With unemployment still hovering around 10%, should the new "Freshman Class" in the House of Represenatives be hellbent on killing Obamacare or more concerned with job creation?
They aren't going to do either one very well.
To 'kill' Obamacare, they need to get the Senate to sign on to a repeal - which won't happen and, by the way, they need Obama to sign the repeal. They know it - so all the gyrations we'll see are a dog and pony show for the teabaggers.
Unemployment is a by-product of the recession, specifically the result of a drop in consumption. Fewer people buying stuff resulted in layoffs, which meant fewer people with money to buy stuff which resulted in more layoffs. It's leveled off, but its not getting better very fast.
The answer is implicit in the problem definition - increase consumption. Until that happens, business is sitting on the sidelines - not hiring. The government is the biggest consumer, so that's a natural way to increase consumption Putting more money in the hands of the people certain to spend all of it, is the next-best option to spur consumption. Both are contrary to conservative philosophy which says the best way to create jobs is to give more money to the rich. (Of course, if that was true the Bush tax cuts for the rich should have sent the economy into the stratosphere - but instead ushered in the recession.)The second-best GOP answer is to reduce government consumption - which will kill jobs.
I hope that the deal Obama made with the devil will help some - maybe a couple of points off unemployment over 2011. Don't expect anything from the US House of Representatives except the antics of clowns.
The GOP is clueless about job creation. They got us in the hole and are still digging.
Yup! Killing health care will be a good first step to easing unemployment. They are related! Business doesn't want to hire because they don't know what this law is going to cost them.
Yep, it's a huge factor. There is also this. Even if Universal health care was everything it's supporters say it is. WE CAN'T AFFORD IT! Stop the spending. That's the key.
"The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the health care overhaul will reduce deficits by more than $140 billion over 10 years."
How are you Repubs going to make up for that 140 bil you're adding to the deficit? On TOP of the 800 something bil you added by giving ka-trillionaires a big bonus?
That's at least 940 billion you have added to the deficit in the guise of cutting spending.
"The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the health care overhaul will reduce deficits by more than $140 billion over 10 years."
And if they told you wolverines make good house pets would you believe them?
Can you name a single government program that every came in at or below budget once implemented?
Yes---someone mentioned it here. The healthcare the military gets. Also social security and medicare--my mother has never had one single problem.
My dad, however, went through HELL dealing with private insurance while he had cancer.
It bankrupted them.
Things may not get done on time, there is waste and abuse, but the underlying goal is to provide for the public good.
Private enterprise is done for profit.
I choose public good.
The healthcare the military gets.....government intervention over another government entity.
That's the best you've got? Wow.....
Hey, lmc. I can relate. I know exactly what you went through. My brother was one of those millionaires and had the best health insurance money could buy. He died virtually penniless because of the cost of cancer care. If government is going to do anything about health care it should be in reforming the industry. Why does a millionaire go broke only to die anyway? What was the use of all their research and mandated chemo and radiation? This is a government mandate. If they want to provide public insurance, let them pay for catastrophic care which is what busts people, not the everyday stuff. And certainly not forcing people to buy it. The only way health care overhaul will reduce deficits is because we are being forced to buy it. The plan includes the money we put in. What happens after that? What happens after the $140. million we put in is used up? It's not actually lowering the deficit it's just paying for something which should have been investigated long ago. Overpriced meds, overpriced research, too many grants and funding, to many hands in the pockets of the people's money. Sorry. I can truly empathize with you but don't see your argument as a viable way out of this.
"If government is going to do anything about health care it should be in reforming the industry."
You are kidding right? What do you think the Dems have been trying to do? Who has been stopping it?
I see now the new "talking point" of the right.....
"Pay for Catastrophic,then let us out." Well, what about a poor kid who needs glasses? Or braces? Poor people can't afford that, but it's not catastrophic. What should they do? Just wish they were born rich I guess huh?
And btw...when can I opt out of paying these Republican politicians? When can I opt out of funding Haliburton? When? I wanna know.
That's been prove FALSE! It's all based on the idea that you tax for five years to pay for the following five. That makes it budget neutral in ten years. WHAT ABOUT TWENTY YEARS?
Who proved it false? I'm going with the CBO. What's your source?
The numbers the CBO uses have a disclaimer. They openly admit that they are NOT including cost projections for the IRS or the Department of Health and Human Services. Those are just examples. The CBO also states that it doesn't NORMALLY make projections beyond 10 years. But has in this case at the request of Congress. HMMM....
"WHAT ABOUT TWENTY YEARS?"
C.J. - The CBO gave a best guess of savings of OVER 1 trillion dollars in the second decade. The Health Care Law does bend the cost curve down which was a major objective. The exact amounts can be argued, but it's beyond question that repealing health care drives the federal deficit UP - while health care reform - as passed - will SAVE money.
Democrats have made it clear that they are open to suggestions to tweek the law, now and in the future, to make it better. Repeal makes no fiscal sense, however.
LOL, no SOURCES? You kill me with your rhetoric. I know you love socialism. Just know this, American's can't handle it. They are too independent. Take a close look at the CBO's projections. See how they have changed. Look historically and note how they seem to over and under shoot reality.
A best guess huh? So where is the money coming from to fund it? What they are telling us is that it will be completely funded from tax payer money. NO borrowing right?
Let me explain using your source:
the CBO says: "Those figures do not include potential costs that would be funded through future appropriations"
So, what your calling a "BEST GUESS" I call the "BEST CASE SCENARIO" I've heard it all before.
LOL! The CBO MUST use assumptions given to it by the administration when it performs its calculations. We all know the numbers are suspect because in the first 6 of 10 years the governemnt is collecting money without paying out the full benefits.
As far as the promises of lowering costs, the evidence so far is costs are rising faster than they would have wiothout the law. Already 100s of business have filed for and received waivers from teh government for implementing the law because it's too costly! Also the promise that you could keep your insurance has been shown to be false. We were fed a bunch of lies!
Business doesn't want to hire because they have grown extrememly lean and heavy-to-the-black on their balance sheet. Why would they hire when they are making money hand-over-fist with the status quo? Alan Greenspan called it the "volatility of labor markets" which he deemed a good thing. When pressed he went on to explain that when people feel threatened about losing their job 24/7, they work for less, expect much less from their employers, and generally feel "indebted" to their employer - they don't move, they don't bitch, they just "exist" under the constant fear of losing their job. Corporate America has posted record profits because they are demanding more productivity from their existing workforce - and getting it - for less money. And the excuse is, "Well times are tough..." Jobs are the by-product of business - not the soul goal of business. If a business could operate profitably without employees, it would and they do - it's called outsourcing. My career field exists because I am the "outsourcee." If you believe your "Joe Capitalist" feels a need to provide his fellow man with a job, well I got a bridge to sell you...
That is precisely why the government must get out of the way and allow business and American citizens to be prosperous. Raising employment levels creates demand for workers, which forces business to compete for labor which leads to higher wages and benefits which increases demand for products which raises again the need for labor and so on! Government regulation and taxes are a burden to business, it's a cost that stifles demand, reduces consumption and leads to unemployment which leads to further contraction of the economy and greater poverty.
The government can only "create" jobs in government. That requires taxes to go up. The government can not create jobs in the private sector.
The left is wanting to raise the legal debt ceiling. That means they want to spend MORE! This is ridiculous. "The spending will continue until the deficit improves" seems to be the mantra here.
Oh, I know. It's all Bush's fault. Well if run away spending got us into this mess, how will it get us out? The math simply does not work.
Well- your math has been PROVEN wrong. Once, twice we had Bush tax cuts...now 3 times is the charm?
Where are the jobs?
What did that cut increase but the income and quality of life disparity here?
Here's why they did it, "You are our base, and we will support you."
Apparently, the base is still the same.
No jobs, just plenty of re-distribution of wealth...to the top.
It doesn't work when you don't, 1. REDUCE SPENDING. 2. Don't create incentives to get business back in the US. You are focusing on a single component. Taxes. Its more than taxes. It's Spending, Taxes and Trade policy.
Umm, hello! WHO was in charge? From 2000-2006, total Repubs, with 2 tax cuts they put through.
Where were the jobs? guess.....they went overseas...much like a lot or rich people's money, so they could avoid US taxes.
Now we are supposed to buy this crappola again? Puleeeeeze.
You can buy it, I see it for what it is. Complete and total stinky matter on the bottom of my shoes.
You are painting me as a Republican simply because I don't agree with you. I'm NOT a Republican. The results of the past election are NOT a blanket approval of Republican policy from 2000 to 2006. They are a rejection of the Democrats policy from 2006 to 2010. If Republicans refuse to listen, they will be gone again.
Yes, they will. In fact, more of both parties will be gone in 2012 if they do not change their course!
You spent in the wrong place and the wrong way.
Not to help the majority, but to feather the nest of the minority.
****sorry about that double answer to the same post....I got a message saying "you can't post the same message more than once"....but they did post it!****
Don't raise the debt ceiling and the US defaults on its sovereign debt. That would make the Great Recession look like a rendition of "Happy Days Are Here Again..."
Government cannot create jobs.
Jobs are created by private business.
Government can knock down walls that have been put up that stifle job creation.
You are of course joking . . . though somehow I doubt it.
Why do you say that? Didn't Obama's stimulus prove his point? After spending a trillion dollars no jobs were created, at least nothing that wasn't a government job or anything that was permanent. Government doesn't create wealth, government consumes it!
So governments consume nothing and promote nothing?
Even at the most basic level, say stationary, most of this will be contracted out to private printers, the rest,donein house will still employ people.
Put a man on the moon? How many tens of thousands does this employ along with research spin off that provide private businesses with opportunities.
How about that new high way, carried out by private business or just the thousands upon thousands of paper pushers.
Government redistributes wealth and creates wealth, were does the wealth that government consume disappear to?
Government takes wealth and spends it, period. I'm not saying that there is never a benefit, but they don't create any lasting wealth.
I've known people who have made themselves pretty wealthy out of government contracts.
Have a look around in your own country and I'm sure you'll find a good few companies who've made a shilling or two from working for the government.
Sure that's not creating wealth that's just taking it from you and me and giving it to someone else! Creating wealth is investing in an idea and selling it for a profit, like Microsoft and Apple.
Then with that logic, should every private business that does business with local, state, and the Federal government just forgo the extremely lucrative contracts that in turn put money into the hands of private citizens, other private businesses via subcontracts, etc? I work for insurance companies - that is pure redistribution of wealth at its finest. Do a little backward engineering and find an example where someone's bread and butter didn't bring from government spending. When I purchase my fuel, my groceries, my kids' clothing, it's done with money earned that someone paid in insurance premiums. Should those private benefactors of the aforementioned not accept my money?
Why does investing in a highway not create wealth but giving money to Microsoft and Apple create wealth? It's still taking money from you and me and giving it to somebody else. The difference is that we do have some say in what happens to money to the state whereas we have no say at all in what private business does with our money.
LOL! You have a say in what the state does with your money? How so?
Look any wealth benefit from a government expediture is temporary at best. There is no lasting wealth creation, no expansion of wealth no real re-investment. I think you'll find that companies that do business with the government also have private contracts so only a portion of their profits are from government and that money they get from government was money you, I, and they paid in taxes to begin with!
Your logic aligns with that of Pelosi and Keynes, government spending leads to prosperity, unemployment is stimulative... it's not rational, it defies logic and common sense!
Nobody "gives" money to Microsoft or Apple! By your own choice, you purchase a product they make because you want it. The profit from that investment as made millions for thousands of people, financed retirements, created millions of jobs around the world, funded charities, and foundations, grew savings, improved people's standard of living and on and on!
Well, here in the UK we have this thing called democracy which means we vote. It doesn't please all of the people all of the time, but then what system does?
Why is money spent by government temporary? Why is money spent by private enterprise any more permanent?
Of course businesses that do business with none government contracts do so, it's called diversifying, spreading risk even.
Sure thay pay out taxes, taxes that we pay to make life possible, in this country that means never going bankrupt because your insurance company refuses you cancer treatment or being able to drive from one end of the country to the other without paying tolls. It means when somebody commits a crime against us we aren't dependent on some company deciding that we aren't covered against that risk and it means that if a house catches fire we don't ave to stand around and watch it burn down because our bank messed up the insurance premium.
Sure you give money to Microsoft because you want what they have but that price isn't dependent on cost, it is the product of somebody deciding at which price level they will be able to make the biggest profit. Heck, why do you think drug companies charge different amounts for their drugs in different countries?
Yes I see how your country operates. I see what happens when your government tells you they can no longer afford to pay for your college education! Yes you RIOT! You create a system of entitlements that are unsustainable and basically have no value since they are free and then you turn violent when there's no way to pay for it all. Well that's what makes America different, and that's why we're better and freer and why most of us want to keep it that way!
Wow, at last you see the dangers in an extreme right wing government!
I really thought you would have approved of rioting to protest about increased taxes, but then nothing else you've said seems to have much logic to it.
Are you really that much freer than we are? Our country might advise us not to travel to other countries, it doesn't ban us from doing so.
We can still protest against the government without losing our jobs.
You riot because the free stuff you were promised wont be delivered, or you only get 3 weeks of vacation a year and feel you are entitled to 6.
What country are US citizens banned from going?
Who has lost their job in the US for protesting the government?
Where do you come up with this stuff?
It wasn't "free stuff" We used to have this system where you were paid to go to university and you then repaid this through the higher taxes and improved services you provided. A government decided that pay back was unfair and ditched it. The present government decided that Universities had no benefit to society or commerce and should be treated as profit centres.
Oh by the way, there is no record of students rioting but plenty of evidence of rent-a-mob doing so.
Can't remember names but there were several people sacked for protesting the government.
We're not banned from going to Cuba.
Cuban Assets Control Regulations just state we can't spend money there.
"The present government decided that Universities had no benefit to society or commerce and should be treated as profit centres."
Paying for an education, how horrible for you.
If riots are spreading all over Europe and they haven't even finished cutting funding of all benefits, this promises to be a very interesting year. Hopefully, Obama gets it into his thick head that following the europeans is not the way to go.
No following the Europeans who are following the American way isn't the way to go.
Agreed, the europeans following the americans would be too weird. They'd have to change a lot of things. As for Obama, he can see first hand what happens to people who have been used to socialism and expect certain services from the government and how they react when those those services are taken away. Not good.
Unfortunately there are many in this country who view us as yet another state of the US!
Isn't it just! And to see cars decked out like the General Lee pull up somewhere and two cool dudes climb out and start a conversation in nearly American accents but overlaid with heavy local UK accents!
If you ever see that again, film it with your phone, and put it up on youtube cause I gotta see that!
So far there aren't any fake europeans here except for Madonna -- but you guys should have kept her on your side of the world.
I think a lot of them were confused, they lived in places with names like California and Boston and didn't realise that they were living in the places that originally carried those names, notplaces named after the US cities!
Sorry but Madge is better off with you, she didn't really get it.
Depends on the sort of society you want, whether you want one that is innovative, free thinking and independent or whether you just want a society of clones incapable of any real innovation or free thinking.
You go for brain surgery. Which do you want, the truly gifted surgeon or the one who could afford the training fees?
I will take a Doctor who paid for his education, who has shown to be proficient and skilled.
You can have the government employee.
Nearly nicely ducked the question there, but would you rather have the wealthy but incompetent or the gifted and government trained?
The person who has paid for their own education has some "skin in the game" They had to work hard knowing that their best may not be good enough. Look at how many times the Kennedy Children had to take the Bar! All their money couldn't make them lawyers!
What I see is the dangers of a people that rely on a benevolent government to attend to their needs and feed them their lollies, and the temper tantrum they throw when something is taken away.
I'm sure you have trouble makers even in the perfect US, I seem to recall Americans protesting, what about Kent State University where state troopers shot dead four students? What lollies had they had taken from them?
Oh sure we have our share of leftist radicals that want to be like Europe and want a government that will give them free stuff paid for by the rich, they are about 20% of the country and their called democrats.
I really don't understand why if they wanted to be like Europe, they just didn't emigrate there.
I don't think so. I think our lefties are actually worse! In European style socialism the policies are cruel but fair. American lefties want it to feel good and be fair. It's a little harder to pull off. You know the old saying "Can't be all things to all People".
Hey, I'm not rich but I pay for a lot of the stuff I have, in fact, I probably pay my share of far more than I use.
Yes, it is freedom, it is freedom from worry, freedom from stress, freedom from dying in a ditch.
Yes just like the slaves! No thank you, I'll take the worry.
Some of them did, but many weren't treated bad at all! They had their food, clothes, housing and medical taken care of and they had guaranteed labor.... no worries right?
As a lot of slaves realised when they were freed, and as the slave owners realised they were much better off just hiring them when needed and leaving them to there own devices! Of course the freedom of the slaves was illusory, they weren't actually economically free, they had no money to travel or eat or house themselves.
"It's still taking money from you and me and giving it to somebody else."
When you buy from microsoft you receive a product, they didn't take your money you exchanged it willingly.
When government taxes and you don't pay that tax there is a penalty, do you not see the difference?
These people think spending leads to wealth, that printing money grows the economy, that unemployment is stimulative do you expect them to understand the complexities of purchasing a product for an agreed upon price? LOL
When I pay taxes I get in return security, health care, roads to drive on, education, I get my rubbish collected and my streets swept.I could go on but you get the message.
Oh, except to say, each aspect that I pay taxes for will cost me considerably less than buying a Microsoft product.
But you only have to pay for the microsoft product once.
What happens if you don't pay the tax?
And since you obviously live in a utopian society where all of your needs are met what exactly is your complaint?
Yes, I'm still using windows 3.
What happens if you steal Microsoft products?
My complaint? All the begrudgers who'd take it off me.
"What happens if you steal Microsoft products?
Then you are a thief and stand the chance you will go to jail.
The difference is microsoft is not demanding you use their product.
That is a choice you get to make.
Still don't see the difference do you?
You have a windows version that's over 20 years old?! That means your computer is over 20 years old?! Wow.
Durh! Of course I don't. It was a response to Jim's claim that you only pay Microsoft once.
You pay once per product.
Do you not understand that?
okay you were joking. I thought since you were paying the government so much in taxes, you couldn't update your computer.
We ALREADY did!!!
Where are the jobs from the first 2 tax cuts?
Surely you don't really think they sit there saying "how can we kill jobs today?"
But they hadn't even taken over the majority yet. How is this possible?
Oh, just wait and see. Like McConnell said, "If the Democrats think this session was bad, wait until January." (paraphrasing)
They are out to make Obama a one term president, bust unions, lower the minimum wage, make sure poor people get NO help * "heaven forfend!!" * and make sure money keeps flowing to the top.
They are the party of corporate America.
Were you really fooled by them?
How about making some adjustments like adding the public option to the health care bill, or better yet universal health care, and create jobs?
Adding an opt-out for those who don't want to be forced to buy someone's idea of health insurance would be a good way to leave the bill for those who want it and leave an out for those who don't. Government is the biggest consumer. Once they stop all the unnecessary spending, the economy will level out. It may not be what is was, but consumerism can only go so far before it self destructs. And since the government hasn't really stopped spending, I guess we can't blame the downturn on them. Maybe the war caused a lot of this. Who knew? Blame whomever you wish to but let's just let it level out, stop unnecessary spending, stop taxing people to death, and let me do what I want with my health care.
You really want the government in charge of your health care? Really? I mean, really?
The same organization that couldn't even run a "Cash For Clunkers" program? In charge of your health care?
What to say but "Wow"....
Well I agree with you to a certain point. However, there is no Public Option so the idea of having "government in charge of your health care" unless you are on Medicare, Medicaid, Tri-Care (Veterans and active duty) is a mute point. Interestingly enough, I have talked to and work daily with the aged, the poor, and military veterans - none have much to bitch about regarding their government-run care. Now the same can't be said about my customers with private health insurance. Most people, when they actually realize that private health insurers find ways to cut your coverage/their cost, tend to lose that rosey glow. But then again, neither no one including Congress has read the bill cover to cover - PS - it's available online and a pretty "easy" read...
Cash for clunkers? I can give you a better one. Department of Education. No Child Left Behind. A great feel good program dictated by the Fed and paid for by the states. It's nothing more than another tax. Unfunded mandates are crippling the states. Run away spending is killing the tax payer. Unrealistic trade policy is chasing big business away. Loop holes in the tax code make running away profitable. All these problems and the only answer government has is SPEND!
So without some kind of "standard" we continue to have basically what we have now - a joke of an education system that varies so greatly from one district to the next WITHIN ONE STATE that no kid is guaranteed the same education as the next. Here in Ohio, it's funded by levies on property value. So, the wealthy communities benefit the most, the poor communities benefit the least. You know there is one thing to be said about our current culture: we want all the benefits without a price. We want good roads, but don't tax us. We want good schools, but don't fund them. We want good police and fire protection, but don't raise our taxes to obtain them. Of course the TeaParty crowd will tell you or lead you to believe that all of this can be done without taxes. Well saddle up my horse and pack me a sachel Miss Kitty - the gold piece on the table is for you....
I'll be brually honest with you. I DON'T WANT EQUAL EDUCATION! At least as it's currently being defined.
I would bet that your exagerating about Ohio's plan for funding schools. Most states fund schools at the county level with subsidy from the state and federal governments. So, if the entire county is broke...guess what? The whole school system suffers. The idea that rich communities have nicer schools is a gimic used to create class envy. Newer communities do have newer schools because well, they are newer.
****NEWS FLASH***** Your wrong about your states policy on funding schools. It's just as I thought. Federal, State and Local Taxes fund your schools. Monies from the State are distributed based on a "Foundation Schedule" that ensures districts with a lower property value are compensated equitably. Your state calls it "Low Wealth Subsidy" or "Equity Aid". Federal monies are "program" based. The programs are based on merit or need.
Newsflash - I am not wrong - in part, local districts are funded by property taxes. I have lived here for 45 years and my wife works for the school system. Of course districts receive money from the state and federal levels, but a significant portion comes from property taxes. And again, wealthier communities have the better schools by virtue of more tax revenue.
No, your wrong. Look it up. Look at how Ohio funds schools. The state ensures that low property valued communities are funded equitably. If they didn't the Fed would be all over them like a cheap suit!
Oh, here is your original quote:
"Here in Ohio, it's funded by levies on property value"
If you knew the statement was not completely true, why didn't you list the entire truth in your OP?
The majority of people are in favor of national health care in America, and it is astounding to people outside America that people might actually be against it.
1) healthcare reform is nothing but trouble. government can't create wealth, it can only - at best - rearrange it.
2) jobs aren't the most important part of an economy. increasing supply is.
Good point! Perhaps one election cycle without anyone in Washington would be the most beneficial!
by theirishobserver.7 years ago
Good morning,Democrats and Republicans agree -- the health care status quo isn't working for the American people.Health insurance is growing more and more expensive by the day. Too many of us can't afford it -- not...
by rhamson7 years ago
These statistics come from 1991 but show a trend that needs looking at when we are fed the line about the best healthcare system in the world.http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htmHealth Care Expenditures...
by fishskinfreak20087 years ago
Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100326/ts … RoY2FyZXJlObviously, states with higher unemployment rates will need more help as far as insurance is concerned. WINNERSArizona (Unemployment Rate: 9.7%)...
by fishskinfreak20087 years ago
Web-site/URL: http://callmebarbara.com/boxer/healthca … bAod9BETJgThis is the worst web-site ever. HEALTHCARE REFORM IS A NECESSITY. "Repealing" and starting over is not an option
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 months ago
Obama "care" for the most part has been a disaster. Premiums keep rising & for many, it has become exorbitantly expensive. According to the latest news, steps to repeal...
by GA Anderson3 years ago
The gist of the new Congressional Budget Office, (CBO), report on the effects of Obamacare on the U.S. economy is that it will cause a reduction in works hours equivalent to about 2 million jobs by 2017.Here is just one...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.