Fiscal Responsibility: Obama Takes the Reins 84 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Now I am a believer.
Few readers of my blog will be surprised to hear that I supported Barack Obama in the election. But I was always skeptical that he would be able to achieve fully his promises to bring candor, responsibility, and bipartisanship to Washington. Experience had convinced me it wasn’t possible. OK, I am still dubious whether it is possible to achieve bipartisanship – even for Obama. The evidence was his failure a week ago to get a single Republican vote for his fiscal stimulus in the House (and only three votes in the Senate) despite his substantial election mandate, the severity of the current recession, and the concessions he made to the other side.
When it comes to honesty and responsibility, however, what he did at the Fiscal Responsibility Summit yesterday was breathtaking. Obama didn’t just promise to cut the budget deficit in half over the next four years. Both his predecessors promised to do that. He provided enough details to make one believe that he actually might be able to do it, despite the remarkably adverse circumstances that he has inherited.
Before I elaborate on how he apparently plans to bring fiscal sanity back to Washington, let me explain what to us policy wonks is the most amazing thing of all: With a few bold waves of his hand, Obama has brought down all the cobwebs of misleading and dishonest budget math that have hopelessly obscured and encumbered the making of fiscal policy at the White House. This is a risk: it means admitting that the budget situation is far worse than the Republicans have been claiming. They could try to blame the appearance of worse numbers on him. But he is doing the right thing. And this is the right time.
To get more specific, here are three kinds of tricks that his predecessor used in order to pretend to be on a path back to fiscal solvency. They sound childish, but they fooled most of the country. (I am skipping the wilder claims, that didn’t fool as many people.) Obama and his team are voluntarily giving up these tricks, even though he probably won’t get much credit for it:
- Trick #1: Omitting from future budget estimates the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Every year, for the past 5 years, the expensive wars have continued; and every year the White House and its allies in Congress pretended that this was a surprise. Obama is putting the estimated future costs of the wars into the forecasts right now.
- Trick #2: Pretending in every succeeding budget forecast that you will allow temporary tax cuts such as the “AMT patch” to expire in a few years, thereby bringing in more tax revenue, even though everyone knows you will renew them when the time comes and this is in fact your declared policy. The White House forecasts will now include honest forecasts of future taxes. Gone also will be the similar trick of pretending in the budget forecasts that the government will in the future cut Medicare payments to doctors even though you have no intention of doing so (because it would result in the doctors dropping out of Medicare).
- Trick #3: Using as the base line for a promise to “cut the budget deficit in half” an artificially high budget deficit that you yourself proposed. This is what Bush did in the fine print of his promise in the 2004 campaign. (Not that he cut the budget deficit at all, in the end. But we will get to actual policies below. Right now we are just talking about ways to fooling the press into reporting misleading claims with a straight face.) Obama has explicitly said that he plans to cut the deficit in half relative to the $1.3 trillion deficit he inherited, not relative to the much higher deficit that will occur in the coming fiscal year as a result of the recession….that is, as a result both of inevitably lost tax receipts and of the fiscal stimulus that Obama correctly deemed necessary to moderate the recession’s severity. This choice of benchmark was brave. After all, he would have been within his rights to say that because he inherited the recession from his predecessor, the corresponding rise in the deficit in 2010 should not count as his responsibility.
Turning from word to deed, how will Obama move the country back toward fiscal responsibility? It won’t be easy, so deep is the current hole we are in. But I perceive four categories of initiatives, each of them encompassing further breaths of fresh air: (1) limiting spending growth, (2) increasing tax revenue, (3) making new initiatives more cost-effective, and (4) long-term entitlements reform.
(1) Limiting spending growth
Three examples of measures that Obama mentioned in his speech that I particularly like:
- Cut unneeded federal payments to agribusiness. This one is high on the wish list of virtually every economist.
- Withdraw combat troops from Iraq. Enough said.
- Reinstate PAYGO (Pay as You Go). This means that if some Congressman proposes a new outlay, they have to show how to pay for it by proposing someplace else to cut. The provision was originally adopted by the first President Bush in 1991 (as part of a courageous budget agreement with congressional Democrats that probably cost him re-election); it was extended by President Clinton in 1993 (without a single Republican vote); it helped a lot to deliver fiscal surpluses by the latter part of the decade (1998-2000); and it was allowed to expire by the second President Bush in 2001 (with the result that the rate of spending growth tripled thereafter).
(2) Increasing tax revenue
Two examples (among other possibilties):
- Tax investment income earned by hedge fund partners at the same ordinary income tax rates that the rest of us pay. It’s about time.
- Let Bush’s tax cuts on income for those earning above $250 million expire as scheduled after 2010.
(3) Seeking cost-effectiveness when addressing priorities that the Democrats consider neglected, such as health care and global climate change.
Two examples:
- Increase the efficiency with which health care is delivered.
- By 2012, require that companies buy permits for Greenhouse Gas Emissions, rather than giving them all the permits for free. Free allocation would be a big windfall to utilities and others because they will in any case pass on much of the increased cost of energy to consumers.
(4) Long-term entitlements reform.
The overwhelming problem in the longer term is the coming deficits of Social Security (big) and Medicare (much bigger). The easy thing for Obama to do would have been to put off any attempt to deal with them until after he had put behind him the financial crisis, recession, and first steps toward budget responsibility. But he has now said that he wants to put in place during his first year in office the process to deal with the entitlements problems.
Everybody familiar with the facts has always known how to fix Social Security. The solution is not all that hard, but is politically painful to enact. The answer is some combination of three changes:
(i) progressive indexation of benefits. (Current retirees would not have their benefits cut, not even relative to what they otherwise would have been. Really);
(ii) raising the retirement age. (Just a little. Really. And let’s exempt workers who do heavy manual labor); and
(iii) making upper-income workers pay higher payroll taxes than those earning $107,000.
I have no inside knowledge if this is what Obama is planning. The game in the past has always been that no politician would propose any combination of these three things, because if he or she did, members of the opposite party would promptly attack him. So the thing to do is to form a study group comprising knowledgeable members of both parties in the Congress, have them meet for one year, and then come out holding hands and simultaneously declaring their support for a precise package of this sort.
This was the strategy Bill Clinton chose to address Social Security, after having successfully delivered on his earlier promises to cut the budget deficit in half in his first term and then to eliminate it entirely. Before the year was up, the Republicans decided they would rather impeach him than solve the Social Security problem. In this sense Obama is taking up where Clinton left off eight years ago. Too bad the country sank $5 trillion in the hole in the meantime.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 84 comments:
Does the author plan on raising the age further?
PS: What is "progressive indexation of benefits"?
Seriously, I understand the author's point. But IMO, the analysis is incomplete. The government creates incentives for people to act in certain ways. Tax policy is a big way to do that. I am suspicious about the 250k cut off, especially with higher payroll taxes over 107k. People who make good salaries typically work harder jobs with longer hours and live in cities where costs are higher. Penalizing the responsible just can't be good long term policy.
There has already been a lot written about the tragedy of the stimulus. We're spending 800 Billion and not getting much to show for it. It's not just spending money that was needed, but spending in a way that makes sense. Think about how much could've been done with that money if it were focused on something specific. In short, I don't believe a few rhetorical techniques with revised arguments are the same thing as fiscal responsibilty.
Obama has done the right thing to make this promise to cut the deficit. He's either shaping himself up to be the best president ever or the worst.
I'm scared to admit it, but I'm getting closer and closer to pouring a glass of the Obama Kool-Aid.
Where is the beef?
The only growth that Obama is proposing is that of government. Does he really believe he can balance a budget by increasing the size of government? If so, he is an economic ignoramus.
His programs will decrease government revenues while increasing expenses. Obama and Congress' single entry bookkeeping is laughable. Only his lap dogs, who have a vested emotional or financial interest in Obama, could possibly believe his policies are positive.
On Feb 24 05:58 AM bosun.j wrote:
> Get ready, the tinkle down extremist-capitalist neo-CON nutjobs are
> going to come out of the woodwork on this one!!
Also, when not a single Republican voted for Obama's fiscal stimulus in the House and only three voted in the Senate, it should be apparent that this is not based on economic rhetoric. Instead, it should be quite apparent that as a party, Republicans have no interest in supporting Obama. I am not condemning their behavior, since this problem is a typical example of Nash's Prisoner Dilemma. What if the stimulus package is successful? Well, Republicans would get little credit for it and Obama and its fellow Dems would be held as saviors. Now, if the stimulus fails, then Republicans will sheer in unison: "We knew it and told you so". Most likely, they will use a rhetoric similar to that posted above by Ergo: "Think about how much could've been done with that money if it were focused on something specific" (I personally find this statement amusing).
In the end politics are what they are. It's always normal people with often questionable ethics who are given too much power. The point here is not to blame them and call for anarchy. Their behavior is quite natural and generally falls within the idea that the end justify the means. However, when we finally get a President that seems not to fit the good old Washington mold, it seems like the most patriotic and enlightened path is to provide full support to his efforts since let's all be honest here, it's been a long time we haven't been in such a hole.
You first need to read Obama's books and understand he is the first president we have had since Lincoln who has a handle on humanity and what it takes to live a life.
He is taking all the right steps in the right direction. Many of them may be small steps and he may fall down a few times. Have you ever watched a baby learn to walk? Getting out of this mess will be no easy task and not straight forward. Everyone in the whole world needs to contribute. Develop new businesses and change our old way of doing things. Honesty would be a good place to start.
He's not ducking responsibility, he's not hiding in the White House, he's not reversing huge policy initiatives based on polls. And when the Republicans tried to block the stimulus, he used his popularity to get the needed votes and get it approved, rather than complain about partisan gridlock.
He's got a steady hand on the rudder, seems willing to incorporate varying points of view, and doesn't seem to get bent out of shape by opposition, even vocal opposition. He thinks before he speaks and uses complete sentences.
Excellent article. I have several thoughts:
1. Obama seems to have the ability to tell the truth and not to pull punches. This may or may not stand him in good stead because it does not fit the mold of our political system. (Yes, the word "mold" has two meanings, and I meant both to be considered.) It is one thing to tell the truth and quite another to get politicians to take appropriate action based on the truth.
2. One of the biggest mistakes Roosevelt made in The Great Depression was to raise taxes in 1937. Consequences of raising taxes before there is a well established recovery must be carefully considered.
3. Improving efficiencies in government and other broad service areas, such as medicine, will involve challenging entrenched economic interests. Can Obama be effective here when all too many legislative branch politicians are bought and paid for? Especially when many of these people may not be consciously aware that they are acting in response to "bribery", but feel they are acting on "principle". Too many politicians have frozen their brains in an ideological rigidity that prevents them from engaging in pragmatic reasoning.
Abraham Lincoln was able to overcome such handicaps, but that was in the day when media exposure took place in terms of days, not minutes. Obama may or may not have all the political acumen of Lincoln, whom he apparently wishes to emulate. But could Lincoln have been successful if he lived with our modern media?
Kindly consider that government is not a business. Government exists to provide services for the commons. Trying to run gov't like a business leads bureaucrats to make stellar decisions like betting that a Katrina like storm wouldn't hit New Orleans and therefore failing to adequately defend a major port city form devastation.
bosun
On Feb 24 10:43 AM John Lounsbury wrote:
> 3. Improving efficiencies in government and other broad service
> areas, such as
So mostly I think your article represents your own delusions.
However, we might possibly agree on one thing. I think they need to stop tweaking the Alternate Minimum Tax. Let it go ahead and screw the high income people in high tax states that generally vote democratic anyway. Why are republicans trying to minimize the negative effect of the AMT on wealthy democrats in blue states. That is nuts.
Either fix it for real, or just let the thing do its damage. The little year by year tweaks just keep us in the crazy place.
Another silver lining of the porkulus bill is that it will ultimately result in broad based tax increases because they won't possibly be able to raise enough revenue just by taxing the high income people. And eventually when the middle class figures out that they are hurt more by higher taxes than they are helped by Obama's soaring rhetoric they may actually consider voting differently.
Keep you safe? Borrowed Trillions from China and brought the economy and country to its knees. Safe?
You are truly too propagandized by feau news to waste any more energy on you.
Sad. So sad.
On Feb 24 11:48 AM Evaluator wrote:
>Bush kept
> my family and I safe for 7+ years, and I appreciate that.
As for the "Stimulus", I would have felt better if they had actually pretended to read it. This type of behavior tells me that the circus is almost over.
With the Shadow Banking Derivatives Hole still not being addressed, still causing utter uncertainty, nothing will be effective. Band aids do not reconcile gaping wounds.
Those that give up liberty for safety deserve neither. The Subjugation continues.
When talk of reducing the size and thus the money leeching ability of the Federal Government is discussed I will see at least some hope. Government Does Nothing Well - There is no incentive to do so; no reprisal for failure.
Currently benefits after one's retirement are indexed to wages of continuing workers. One proposal is to index them instead to the CPI, so that real benefits would remain constant. The "progressive indexation" idea, as I understand it, is that lower income workers would continue to see their benefits rise along with nominal wages but that the benefits of higher income workers would rise at a slower rate, progressively closer to the rate of CPI inflation. It was originally proposed by Bob Pozen, but became popular with the Bush Administration and unpopular with liberals.
JF
On Feb 24 08:26 AM Joyful Alternative wrote:
> One point: The full age of Social Security retirement has already
> been raised. For example, the age for someone born in 1945 is 66
> and for someone born in 1957 it's 67 (not 65).
>
> Does the author plan on raising the age further?
>
> PS: What is "progressive indexation of benefits"?
But to clarify: whatever measures are taken to fix Social Security, they are not going to have much effect in the next four years. It is for the more distant future. The steps to cut the deficit over the next four years are different (PAYGO, etc.).
JF
On Feb 24 10:14 AM ED K wrote:
> The President elect saying ,he will cut the deficit in half in four
> years, only exposes his economic inexperience.With each proposal
> he makes and new commitment my giving him the benefit of the doubt
> dwindles further.Iam starting to believe his administration is going
> to be a disaster for the country.
>
> If his cutting the deficit in half has anything to do with altering
> social security,raising taxes or modifying medicare he will quickly
> become a lame duck president.This proposal could turn out to be his
> swan song.
I agree.
On the question of the difficulties of having mature policy discussions via the modern media, I go back and forth on whether we should view this as a new phenomenon. Some people say that the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates were in fact as simple-minded as modern candidate debates.
JF
On Feb 24 10:43 AM John Lounsbury wrote:
> Jeffrey - - -
>
> Excellent article. I have several thoughts:
>
> 1. Obama seems to have the ability to tell the truth and not to pull
> punches. This may or may not stand him in good stead because it does
> not fit the mold of our political system. (Yes, the word "mold" has
> two meanings, and I meant both to be considered.) It is one thing
> to tell the truth and quite another to get politicians to take appropriate
> action based on the truth.
>
> 2. One of the biggest mistakes Roosevelt made in The Great Depression
> was to raise taxes in 1937. Consequences of raising taxes before
> there is a well established recovery must be carefully considered.
>
>
> 3. Improving efficiencies in government and other broad service areas,
> such as medicine, will involve challenging entrenched economic interests.
> Can Obama be effective here when all too many legislative branch
> politicians are bought and paid for? Especially when many of these
> people may not be consciously aware that they are acting in response
> to "bribery", but feel they are acting on "principle". Too many politicians
> have frozen their brains in an ideological rigidity that prevents
> them from engaging in pragmatic reasoning.
>
> Abraham Lincoln was able to overcome such handicaps, but that was
> in the day when media exposure took place in terms of days, not minutes.
> Obama may or may not have all the political acumen of Lincoln, whom
> he apparently wishes to emulate. But could Lincoln have been successful
> if he lived with our modern media?
Rather than the tax increases you describe, I prefer others: taxes on energy or carbon, reinstating the estate tax at some appropriate level, and Obama's decision to treat the income of hedge fund managers as earned income rather than capital gains.
JF
On Feb 24 08:54 AM Ergo wrote:
> What a conclusion. Increasing taxes on the hardest workers, while
> wasting trillions in borrowed funds, is definitely the road to fiscal
> responsibility. (sarcasm intended).
>
> Seriously, I understand the author's point. But IMO, the analysis
> is incomplete. The government creates incentives for people to act
> in certain ways. Tax policy is a big way to do that. I am suspicious
> about the 250k cut off, especially with higher payroll taxes over
> 107k. People who make good salaries typically work harder jobs with
> longer hours and live in cities where costs are higher. Penalizing
> the responsible just can't be good long term policy.
>
> There has already been a lot written about the tragedy of the stimulus.
> We're spending 800 Billion and not getting much to show for it. It's
> not just spending money that was needed, but spending in a way that
> makes sense. Think about how much could've been done with that money
> if it were focused on something specific. In short, I don't believe
> a few rhetorical techniques with revised arguments are the same thing
> as fiscal responsibilty.
Obama has no such luxury. I fail to see how these cuts will offset the trillions of dollars that are going to be spent saving banks, the automakers, homeowners, the unemployed, etc. Not to mention reduction in overall tax revenues, due to higher unemployment, fewer capital gains, etc.
To believe Obama can achieve both of these goals is just plain foolish. It doesn't matter whether you think he is the Messiah, the Devil, or somewhere in between. The numbers don't work.
No, we are not in agreement even on the AMT aspect. I think the AMT needs to be fixed once and for all, not retained once and for all.
It sounds like you are one of the people not yet affected by AMT (whereas "Erzo" probably is), and so you want to tax them. So is your comment in pure self-interest?
Or is it that you think the red states are morally superior to the blue states. Because if we are going to go back to Karl Rove's "red states vs. blue states" sham (despite our President's heroic efforts to rise above that), I will for once dare speak some unrecognized facts: (1) the red states on average receive much higher net fiscal subsidies from the federal government than do the blue states, and (2) they experience higher rates of teen-age pregnancy, divorce and alcoholism than the blue states. So there !
JF
On Feb 24 11:34 AM AltMaxTax wrote:
> Obama was not honest with his stimulus package. It will raise 'baseline'
> budgets for years to come. It will also raise state budgets for years
> to come and they will hurt over this.
> So mostly I think your article represents your own delusions.
>
> However, we might possibly agree on one thing. I think they need
> to stop tweaking the Alternate Minimum Tax. Let it go ahead and screw
> the high income people in high tax states that generally vote democratic
> anyway. Why are republicans trying to minimize the negative effect
> of the AMT on wealthy democrats in blue states. That is nuts.
> Either fix it for real, or just let the thing do its damage. The
> little year by year tweaks just keep us in the crazy place.
> Another silver lining of the porkulus bill is that it will ultimately
> result in broad based tax increases because they won't possibly be
> able to raise enough revenue just by taxing the high income people.
> And eventually when the middle class figures out that they are hurt
> more by higher taxes than they are helped by Obama's soaring rhetoric
> they may actually consider voting differently.
It's considered automatically part of our system now that to be "realistic" we have to drink more from the poisoned chalice of big government. If we increase government powers and size a bit more, maybe we can have an antidote to keep us from being as sick as all this government has made us.
While he has said some good things lately again, I haven't seen any positive results. I will support him in sensible proposals, not to be on his "team" and against Bush's "team." Unfortunately, Washington generally gives us more of the bad, less of the good. Can we cut through the incredible b.s. of misallocation that's built up over the last hundred years in exchange for them tightening the noose up a bit on the real economy?
Politicians usually leave ways out of promises; the sea of hope goes out leaving the crap washed up with us onshore. Roosevelt "learned" that he couldn't promise fiscal responsibility and Obama is almost certain to lean on that escape route soon enough.
It's hard to have faith that Obama really means to cut the deficit when he has just dug a big hole to twice the original depth. It's hard to forgive that.
The author rightly criticizes previous administrations for budget gimmicks. Such gimmicks have a long, bi-partisan history. W did not invent them. He praises Obama for pulling back the curtain on W's gimmickry, but let's Obama have a pass on the feebleness of his own gimmickry: namely, that Obama promises only to halve Bush's deficit, but wants us to ignore his contribution.
If we were ten feet down when Obama took over and he digs us (at least) ten feet deeper, then he fills in five feet, that still leaves us fifteen feet under. That's not progress. We can't say Bush's deficit was bad, but Obama's was good. There's no morality to deficits. Numbers are numbers.
I laud the goal of reducing farm subsidies. I'll believe it when I see it.
Withdrawing from Iraq may save money, but if it reignites, it will prove to be foolish and expensive. The so-called stimulus bill, a collection of pork projects with dubious stimulative value, spends more money than the cost of the Iraq War and in less time. Leaving Iraq may make sense, especially now that the country is much more stable, but it is unseemly to boast about the money is saves.
PAYGO always seems to me to be a gimmick to justify raising taxes. Congress puts on imaginary handcuffs, then claims to have no choice when they start taking more of our money. But, of course they have a choice. They can cut spending. Republican or Democrat, that option never seems to appear.
Reverting the tax rates to pre-Bush levels on very high earners will not raise a significant amount of revenue. There are not many earners making above $250 million. This sounds like a stalking horse for raising taxes on earners making over $250 thousand. Such a tax rate hike would probably worsen the recession. It is a very Hoover-like approach.
The "Greenhouse Gas" scam is a tax plain and simple -- a pervasive and destructive tax. The Greenhouse Gas problem is invisible and illusory, but when it is used to scare people into accepting pervasive taxes, it is scandalous.
My hat's off to Obama if he can solve the entitlement problem. If he does so without comopletely wrecking the economy, I just might vote for him. I'm not holding my breath.
I found reason to support Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford and even Nixon and LBJ. I also found reason to disagree with them, but I always chose to respect them for the office they hold and the complexity of the job. Obama deserves no less from any of us.
On Feb 24 10:14 AM ED K wrote:
> The President elect saying ,he will cut the deficit in half in four
> years, only exposes his economic inexperience.With each proposal
> he makes and new commitment my giving him the benefit of the doubt
> dwindles further.Iam starting to believe his administration is going
> to be a disaster for the country.
>
> If his cutting the deficit in half has anything to do with altering
> social security,raising taxes or modifying medicare he will quickly
> become a lame duck president.This proposal could turn out to be his
> swan song.
I'm just curious which time period you're referring to.
Both houses of Congress were controlled by the Republican party from 1995 until 2007, except for the Senate in 2001/2002.
On Feb 24 11:48 AM Evaluator wrote:
> ....
> As for the Bush bashers, let's keep
> in mind we had a democratic ruled Congress while all of the problems
> in the housing/financial meltdowns were allowed to occur.
God, wouldn't this be wonderful.
I know something about the others, but not as much about the history, economics, and angst behind this particular group of bills.
Unfortunately, though, all it is telling me is that Obama doesn't realize the political firestorm that he's going to unleash on himself. He's chosen not only one titan that's destroyed and wasted many a political career—he's filled an entire speech with them.
He naively thought that he would get bipartisan support for his stimulus bill, but was able to pass it without the Republicans. I wonder if he's be able to do the same without either the Republicans or the Democrats behind him.
I hate to be a pessimist, but seeing what happened to the stimulus bill helped convince me that while Obama may be exceptional, he's still human.
On Feb 24 04:26 PM P. K. wrote:
> It goes to show how much close attention is paid when one only spews
> from one direction; he is the President; has been for 34 days now.
> Perhaps you can give the office the respect it is due in your tirade.
>
>
> I found reason to support Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford
> and even Nixon and LBJ. I also found reason to disagree with them,
> but I always chose to respect them for the office they hold and the
> complexity of the job. Obama deserves no less from any of us.<br/>
On Feb 24 05:03 PM Larrysyr wrote:
>
> I'm just curious which time period you're referring to.
>
> Both houses of Congress were controlled by the Republican party from
> 1995 until 2007, except for the Senate in 2001/2002.
>
> On Feb 24 11:48 AM Evaluator wrote:
Please tell me that you haven't bought into Obama's claim to "cut the deficit in half by 2013" to $530 billion. He is using this year's deficit of $1.2 trillion as the baseline figure that he plans to "cut". This number includes the TARP, the takeover of fannie and freddie and a host of other one-time expenses related to propping up the financial system and the economy. If you strip those out, the deficit is nowhere near the $1.2 trillion figure. Obama will "halve" the current deficit and still be able to increase government spending. So much for his honest and transparent approach to the budget. Politics as usual.
Also, what is progressive indexation of benefits? Are you receommending turning social security in to welfare?
CP
Yes, it breaks the idea of SS being a benefits program rather than a welfare program.
If Obama thinks he can take on the AARP on this - who WILL fight this - more power to him.
As an aside, if he does do this, and takes on agribusiness, then IMHO he's feeling way too cocky. Reminds me of Clinton when he was first elected and tried to take on gays in the military, national health care, and gun control, and ended up squandering political capital on battles he either had little hope of winning or on pissing off too many groups. Obama would be wise to avoid this common trap.
So, let's stipulate that defending any actions taken by President Obama and/ or Democrats in Congress by comparing them to what happened in the previous 8 years is not a defense. You are just picking low-hanging fruit.
If your argument cannot stand up to critical analysis, regardless of who did what in the last decade, it is not much of an argument, is it ?
After just over a month in office, it may be premature to judge the Obama administration. But the first major piece of legislation, which authorized spending of an historic amount, did not seem in line with what he promised.
Given that our country is facing what may be the most serious financial crisis ever, President Obama should have told Congress to send him a "clean' bill, without any pet projects, pork or social engineering. Its sole purpose should have been stimulating the economy in the most effective manner, with a laser-like focus on exactly that. And he should have threatened to veto anything that did not meet that criteria. That would have brought this country together in a way we have not seen in a long, long time.
Ideology aside, you all know what we got in this bill. There may be a lot of "good" in it (we shall see), but it is hard to argue with a straight face that it was not also very, very wasteful . It has been roundly criticized by the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and fair-minded people from both sides of the political divide.
The President will have more chances to show us the change he promised-- not talk about change, but actually do it. I hope he does.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. A man without moral courage who has shown he cannot say no to his left wing....His new AG thinks we are cowards. I am sure Obama shares that view....
The democrats will not be able to avoid having responsibility for policy over the next 4 years. Obama thinks he can by talking down the economy, I suppose with the intention of blaming the future on Bush....No, the next 4 years are his. We will see what fruit that policy bears.
There is no hope for deficits if spending cannot be controlled. That will mean saying no to the most powerful interests in his party....I dont think so.
Maybe Obama will fail, but he certainly seems genuine in the attempt, and that is a big turnaround. Maybe he'll cut 1/3 or 1/4 of the deficit - so what? At least it will be a step in the right direction. At least he will get us out of a war we should never have got into, and is trying to be more transparent in his dealings.
I'm sure many of his changes will be very unpopular, but he is a courageous man to be taking this on. What a mess he has been handed.
On Feb 24 10:14 AM ED K wrote:
> The President elect saying ,he will cut the deficit in half in four
> years, only exposes his economic inexperience.With each proposal
> he makes and new commitment my giving him the benefit of the doubt
> dwindles further.Iam starting to believe his administration is going
> to be a disaster for the country.
>
> If his cutting the deficit in half has anything to do with altering
> social security,raising taxes or modifying medicare he will quickly
> become a lame duck president.This proposal could turn out to be his
> swan song.
dw
On Feb 24 09:37 AM Jason Laurent wrote:
> The comments above are pretty telling. The problem seems to be that,
> even in the era of global and free information, people are still
> so gullible. For example, the GOP has traditionally been the party
> of fiscal responsibility. However, after 8 years of Republican leadership,
> the U.S. inherited a terrible balance sheet in one of the worst financial
> crisis. I'm sure everybody can acknowledge that if the U.S. was a
> business, without the ability to print money and pry tax payments
> out of its citizens, then it would be insolvent and bankrupt.
>
> Also, when not a single Republican voted for Obama's fiscal stimulus
> in the House and only three voted in the Senate, it should be apparent
> that this is not based on economic rhetoric. Instead, it should be
> quite apparent that as a party, Republicans have no interest in supporting
> Obama. I am not condemning their behavior, since this problem is
> a typical example of Nash's Prisoner Dilemma. What if the stimulus
> package is successful? Well, Republicans would get little credit
> for it and Obama and its fellow Dems would be held as saviors. Now,
> if the stimulus fails, then Republicans will sheer in unison: "We
> knew it and told you so". Most likely, they will use a rhetoric similar
> to that posted above by Ergo: "Think about how much could've been
> done with that money if it were focused on something specific" (I
> personally find this statement amusing).
>
> In the end politics are what they are. It's always normal people
> with often questionable ethics who are given too much power. The
> point here is not to blame them and call for anarchy. Their behavior
> is quite natural and generally falls within the idea that the end
> justify the means. However, when we finally get a President that
> seems not to fit the good old Washington mold, it seems like the
> most patriotic and enlightened path is to provide full support to
> his efforts since let's all be honest here, it's been a long time
> we haven't been in such a hole.
On Feb 24 08:26 AM Joyful Alternative wrote:
> One point: The full age of Social Security retirement has already
> been raised. For example, the age for someone born in 1945 is 66
> and for someone born in 1957 it's 67 (not 65).
>
> Does the author plan on raising the age further?
>
> PS: What is "progressive indexation of benefits"?
Sorry. Your data is wrong.
1937 and earlier its 65
1938 65 and 2 mos
1939 65 and 4 mos
1940 65 and 6 mos
1941 65 and 8 mos
1942 65 and 10 mos
1943-1954 66
1955 66 & 2m
1956 66 & 4m
1957 66 & 6m
1958 66 & 8m
1959 66 & 10m
1960 and later 67
It seems pretty clear to me that these dates will all change in the future. Surely, Congress will use the same cover as they did back in the early 1980's when they settled upon these dates. They will tell us that we're all living so much longer and so raising the minimum ages is only fair, regardless of the fact that we are paying a higher percent of income than prior generations and already with these age based dates most baby boomers will likely receive a negative rate of return on their money anyway.
A socialist approach towards the US economy will make us in even worse shape than them. Not only are we saddled with extensive government bureaucracy and taxes, we have a much larger debt as a result of our expanding entitlements, the Iraq war and past Republican military excesses, and the drug war.
Obama promised to tax businesses more and use that money towards education, renewable energy, and health care. They are liberal pet projects, but are unproven to help economic efficiency long-term (education spending, if anything, is detrimental since we already spend twice the amount per student after adjusting for inflation without any proven benefits).
Given our per capita GDP is well higher than Western Europe's, it will be a painful way down if we manage to take ourselves below it.
And Social Security? "progressive indexation of benefits" whatever. Give up already! Social Security is a Ponzi scheme masquerading as welfare. Take money from new investors, give it to earlier investors, and waste an enormous amount of money in the process. We don't need it, it's wasteful, and an enormous misallocation of assets.
Give people a choice as to whether they want to participate and see how long it lasts. But I guess that would be unAmerikan.
Every Ponzi scheme collapses at some point, only the people perpetuating our national Ponzi scheme will retire wealthy, fat, and happy.
BTW, if anyone disagrees that SS is a Ponzi scheme, maybe they could point out the differences?
I really appreciate everyone volunteering me to not receive my benefits. It's very fair, for sure.
And Mr. Charlie J. you are correct. But, since you're not part of the ruling class, nor can your concern lead to mobilization of the masses, you don't count, sad to say.
However, with the coming depression, the masses must be placated, if only minimally, so they selected a man for President which seemed to be what the masses wanted.
Sounds conspiratorial? Maybe, but why is it that we only have one party? Yes, both the Democrats and Republicans are wings of one Party, the Capitalist Elite party.
Nothing wrong with capitalism, if there is also democracy. However, what we actually have now is not democratic capitalism but Fascism... How else to explain the $trillions in bailouts by the ruling class of their corrupt breathen?
While the people suffer the consequence of a coming depression those responsible for it still remain at their desks and still retain their vast ill gotten wealth.
So, get over Obama, get over Democrats, get over Republicans, and see what the real obstacle to democracy is: The Party. The Party of the ruling class, as the $trillions in the various bail-outs have shown.
Don't just take my word for it. Events are still early in this unfolding Depression scenario, the ruling class still has no fear, and still allows the information to be widely available. So see for yourself in the links below. Now is not the time to be asleep.
"The Fed's War on the Middle Class"
mises.org/story/2983
"What's Behind the Financial Market Crisis?"
mises.org/story/3111
"Economic Fascism and the Bailout Economy"
mises.org/story/3333
"How to Avoid Another Depression"
mises.org/story/3103
Obama RACIST SOCIALISTIC LIER SUPPORTS REV WRIGHT
GEITHNER TAX CHEAT
RANGLE TAX CHEAT
DASCHELL TAX CHEAT N FORCED TO LEAVE
EMANUELL BOARD MEMBER AT FREDDY WHEN BILLIONS LOST
FRANKS PAID FOR BY FREDDY AND FANNY
RICHARDSON FORCED TO WITHDRAW.
Do you really think these ass holes will make things better.
OBAMA IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIER
On Feb 24 11:34 AM AltMaxTax wrote:
> Obama was not honest with his stimulus package. It will raise 'baseline'
> budgets for years to come. It will also raise state budgets for years
> to come and they will hurt over this.
> So mostly I think your article represents your own delusions.
>
> However, we might possibly agree on one thing. I think they need
> to stop tweaking the Alternate Minimum Tax. Let it go ahead and screw
> the high income people in high tax states that generally vote democratic
> anyway. Why are republicans trying to minimize the negative effect
> of the AMT on wealthy democrats in blue states. That is nuts.
> Either fix it for real, or just let the thing do its damage. The
> little year by year tweaks just keep us in the crazy place.
> Another silver lining of the porkulus bill is that it will ultimately
> result in broad based tax increases because they won't possibly be
> able to raise enough revenue just by taxing the high income people.
> And eventually when the middle class figures out that they are hurt
> more by higher taxes than they are helped by Obama's soaring rhetoric
> they may actually consider voting differently.
Have you forgotten to take your lithium again?
On Feb 25 07:54 AM NITRAM wrote:
> You must have ---- in your ears. He said there is no pork. Are you
> that stupid? Schumer says Americans dont care about pork. What planet
> does he live on. Obama is a socialist, and wants to be a Tzar that
> rules a socialistic nation. The man lies better than anyone in the
> history of politics. He keeps pushing a bill that he hasnt read.
> Look at our learders:
> Obama RACIST SOCIALISTIC LIER SUPPORTS REV WRIGHT
> GEITHNER TAX CHEAT
> RANGLE TAX CHEAT
> DASCHELL TAX CHEAT N FORCED TO LEAVE
> EMANUELL BOARD MEMBER AT FREDDY WHEN BILLIONS LOST
> FRANKS PAID FOR BY FREDDY AND FANNY
> RICHARDSON FORCED TO WITHDRAW.
> Do you really think these ass holes will make things better.
> OBAMA IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIER
It is a very sad story of Republicans in power. You would have thought that with the money party in power for 6 years we would be running surpluses with lower taxes and an absolutely robust economy. If that was the case though, we would have been listening to President McCain last night.
What happened to the Republicans? Their failure is of monumental proportions. They ruled. They were in power. And to say that they blew it is an understatement. I'm surprised that they didn't disband and regroup under a different banner.
If you are a Republican, then your critique of Obama should at least be muted by the fact that your party caused this catastrophe. (Disclosure: I am a registered Republican).
One wonders how things would have gone had McCain been elected in 2000 rather than Bush. Let's face it, Bush did what he was told to do and didn't bring much of anything to the office of the Presidency. Cheney was the power behind the throne calling the shots.
Deregulation was the mantra because it brought in the money. But anyone who lived in California during the energy crisis knows that deregulation is dangerous. You simply cannot trust business to do the right thing. That's why we have laws and courts.
So we deregulated the banks and investment banks and the result is that for one we have no more investment banks, and secondly, our banks are bankrupt and won't or cannot do their job which is allocating capital to the businesses and individuals in the form of loans that will be paid back with interest.
As a former CEO, I used to bristle when I would hear about the latest changes in the laws protecting workers in the state of California. Where were the laws protecting business owners and managers? I can't tell you how many times I was taken to the cleaners by employees claiming an injury so that they could collect workers compensation and get a settlement. We all knew the cases were frauds, but there was nothing we could do. Most of the time these laws are passed by well meaning Democrats who are usually attorneys and have never run businesses. Why are they trying to kill the goose that lays the golden egg, I wondered?
Now, on the tide of colassal Republican failure, we have a Democratic president, house and senate. The stimulus bill is classic democratic spending on pet pork projects no doubt. We are in deep, deep trouble and we are lost at sea without a rudder with a leaky boat and too many passengers.
I am hoping that Obama is successful. To say that he has the toughest job in the world is an understatement. I had a dream last night that I was in a diner and I bumped into Obama so we had dinner and I paid. He was tired, and in a great deal of pain. I kept thinking, "This man needs my help." When I went to pay the bill, he slipped away. That's when I woke up.
Republican or democrat, we are Americans. Now is the time to rally round the President as we rallied around Bush after 911. The President needs our support if we are to recover from this debacle. This is a war. We are at war. Rally round your President. Be critical, but be supportive. He is the best chance we have right now to turn things around.
Interest rates are going higher eventually. If he adds another $5 trillion, at even 5%, that's $250 billion, per year, in higher spending. So for him to cut the deficit to the $500 billion he mentioned, he has to cut $750 billion in spending. He could abolish Social Security to close that hole and risk the wrath of the granny state, but my guess is that foreign creditors such as China will convince the U.S. to jack up the taxes so more jobs go overseas. Give us our money or give us your jobs.
Interest rates are going higher eventually. If he adds another $5 trillion, at even 5%, that's $250 billion, per year, in higher spending. So for him to cut the deficit to the $500 billion he mentioned, he has to cut $750 billion in spending. He could abolish Social Security to close that hole and risk the wrath of the granny state, but my guess is that foreign creditors such as China will convince the U.S. to jack up the taxes so more jobs go overseas. Give us our money or give us your jobs.
Jeffrey, the Big O has such big problems that another amalgam of campaign speeches is not going to help his credibility. Patience is wearing thin on both Wall Street and Main Street. Making more promises he cannot keep stretches the truth to the breaking point.
Unemployment, officially now at 7.6% and unofficially at 17% or higher (including the chronically unemployed), will soon cripple the economy and extend the recession indefinitely. Monetary policy, if there is one, may hyperinflate the currency and drive us all into a deep abyss. Nobody wants that to happen, least of all the American People.
We want action, not promises. We want the government to do what it does best, not what it does not know how to do. Let Capitalism do its job. Let the civil servants ride herd on the errant cows and bring the mavericks to justice.
Fight the battles you can win. You don't need new enemies. You need all the friends you can get. Ask us for that helping hand. Let's see if your next speech incorporates the benchmarks of success. It starts with a message of hope.
On Feb 25 08:10 AM j_remington wrote:
> Obama is full of choice words and exclamations...like every President
> before him.
Talk is cheap among politicians. If Obama and Congress do something like reduce agribusiness subsidies AND reduce headcount at the Department of Agricultural to an appropriate level (from the current headcount of about 20 employees for every one farm in the U.S.), then now we are talking.
However, if he expects that he will a) tax more and b) end the war, and C) make no major reductions to the current Federal overhead, then it will be LONG LONG recession...and four years in office.
1) including the cost of the war where it was not before, thereby using a somewhat inflated starting deficit number and 2) taking credit for the reduction of expenses as we withdraw from iraq.
that spending was going to go down despite who the president was. he is only being coy by calling this responsible to include it in the deficit, as he only wants personal credit for it.
Now, it is technically correct that war spending is part of the deficit, however, after all this pork money down the hole stimulus all he will be able to show is that he reduced the war spending.
it is his only hope for showing how he will not be the president that brought back socialistic welfare and big government. good thing people are stupid.
the stock market isn't so dumb, though, so don't be surprised as we take a dive.
Not sure if this has been proposed, but it makes sense to me. I think the current generations of workers need to own up to the foreseeable crisis (that is not of our doing) and swallow a bitter pill, for the better of our country-
My proposal has 2 parts, recognizing the dual function of an effective social security system: to provide a safety net so that impoverished retirees will not starve and freeze to death, and to provide a stable means for retirement savings spread over the population. Under this plan, payroll deductions and employer contributions will not change. However, means testing will mean that well-off retirees will not be paid at current levels.
Using current witholding formulas, the amount witheld/contributed per worker will be split down the middle, one half going into a safety net account for the impoverished (people determined at risk for starvation and severe deprevation without goverment aid), the other half going into a simple interest bearing account for their sole future use.
This plan recognizes the unsustainability of the current system, given a number of variables including increased average life expectancies (which will actually likely decline given the obesity epidemic) and shrinking pool of contributors relative to the coming retiree wave. We, the current workers, will receive less than under the current plan, but that beats receiving nothing (the likely outcome if we are unable to effect bold change). But we will have something held in place for our use, money that would not be subject to the vagaries of the markets. Those with poor habits and/or lack of financial acumen will finish their working life with some money put away. And we can at least have the assurance that all retirees are provided with the means to have the bare basics.
Medicare is indeed the more pressing and far larger problem, and a workable solution will be far more difficult to reach under current funding constraints, given the steady rise in healthcare costs. Overall healthcare costs are set to rise far faster, in my opinion, given the rapid progress of "personalized medicine" advances (genetic/genomic/prote... cell therapies). As a former resident of Oregon, some sort of "Oregon Plan" style of allocation for a limited list of treatments (which inevitably gets attacked by anti-"rationing" arguments) may take us a step in the direction of a workable solution. Whatever the answer, it needs to come to grips with a finite pool of dollars to cover an expanding array of patients and treatments.
I think that is $250 thousand...
Here is the effect of marginal rate rises: if this happens, my wife is most likely to leave the workforce when we have a child rather than stay in her job and pay for day care.
I think a lot of women who earn $100k and have a husband at the $150k level or more are weighing the after-tax benefits of staying in their job versus the cost of child care. I know one who just left her job because her tax situation puts her worse off if she works.
That kills two jobs (the $100K worker and the day care worker) with one stone!
If you don't believe me, go ahead and raise the marginal tax rates and watch the labor participation rate as well as the unemployment rate.
On Feb 24 10:43 AM John Lounsbury wrote:
> 3. Improving efficiencies in government and other broad service
> areas, such as medicine, will involve challenging entrenched economic
> interests. Can Obama be effective here when all too many legislative
> branch politicians are bought and paid for?
It's one thing for you to believe his stimulus bills will save the economy (it won't - that is our job)... it's a whole different ball game to credit the man who passes such a stimulus bill without giving time (he used fear to rush things through) for anyone to read it first as the saviour of fiscal responsibility... You complain that Washington is fiscally irresponsible and then give the man who rushed a bill on unprecedented spending through without letting anyone read it as the saviour of fiscal responsibility in Washington. You want them to be fiscally responsible? Then let them read and contemplate the bill for a few days at the minimum!!! It's the same thing as calling Bush the saviour of fiscal responsibility... which he obviously wasn't and let's be honest, Obama isn't either. Let's have SOME honesty please. I don't think Obama's a bad man and I think on a personal level he's a nice guy. He, like all politicians, uses rhetoric to promise all things to all people - except people believe him.
Just a few days ago he was in Canada telling them not to worry about NAFTA or their auto industry and that he wouldn't become protectionist - so in other words, Canadian steel and automobiles will continue to flow down. Now he talks about how he wants to keep jobs and auto manufacturing within the US from now on and rebuild America... That stance is certainly fine, but why tell a country that exports 80% of its vehicles to the US not to worry and then make those comments? He tells people what they want to hear. He was going to change NAFTA - then he says he won't to the Canadian Prime Minister - while at the same time in a speech a few days later he implies that he will change it... I don't care if he does change it - just tell us the straight truth and stop the flip flopping. Uncertainty at this time is not helping matters...
Obama doesn't even know where the automobile was invented... He said the nation that invented the automobile can't walk away from it now... He clearly doesn't know that the internal combustion engine and automobile was a German invention - not American. But hey, the man's brilliant and is a genius, he can do no wrong... I didn't like Bush, and the man couldn't seem to do anything right, but my God, Obama can't seem to do anything wrong in so many people's eyes. Criticism can be a healthy thing, but the second anyone criticizes the man a bunch of his "believers" scold you and laugh you off as a redneck racist hillbilly neocon without even knowing anything about you.
How about we stop this fear mongering and give our representatives some time to read the stimulus bill before shoving it down their throats Mr. Obama? Maybe the bill is good (I doubt it) but at least give them time to read it before signing it - isn't that part of the reason so many got into the sub-prime mess? (They didn't read the contract before signing it!)
Oh and a word of warning... if you want socialized health care, which is certainly on the agenda... be prepared to have ~40% of your government budget go toward it or don't even attempt it. Go do some research on it first and then figure out where that money will come from... it will take some fiscal responsibility to pull it off. Lucky for us, we have the saviour of fiscal responsibility in the Whitehouse... we don't need to worry about such issues. He's taking care of it for us. Where can I get some of this kool-aid. I'm thirsty but can't seem to find any...
America spends more than twice % of GDP on healthcare as the other western economies do and gets a lower standard of care. Get the greedy insurance companies out of the middle of the equation and we'll all be better off.
Don't believe it? Eliminate all the bullshit unnecessary tests that Drs do to protect themselves in the event the screw up anywhere in the proceedure. An American quack wanted to do $12000 worth of tests before he'd do a $1500 proceedure. Reasoning? I had a heart attack 10 yrs previously.
Waited until I got home to Thailand and had the procedure done for $750 by a board certified surgeon!
You're getting screwed and you're damn proud of it!!!!
On Feb 25 01:28 PM Robert Nabloid wrote:
>
> Oh and a word of warning... if you want socialized health care, which
> is certainly on the agenda... be prepared to have ~40% of your government
> budget go toward it or don't even attempt it. Go do some research
> on it first and then figure out where that money will come from...
> it will take some fiscal responsibility to pull it off. Lucky for
> us, we have the saviour of fiscal responsibility in the Whitehouse...
> we don't need to worry about such issues. He's taking care of it
> for us. Where can I get some of this kool-aid. I'm thirsty but
> can't seem to find any...
In socialized medicine they do all the same tests, just simply because they are free... (though they aren't).
How can the US have socialized medicine and not have fiscal problems? This article is about fiscal responsibility. Think about it.
On Feb 25 01:42 PM bosun.j wrote:
> Oh freaking please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...
>
> America spends more than twice % of GDP on healthcare as the other
> western economies do and gets a lower standard of care. Get the greedy
> insurance companies out of the middle of the equation and we'll all
> be better off.
>
> Don't believe it? Eliminate all the bullshit unnecessary tests that
> Drs do to protect themselves in the event the screw up anywhere in
> the proceedure. An American quack wanted to do $12000 worth of tests
> before he'd do a $1500 proceedure. Reasoning? I had a heart attack
> 10 yrs previously.
>
> Waited until I got home to Thailand and had the procedure done for
> $750 by a board certified surgeon!
>
> You're getting screwed and you're damn proud of it!!!!
>
>
That said, I'd be very surprised that the cost of socialized medicine in the great white north exceeded 6% of GDP Which is in line with all other western economies. Furthermore I'd be very surprised if it came anywhere near the 16% of GDP the Yanks spend!
On Feb 25 02:09 PM Robert Nabloid wrote:
> You don't spend much time in Canadian hospitals and haven't looked
> at a Canadian budget obviously.
>
> In socialized medicine they do all the same tests, just simply because
> they are free... (though they aren't).
>
> How can the US have socialized medicine and not have fiscal problems?
> This article is about fiscal responsibility. Think about it. <br/>
Now? Based on what? Half-truths and feel-good propositions hardly equate to fiscal responsibility. The last administration left us with a huge deficit, and now, this new administration is going to double-down on that, cut it in half and call it a day. That is not fiscal responsibility, that is just moving numbers around. Fiscal responsibility means different things to different people and is contingent on how much is, is. The Constitution clearly spells out what the Central Government can and can't do, for the last 70+ years they are in territory they clearly don't belong in, regardless of all the feel good euphoria they may "claim" to solve. All of our elected Leaders take oaths that direct them to uphold the Constitution, most, if not all have abdicated that oath. When they start to behave in a more Constitutionally mandated purpose, then I too will believe.
On Feb 25 02:19 PM bosun.j wrote:
> Canadian? Sorry, you sound so much like a tinkle down extremist-capitalist
> neo-CON I made the incorrect conclusion (assumption) you're a Yank.
> My mistake.
>
> That said, I'd be very surprised that the cost of socialized medicine
> in the great white north exceeded 6% of GDP Which is in line with
> all other western economies. Furthermore I'd be very surprised if
> it came anywhere near the 16% of GDP the Yanks spend!
As a healthy human who takes care of myself quite well, I don't visit doctors, so it would cost me zero percent. Unfortunately over 40% of my money is stolen to pay for others who drink a gallon of Pepsi a day and eat way too many potato chips while they do BC Bud and binge drink every Friday night.
Regardless, right now we are talking about GOVERNMENT FISCAL responsibility. If you want socialized medicine, fine. Just don't complain to me when you wait 8 months for a surgery for a life threatening illness. We pay high taxes and we still end up having to go to other countries and paying out of pocket to get treatment right away when we need it... Not saying socialized medicine is evil, I'm just trying to tell you there are downsides... if you want to do it in a fiscally responsible manner you must raise taxes dramatically on everyone, not just the rich. Then you have the wait times. Line ups when you're dying are no fun - I can wait 8 to 12 months for regular treatments on non life threatening issues - but I will not wait for life threatening things. That's why so many canucks head down to America, Mexico, Brazil, Thailand, etc, and pay anyways, even though they already paid for it in their taxes...
On Feb 25 02:19 PM bosun.j wrote:
> Canadian? Sorry, you sound so much like a tinkle down extremist-capitalist
> neo-CON I made the incorrect conclusion (assumption) you're a Yank.
> My mistake.
>
> That said, I'd be very surprised that the cost of socialized medicine
> in the great white north exceeded 6% of GDP Which is in line with
> all other western economies. Furthermore I'd be very surprised if
> it came anywhere near the 16% of GDP the Yanks spend!
On Feb 25 02:45 PM jksisco wrote:
> Since we're throwing numbers around without any facts to back it
> up, I think Europeans spend 60% of GNP on healthcare, perhaps that
> includes other social programs, not sure, don't really care, just
> so sick of the whole socialized is better argument. America, at one
> time had a great healthcare system, let's figure out why that was,
> and then eliminate whatever caused it to get where it is and then
> keep it that way, end of problem.
As for the cost, as that's your focus...money, how about the cost of people without jobs or insurance going to county hospitals emergency rooms for care? They not paying there! No money, no job, no insurance! Guess who pays? YOU PAY!! SO you are gonna pay either way. How about medical insurance? Some schmuck pays into insurance for years never makes a claim....gets some rare form of cancer and the insurance asshole won't pay all of the bills because his insurance caps at $1m per incident. Who pays? YOU DO! Your insurance goes up because the for profit fucking hospitals gotta raise the cost of services because they got screwed by the same shitbag insurance asshole they play golf with! WHO FREAKING PAYS? YOU DO! Congratulations!
On Feb 25 02:48 PM Robert Nabloid wrote:
> In 2007 Canada spent almost 11% of GDP (almost double what you thought)
> and it isn't enough and that is why we must increase it faster than
> our GDP grows to catch up and try and reduce wait times. Why should
> this matter anyways? We are talking GOVERNMENT FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
> in this article. Do you want this 11%-16% of your GDP to become
> government spending? - and it's increasing faster than the GDP can
> grow!!! You do know where they will get that money to pay for it,
> right? That money comes from us anyways.
>
> As a healthy human who takes care of myself quite well, I don't visit
> doctors, so it would cost me zero percent. Unfortunately over 40%
> of my money is stolen to pay for others who drink a gallon of Pepsi
> a day and eat way too many potato chips while they do BC Bud and
> binge drink every Friday night.
>
> Regardless, right now we are talking about GOVERNMENT FISCAL responsibility.
> If you want socialized medicine, fine. Just don't complain to me
> when you wait 8 months for a surgery for a life threatening illness.
> We pay high taxes and we still end up having to go to other countries
> and paying out of pocket to get treatment right away when we need
> it... Not saying socialized medicine is evil, I'm just trying to
> tell you there are downsides... if you want to do it in a fiscally
> responsible manner you must raise taxes dramatically on everyone,
> not just the rich. Then you have the wait times. Line ups when
> you're dying are no fun - I can wait 8 to 12 months for regular treatments
> on non life threatening issues - but I will not wait for life threatening
> things. That's why so many canucks head down to America, Mexico,
> Brazil, Thailand, etc, and pay anyways, even though they already
> paid for it in their taxes...
>
Easy to understand why it was, if it was! Greedy insurance companies weren't insuring ultra high risk investment vehicles and weren't pissing away your premiums on fleets of private jets and million dollar parties for fat asshole management turds!
On Feb 25 02:45 PM jksisco wrote:
> America, at one
> time had a great healthcare system, let's figure out why that was,
> and then eliminate whatever caused it to get where it is and then
> keep it that way, end of problem.
The jist of my argument is that socialized medicine will hurt America's governmental fiscal situation in a very negative way. Whether it is socialized or not, the money comes from the same place... the people - don't dare lose site of that. We can pretend the government pays, but you must not forget where the government gets its money - either way it comes from the economy.
What you don't seem to get is that this article is on fiscal responsibility and I'm trying to point out that it is going to be quite hard when you add up all the things that people want to be done... If you want socialized medicine, go for it. I honestly don't care - if that's what you want - go for it. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Even the poor who get health coverage for free here end up paying - economically.
On Feb 25 03:03 PM bosun.j wrote:
> The jist of your premise is reflected in your contention that you
> are healthy and others are not. It goes to values. Such as in valuing
> humans more than money. Such as in none of us are better than the
> least of us and we can only be well off if we make sure the least
> of us are taken care of.
>
> As for the cost, as that's your focus...money, how about the cost
> of people without jobs or insurance going to county hospitals emergency
> rooms for care? They not paying there! No money, no job, no insurance!
> Guess who pays? YOU PAY!! SO you are gonna pay either way. How about
> medical insurance? Some schmuck pays into insurance for years never
> makes a claim....gets some rare form of cancer and the insurance
> asshole won't pay all of the bills because his insurance caps at
> $1m per incident. Who pays? YOU DO! Your insurance goes up because
> the for profit fucking hospitals gotta raise the cost of services
> because they got screwed by the same shitbag insurance asshole they
> play golf with! WHO FREAKING PAYS? YOU DO! Congratulations!
That said, addressing your fiscal responsibility argument. I agree there are allot of interests lined up at the trough for their piece of the pie. So, should people die for lack of medical care because the government gives TRILLIONS to Banksters who then pay themselves BILLIONS in bonuses they claim to have "earned" running their banks into the ground rather than spend a fraction of those TRILLIONS on healthcare? What? Hmmm?
On Feb 25 03:16 PM Robert Nabloid wrote:
>
>
> The jist of my argument is that socialized medicine will hurt America's
> governmental fiscal situation in a very negative way. Whether it
> is socialized or not, the money comes from the same place... the
> people - don't dare lose site of that. We can pretend the government
> pays, but you must not forget where the government gets its money
> - either way it comes from the economy.
>
> What you don't seem to get is that this article is on fiscal responsibility
> and I'm trying to point out that it is going to be quite hard when
> you add up all the things that people want to be done... If you want
> socialized medicine, go for it.
you guys enjoy the kool-aid. i believe i'll stick to vodka with a splash of lime or jack daniels with the same. a fine cigar and a pretty girl help a lot too.
don't eat those chocalate covered raisens obammy is given' out. they're really goat turds. there's no free lunch. someone has to pay. it won't be me.
I'm here to tell you, the grass isn't really greener on the other side of the fence. We have serious labour shortages for doctors and nurses, much worse than in America... wait times ARE killing people and this problem is just as bad as not having health care because that is essentially what it is at times!
Whether it is socialized or not, the money comes from the same place... the people and economy. We can pretend the government pays, but you must not forget where the government gets its money - either way it comes from the economy THROUGH AN INCREASE IN TAXES OR AN INCREASE IN DEBT WHICH CARRIES INTEREST AND HAS TO BE SERVICED WITH TAXES.
Why am I mentioning this? This article is on fiscal responsibility, not on whether or not we should have these services to begin with - that is for another article and is a whole 'nother debate which I might be on the same side of with you. We humans need health services, we all know that. The argument seems to be over who pays for it... when in reality we pay no mater what way you slice it (assuming you work). The poor don't generally pay for such services anyways. I'm not arguing against socialized medicine - I'm telling you it isn't perfect and it still has a cost that the entire society bears, whether or not you are rich or poor. Yes, even the poor pay, just not out of pocket.
And to answer your question... I don't think the banks should get trillions... obviously. We can't afford to give them trillions without raising taxes (or going into massive debt of which we now have to pay interest on...). I wasn't in favour of bailing out corrupt banks. You can't use our fiscal irresponsibility as a reason why its okay to be fiscally irresponsible on other matters... I agree, it would have been a better fiscally irresponsible use of money to spend on health care rather than banks...
The way I look at it, they are bailing out banks, they want to have socialized medicine, SS, and a billion other services to be controlled by government. All I'm saying is you can't call any of this fiscally responsible unless you increase taxes to pay for it. So let's be honest here. So far, none of this is fiscally responsible. It becomes fiscally responsible when you find a way to pay for it other than taking on more debt or printing money out of thin air.
On Feb 25 03:27 PM bosun.j wrote:
> I get that we aren't going to agree. Its a fundamental difference
> in values.
>
> That said, addressing your fiscal responsibility argument. I agree
> there are allot of interests lined up at the trough for their piece
> of the pie. So, should people die for lack of medical care because
> the government gives TRILLIONS to Banksters who then pay themselves
> BILLIONS in bonuses they claim to have "earned" running their banks
> into the ground rather than spend a fraction of those TRILLIONS on
> healthcare? What? Hmmm?
That tells me that we could cut an enormous amount of cost out of our healthcare system with some technological enhancements. Having your patient history on a chip that you can carry around with you would be a great start.
The people were kind and they wanted to do a good job. But they seemed to be working from an information technology base out of the 19th century.
After chuckle nuts Ray Gun got in he screwed us out of that so our next contract provided that the shipping companies had to contribute so much for each day on the ship into our health and welfare account. We then had to find private doctors pay them and submit triplicate forms to get reimbursed. Pretty screwed up. Mostly greedy shitty doctors. I preferred the clinic.
As I aged previous medical problems from my Naval service became serious enough that the VA started treating me. Great cutting edge doctors. Asshole bureaucrats to get through to see the doctor. A fine doctor at the VA hospital in Portland fixed a problem no other Dr could. Yeah, socialized medicine screwed me over. NOT!
Ronnie Ray Gun was one of those assholes who hated people too. (not saying you do!) Hated people, unions and just about anything that wasn't good for his corporate masters. I smile knowing that shitbag is burning in hell! I know his corporate masters are or will be right there next to him in hell.
On Feb 25 03:52 PM Robert Nabloid wrote:
> I don't see where we have a difference in values? We both want people
> to have good health care. My country does socialized medicine and
> is fiscally responsible (most of the time). We do not normally run
> massive defecits to pay for it (though we are going to be running
> a big deficit to "stimulate" the economy (which I don't agree with)).
> In my province 40% of the budget is health care, but we do pay for
> it with higher taxes and mandatory state run health insurance. I'm
> not arguing FOR or AGAINST socialized health care it right now.
> I'm argueing that the US of A can't afford it at the moment without
> raising taxes for ALL, which could in turn hurt the fragile economy.
> If you want socialized medicine, that is fine. But the list of services
> the government is promising continues to grow and none of this is
> fiscally responsible until you honestly tell the American people
> how it will ALL be paid for without taking on more debt. You can't
> tell me Obama, or anyone, is the saviour of fiscal responsibility
> for as long as there is a deficit, PERIOD.
>
> I'm here to tell you, the grass isn't really greener on the other
> side of the fence. We have serious labour shortages for doctors
> and nurses, much worse than in America... wait times ARE killing
> people and this problem is just as bad as not having health care
> because that is essentially what it is at times!
>
> Whether it is socialized or not, the money comes from the same place...
> the people and economy. We can pretend the government pays, but you
> must not forget where the government gets its money - either way
> it comes from the economy THROUGH AN INCREASE IN TAXES OR AN INCREASE
> IN DEBT WHICH CARRIES INTEREST AND HAS TO BE SERVICED WITH TAXES.
>
>
> Why am I mentioning this? This article is on fiscal responsibility,
> not on whether or not we should have these services to begin with
> - that is for another article and is a whole 'nother debate which
> I might be on the same side of with you. We humans need health services,
> we all know that. The argument seems to be over who pays for it...
> when in reality we pay no mater what way you slice it (assuming you
> work). The poor don't generally pay for such services anyways.
> I'm not arguing against socialized medicine - I'm telling you it
> isn't perfect and it still has a cost that the entire society bears,
> whether or not you are rich or poor. Yes, even the poor pay, just
> not out of pocket.
>
> And to answer your question... I don't think the banks should get
> trillions... obviously. We can't afford to give them trillions without
> raising taxes (or going into massive debt of which we now have to
> pay interest on...). I wasn't in favour of bailing out corrupt banks.
> You can't use our fiscal irresponsibility as a reason why its okay
> to be fiscally irresponsible on other matters... I agree, it would
> have been a better fiscally irresponsible use of money to spend on
> health care rather than banks...
>
> The way I look at it, they are bailing out banks, they want to have
> socialized medicine, SS, and a billion other services to be controlled
> by government. All I'm saying is you can't call any of this fiscally
> responsible unless you increase taxes to pay for it. So let's be
> honest here. So far, none of this is fiscally responsible. It becomes
> fiscally responsible when you find a way to pay for it other than
> taking on more debt or printing money out of thin air.
From the beginning I've been trying to say it's fine if you want certain services (like socialized health care) from the government... but it has to be done in a fiscally responsible way, period. That means Obama has to be honest and tell the American people where the money is coming from to pay for it. If that means raising taxes, then be honest and tell us. Please don't recite the class warfare stuff of "we'll tax the rich to pay for it". It will require taxes to increase for everyone. You can't be fiscally responsible until you find a way to balance the budget and stop printing money out of thin air or taking on more debt. End of story.
It seems like too many people want too many things but nobody wants to pay for them. You can't just have the services and not pay for them. Taking on more debt and printing more money are not options that will last forever and they are not sustainable or healthy.
What it all boils down to is this: Obama is not fiscally responsible - neither was Bush. When Obama finds a way to balance the budget with spending cuts or massive increases in taxes or a combination of both, then he will earn the title fiscally responsible. If America balances the budgets, I'll be the first person to say Obama is fiscally responsible. Until that day there is just no way to call him fiscally responsible while he promises people more services without any solid plan to pay for it. Projecting smaller deficits (that are still large) is not fiscal responsibility.
On Feb 25 04:26 PM bosun.j wrote:
> As a retired merchant seaman I recall getting 100% no out of pocket
> healthcare from the public health service prior to chuckle nuts Reagan
> getting into office. First class care in every way.
>
> After chuckle nuts Ray Gun got in he screwed us out of that so our
> next contract provided that the shipping companies had to contribute
> so much for each day on the ship into our health and welfare account.
> We then had to find private doctors pay them and submit triplicate
> forms to get reimbursed. Pretty screwed up. Mostly greedy shitty
> doctors. I preferred the clinic.
>
> As I aged previous medical problems from my Naval service became
> serious enough that the VA started treating me. Great cutting edge
> doctors. Asshole bureaucrats to get through to see the doctor. A
> fine doctor at the VA hospital in Portland fixed a problem no other
> Dr could. Yeah, socialized medicine screwed me over. NOT!
>
> Ronnie Ray Gun was one of those assholes who hated people too. (not
> saying you do!) Hated people, unions and just about anything that
> wasn't good for his corporate masters. I smile knowing that shitbag
> is burning in hell! I know his corporate masters are or will be right
> there next to him in hell.
On Feb 25 04:45 PM Robert Nabloid wrote:
>
>
>
> What it all boils down to is this: Obama is not fiscally responsible
> - neither was Bush.
The second greatest contributing factor are the "Lottery Lawsuits" for malpractice. Nevada has been decimated because of these. The cost of Malpractice Insurance is staggering.
The system that has just been passed in the stimulus bill makes it so that if a doctor does not do what the state recommends as "Treatment" they will not be allowed to practice. This consequently rules out all forms of "Alternative Medicine" and Innovation.
When your health becomes a statistical accounting entry to the government you be come expendable.
Rarely are doctors in the field as a way to make lots of money. By nature of the job, and the pain to obtain it, most are benevolent. Attempting to protect themselves from the government and the "Ambulance Chasing" Lawyers has caused much of the systems ails.
The running of the "multitude of tests" are a way to get money from the insurance to offset the costs of Malpractice insurance and the free services that are given at the emergency room because by law you can not refuse someone help that shows up there.
There are many factors of complexity that can not be accounted for with hasty generalization.
One can come to any conclusion if they limit the data to only premises that support their paradigm.
The socialization of the Medical System and the Education System should be implemented not in totality, but with an allocation that is attached to the person to receive the benefit; Without the mandate of where to spend it. Schools and Doctors would thus compete to succeed and those that do not perform well will not benefit greatly. With the other methods of socialization there is no incentive to do well and thus the system rots.
Money achieved without effort is usually spent foolishly.
On Feb 25 01:42 PM bosun.j wrote:
> Oh freaking please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...
>
> America spends more than twice % of GDP on healthcare as the other
> western economies do and gets a lower standard of care. Get the greedy
> insurance companies out of the middle of the equation and we'll all
> be better off.
>
> Don't believe it? Eliminate all the bullshit unnecessary tests that
> Drs do to protect themselves in the event the screw up anywhere in
> the proceedure. An American quack wanted to do $12000 worth of tests
> before he'd do a $1500 proceedure. Reasoning? I had a heart attack
> 10 yrs previously.
>
> Waited until I got home to Thailand and had the procedure done for
> $750 by a board certified surgeon!
>
> You're getting screwed and you're damn proud of it!!!!
>
>
I want business out of medicine altogether though. No insurance company making profit and no hospital making profit. Pharma must be made to sell drugs at the same price they sell them for here in Thailand (about 10% of US price). No management flying around on private jets and no more million dollar parties. No huge bonuses. That will save allot money that can be used to build more hospitals and install better equipment.
Yeah, I know. It's just un-American to not have some scum sucking businessman making profit off of people's suffering!
On Feb 25 05:13 PM PainfullyAware wrote:
> Medicare and Medicaid pay 65% of all medical bills in the USA. They
> are one of the main contributing factors as to why the cost of medical
> care is so high.
>
> The second greatest contributing factor are the "Lottery Lawsuits"
> for malpractice. Nevada has been decimated because of these. The
> cost of Malpractice Insurance is staggering.
>
> The system that has just been passed in the stimulus bill makes it
> so that if a doctor does not do what the state recommends as "Treatment"
> they will not be allowed to practice. This consequently rules out
> all forms of "Alternative Medicine" and Innovation.
>
> When your health becomes a statistical accounting entry to the government
> you be come expendable.
>
> Rarely are doctors in the field as a way to make lots of money.
> By nature of the job, and the pain to obtain it, most are benevolent.
> Attempting to protect themselves from the government and the "Ambulance
> Chasing" Lawyers has caused much of the systems ails.
>
> The running of the "multitude of tests" are a way to get money from
> the insurance to offset the costs of Malpractice insurance and the
> free services that are given at the emergency room because by law
> you can not refuse someone help that shows up there.
>
> There are many factors of complexity that can not be accounted for
> with hasty generalization.
>
> One can come to any conclusion if they limit the data to only premises
> that support their paradigm.
>
> The socialization of the Medical System and the Education System
> should be implemented not in totality, but with an allocation that
> is attached to the person to receive the benefit; Without the mandate
> of where to spend it. Schools and Doctors would thus compete to
> succeed and those that do not perform well will not benefit greatly.
> With the other methods of socialization there is no incentive to
> do well and thus the system rots.
>
> Money achieved without effort is usually spent foolishly.
The simple minded tax cuts of 1981 and 2001-03 help pull us out of recessions. The problem is and has always been on the spending side of the equation. The republicans should be shot for their recent mistreatment of the budget and Obama/Pelosi/Reid irresponsibility stand a good chance of killing the patient.
www.heritage.org/Resea...
I hate all indirect taxes such as energy/carbon because of their lack of transparency. The cost is directly passed to consumers so it is really nothing more than a very regressive flat tax (poor people have to drive as much as rich people and cannot afford nice new Prius's. Government should be honest about how much they take from their people.
On Feb 24 02:23 PM Jeff Frankel wrote:
> There is no question that tax increases hurt, especially to the extent
> they fall on the workers you describe. One of the reasons I opposed
> the simple-minded tax-cutting of 1981 and 2001-03 is that in both
> cases I thought that they would be accompanied by huge deficits and
> debts, requiring taxes to end up at higher levels just to service
> the debt. I think those predictions were born out.
>
> Rather than the tax increases you describe, I prefer others: taxes
> on energy or carbon, reinstating the estate tax at some appropriate
> level, and Obama's decision to treat the income of hedge fund managers
> as earned income rather than capital gains.
>
>
> JF
>
> On Feb 24 08:54 AM Ergo wrote:
So you want Pharma to stop all research and development of new drugs? That would be the result of your brilliance.
BTW, I spell his name incorrectly as an overt sign of disrespect.
Other than that, I agree wholeheartedly with your post.
On Feb 24 08:21 PM Steve M wrote:
> "Progressive indexation of benefits" = no (or reduced) Social Security
> if you have other income, wealth, etc.
>
> Yes, it breaks the idea of SS being a benefits program rather than
> a welfare program.
>
> If Obama thinks he can take on the AARP on this - who WILL fight
> this - more power to him.
>
> As an aside, if he does do this, and takes on agribusiness, then
> IMHO he's feeling way too cocky. Reminds me of Clinton when he was
> first elected and tried to take on gays in the military, national
> health care, and gun control, and ended up squandering political
> capital on battles he either had little hope of winning or on pissing
> off too many groups. Obama would be wise to avoid this common trap.
I really appreciate your approach to disagreement. Name calling gets us nowhere. I find I learn way more from people I disagree with than from those who already share my outlook. Unfortunately, we have been trained by our media to see shouting matches from "opposing sides" as constituting honest debate about the issues and the consequences of various actions.
I do disagree that the minority party in Congress can be blamed, especially when both houses and the White House are controlled by the same party.
On Feb 24 06:56 PM milkchaser wrote:
> The housing meltdown came to fruition after 2006 when Democrats were
> in charge, but the groundwork for it was done (by Democrats) when
> they were in the minority. They obstructed reform of the GSEs and
> they pushed CRA. They "lit the match" as McCain said in debate.
>
I was a registered republican for much of my life, grew up in the 50's so I guess "Eisenhower Republican" described me best. My grandfather was a republican state senator in MA for many years.
I left the party in 2004 when it became clear what the grand old party had turned into - a party OF the richest handful of several hundred, BY the richest handful of several hundred, FOR the richest handful of several hundred. I will NEVER go back to that party, and have been an ardent supporter of our new President as I believe he represents the last best hope for our survival as a nation and our democratic way of life.
Your words, however, touched me. I can't say I have respect for the great majority of republican supporters who file like sheep behind their callous and outdated leadership, naively believing that that leadership gives a single damn about them, or even knows they exist, but I have respect for your opinion and I agree that we are in a terrible place where we all must come together as Americans to sacrifice what we must.. this is a war no different or less menacing than World War II.
Best wishes.
On Feb 25 09:18 AM mr freddo wrote:
> George W. Bush inherited a balanced budget from a democratic president
> and enjoyed a Republican majority in the house and senate. From
> this starting point, he managed to double our national debt in 8
> years. Think about that for a minute. 1776 to 2000: $5 trillion,
> 2001 to 2008: $10 trillion. You can add another $2 or $3 trillion
> more that Bush gave Obama as a going away present. He protected
> the wealthy class with tax cuts at a time when we were running larger
> and larger deficits and blundered into a costly war that cost $700
> billion to $2 trillion depending on who you believe,
>
> It is a very sad story of Republicans in power. You would have thought
> that with the money party in power for 6 years we would be running
> surpluses with lower taxes and an absolutely robust economy. If
> that was the case though, we would have been listening to President
> McCain last night.
>
> What happened to the Republicans? Their failure is of monumental
> proportions. They ruled. They were in power. And to say that they
> blew it is an understatement. I'm surprised that they didn't disband
> and regroup under a different banner.
>
> If you are a Republican, then your critique of Obama should at least
> be muted by the fact that your party caused this catastrophe. (Disclosure:
> I am a registered Republican).
>
> One wonders how things would have gone had McCain been elected in
> 2000 rather than Bush. Let's face it, Bush did what he was told
> to do and didn't bring much of anything to the office of the Presidency.
> Cheney was the power behind the throne calling the shots.
>
> Deregulation was the mantra because it brought in the money. But
> anyone who lived in California during the energy crisis knows that
> deregulation is dangerous. You simply cannot trust business to do
> the right thing. That's why we have laws and courts.
>
> So we deregulated the banks and investment banks and the result is
> that for one we have no more investment banks, and secondly, our
> banks are bankrupt and won't or cannot do their job which is allocating
> capital to the businesses and individuals in the form of loans that
> will be paid back with interest.
>
> As a former CEO, I used to bristle when I would hear about the latest
> changes in the laws protecting workers in the state of California.
> Where were the laws protecting business owners and managers? I can't
> tell you how many times I was taken to the cleaners by employees
> claiming an injury so that they could collect workers compensation
> and get a settlement. We all knew the cases were frauds, but there
> was nothing we could do. Most of the time these laws are passed
> by well meaning Democrats who are usually attorneys and have never
> run businesses. Why are they trying to kill the goose that lays
> the golden egg, I wondered?
>
> Now, on the tide of colassal Republican failure, we have a Democratic
> president, house and senate. The stimulus bill is classic democratic
> spending on pet pork projects no doubt. We are in deep, deep trouble
> and we are lost at sea without a rudder with a leaky boat and too
> many passengers.
>
> I am hoping that Obama is successful. To say that he has the toughest
> job in the world is an understatement. I had a dream last night
> that I was in a diner and I bumped into Obama so we had dinner and
> I paid. He was tired, and in a great deal of pain. I kept thinking,
> "This man needs my help." When I went to pay the bill, he slipped
> away. That's when I woke up.
>
> Republican or democrat, we are Americans. Now is the time to rally
> round the President as we rallied around Bush after 911. The President
> needs our support if we are to recover from this debacle. This is
> a war. We are at war. Rally round your President. Be critical,
> but be supportive. He is the best chance we have right now to turn
> things around.
>