliminating the provision that bans exclusion of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Why on Earth would anyone oppose that? Unless...

You still didn't explain the creation of 35 to 40 million new customers for private insurers and how you equate that to gov't control.

Again...have you been to the HHS healthcare insurance website?

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 15832
(15866 all sites)
Registered: 8/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 12:58 PM
quote:
while at the same time paying little heed to more pressing economic problems.


Fuji, you may not like what Obama has done, but he certainly has not ignored the economy.

 

____________________



 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8384
(8385 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 12/6/2010 at 01:03 PM
quote:
quote:
while at the same time paying little heed to more pressing economic problems.
Fuji, you may not like what Obama has done, but he certainly has not ignored the economy.
True. He just hasn't done anything to improve it in any sustainable way. Most of the stimulus went to prop-up the public sector. That's a short-term band aid at best.

 
<<  1    2    3  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com