Since there is so much controversy right now.....

[BuffyR]

I'm an Independent who just thinks there's entirely too much spending going on by our government. The current administration in my view is pushing us over the edge. Plus there's more lobbyists and corruption than ever, probably more.
In regards to Sen Bunning, I did want to point out that he's not against unemployment benefits. He just wants them paid for, preferably with the 10 million left over from the "stimulus" and thinks that we should be following the "Paygo" law that Obama himself was behind. That is, if we don't have the money for something, then it doesn't go through. I think that's pretty responsible and brave of him considering he had to know he'd be roasted by the media---"Sen. Bunning Hates the Unemployed" kind of headlines...

The problem with Bunning is he, like all Republicans, voted against PAYGO. Even those Republicans that were for it previously decided to vote against it because President Obama was for it. Moreover, extension of Unemployment Benefits is an emergency measure, not an ongoing entitlement, which is not subject to PAYGO. If the Republicans are really concerned with debt and deficit spending then why is every time they are in charge they run of the debt in record numbers. See for instance Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. The last time the budget was in surplus was when Clinton was president. The point is, just saying "I'm a fiscal conservative" doesn't make it so. Finally, a close examination of the budget belies the Republican talking point that "Obama is spending too much." See link below.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/what-caused-the-budget-deficit.php

 

[hiitdogs]

I'm an Independent who just thinks there's entirely too much spending going on by our government. The current administration in my view is pushing us over the edge. Plus there's more lobbyists and corruption than ever, probably more.
In regards to Sen Bunning, I did want to point out that he's not against unemployment benefits. He just wants them paid for, preferably with the 10 million left over from the "stimulus" and thinks that we should be following the "Paygo" law that Obama himself was behind. That is, if we don't have the money for something, then it doesn't go through. I think that's pretty responsible and brave of him considering he had to know he'd be roasted by the media---"Sen. Bunning Hates the Unemployed" kind of headlines...

What you say about the spending of our current government is not correct though. Bush blew trillions on the wars in Iraq and Afganistan and they did not show up in the "budget" because it was done through supplemental appropriations. Bush increased the national deficit from $ 5.4 trillion to $ 10.4 trillion in GOOD economic times, now we are in a BAD economy that Obama had nothing to do with in creating but we still expect that he turns around in record time a disaster that was years in the making.


Second, there is a distinct difference between "spending" and "investing". Any successful business person knows that in order to jump start their business they need to invest, modernize, improve. Yes, it costs money in the beginning but will pay for itself over time and reduce deficit.

In respect to Senator Bunning, it's great to make a point about not spending money that we don't have. But why is it that he did not suggest that salaries for senators or congress (wo)men are cut or at least frozen, or not oppose salaries increases? Why is it okay to cut the unemployment benefits for people who often have paid years and then when the proverbial crap hits the fan for them, they won't get the benefits? I don't see any opposition to military spending, and Bunning continues to advocate tax cuts. If we don't have the money we can't keep cutting taxes.

 

[double t]

Good points everyone.
Paygo has it's own problems. It aparently was attached to legislation that raised the debt ceiling 2 trillion dollars. I am sure that's why Bunning was against it. I need to read more on it admittedly. But to say he hates the unemployed, as I have seen in the media, is misleading in my mind.
I am all for cutting salaries of congress people. In fact, I am not quite sure they need to even meet as much as they do. That would save money right there.
I think a big issue is all of these bills attached to other piggybacked items that basically just exacerbates our problems.
The best thing about Clinton's presidency in my mind is the fact that the Congress was controlled by Repubs. I think the government works best when we have it split up and no one party completely runs everything.
Bush spent a lot, no doubt. The Iraq War cost a lot amongst other things. I believe it was the right thing to do though. Plus, 75% of the country was for it at the beginning so it was the will of the majority.
The current administration has spending habits that make the other administrations mentioned look like big savers. It's out of control. The healthcare bill is an amazingly bad piece of legislation as it stands. The majority of the people do not want it in it's current form yet they continue ramming it down our throats....to the tune of major taxes coming on the middle class if it passes.
The economic mess we are in was set in motion way before Bush or Obama. Before Reagan as well.
As an Independent I'd love to see we voters clean house come November. Anyone in either party who doesn't want to calm down on spending can get out as far as I am concerned.
Anyway, great points everyone. I don't want to get in a political argument. Just count me in as someone who thinks the gravy train has got to stop now. I worry for my kids and grandchild.

 

[BuffyR]

Just read this and thought I'd pass it on for the poster who is concerned about spending. This is from Bloomberg.com.

One year after U.S stocks hit their post-financial-crisis low on March 9, 2009, the benchmark Standard & Poor’s 500 Index has risen more than 68 percent, and it’s up more than 41 percent since Obama took office. Credit spreads have narrowed. Commodity prices have surged. Housing prices have stabilized.

“We’ve had a phenomenal run in asset classes across the board,” said Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist for Miller Tabak & Co. in New York. “If he was a Republican, we would hear a never-ending drumbeat of news stories about markets voting in favor of the president.” [...]

[M]onthly job losses have abated, from 779,000 during the month Obama took office to 36,000 last month. Corporate profits have grown; among 491 companies in the S&P 500 that reported fourth-quarter earnings, profits rose 180 percent from a year ago, according to Bloomberg data. Durable goods orders in January were up 9.3 percent from a year earlier. Inflation is tame, and long-term interest rates remain low. [...]

Zandi said the economic rebound is largely a result of the policies of the White House and Federal Reserve. He cited the bank bailout, the Fed’s low-interest-rate policy and support for credit markets, and the Obama administration’s stimulus plan, bank stress tests and backing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“When you take it all together, the response was massive and unprecedented and ultimately successful,” Zandi said.

(BTW, Zandi was an economic advisor for John McCain).


As for healthcare being rammed down the the throats of the American people, I'll remind you that bills haved passed through both houses with solid majorities. The reconciliation process will only deal with a few tweaks to the bills that have already passed. The polls indicate that the reason the HCR legislation is unpopular is 1) most people don't really understand it; and 2) many people don't think it goes far enough. When individual parts of HCR are polled they do rather well. I, for one, am in favor of single payor but the current proposals as better than the status quo. Moreover, none of the taxes currently being considered would effect the vast majority of middle class folks.

 

[hiitdogs]

I believe it was the right thing to do though. Plus, 75% of the country was for it at the beginning so it was the will of the majority.
The current administration has spending habits that make the other administrations mentioned look like big savers. It's out of control. The healthcare bill is an amazingly bad piece of legislation as it stands. The majority of the people do not want it in it's current form yet they continue ramming it down our throats....to the tune of major taxes coming on the middle class if it passes.
The economic mess we are in was set in motion way before Bush or Obama. Before Reagan as well.
As an Independent I'd love to see we voters clean house come November. Anyone in either party who doesn't want to calm down on spending can get out as far as I am concerned.
Anyway, great points everyone. I don't want to get in a political argument. Just count me in as someone who thinks the gravy train has got to stop now. I worry for my kids and grandchild.

I for one was against the war in Iraq from the getgo but the reason why people were for it was because we were lied to about WMDs. I think it is pretty clear that Bush wanted to go into Iraq come hell or high water and he used 9/11 as the hook. I would say that this war was the WRONG thing to do!!!!

What do you think it costs us to not have health care for Americans? First of from a moral standpoint I find it absolutely wrong that we can spend on military and nothing will ever be cut and nothing is ever too expensive but when it comes to taking care of your own citizens there is the a loud outcry "OMG the cost, the cost ...."

What do you think it costs the economy that people go bankrupt because of medical cost? Who do you think pays for people who don't have health care and use emergency rooms?

We are # 37 in the world in health care quality, just above Cuba and below Costa Rica despite of the fact that we are # 1 in spending for health care per capita with worse outcomes.

I am not thrilled about the health care bill, I don't think it goes far enough. But I am glad that there will be restrictions on insurance companies to not be able to drop people when they get sick after they have paid insurance premiums for years. Or that people can't be denied because of preexisting conditions. I don't think it is perfect but I think it will be a working progress and can be improved over time.

 

[joejack]

Just read this and thought I'd pass it on for the poster who is concerned about spending. This is from Bloomberg.com.

One year after U.S stocks hit their post-financial-crisis low on March 9, 2009, the benchmark Standard & Poor’s 500 Index has risen more than 68 percent, and it’s up more than 41 percent since Obama took office. Credit spreads have narrowed. Commodity prices have surged. Housing prices have stabilized.

“We’ve had a phenomenal run in asset classes across the board,” said Dan Greenhaus, chief economic strategist for Miller Tabak & Co. in New York. “If he was a Republican, we would hear a never-ending drumbeat of news stories about markets voting in favor of the president.” [...]

[M]onthly job losses have abated, from 779,000 during the month Obama took office to 36,000 last month. Corporate profits have grown; among 491 companies in the S&P 500 that reported fourth-quarter earnings, profits rose 180 percent from a year ago, according to Bloomberg data. Durable goods orders in January were up 9.3 percent from a year earlier. Inflation is tame, and long-term interest rates remain low. [...]

Zandi said the economic rebound is largely a result of the policies of the White House and Federal Reserve. He cited the bank bailout, the Fed’s low-interest-rate policy and support for credit markets, and the Obama administration’s stimulus plan, bank stress tests and backing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“When you take it all together, the response was massive and unprecedented and ultimately successful,” Zandi said.

(BTW, Zandi was an economic advisor for John McCain).


As for healthcare being rammed down the the throats of the American people, I'll remind you that bills haved passed through both houses with solid majorities. The reconciliation process will only deal with a few tweaks to the bills that have already passed. The polls indicate that the reason the HCR legislation is unpopular is 1) most people don't really understand it; and 2) many people don't think it goes far enough. When individual parts of HCR are polled they do rather well. I, for one, am in favor of single payor but the current proposals as better than the status quo. Moreover, none of the taxes currently being considered would effect the vast majority of middle class folks.

Here's a link to the entire article from Bloomberg: ( I think you left out some important parts)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aeSenIUvpSK0&pos=10

As for your last paragraph,no offense but those are typical Democrat party talking points. The reason most folks don't understand the legislation is because NO ONE can understand it. It is layers and layers of bureaucratic confusion. Most people would love for universal healthcare to happen, but they don't feel like the country can pay for it right now. I'd be all for it if someone would show me the proof that our government can run an entitlement program efficiently. Medicaid and Medicare prove to me that the US government has NO CLUE how to run large health care programs efficiently.

Edited to add two other interesting links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?ref=todayspaper

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/03/the-unkindest-cut/37288/

 

[joejack]

One more good link..

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aBLsdok30x6M

 

[BuffyR]

Here's a link to the entire article from Bloomberg: ( I think you left out some important parts)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aeSenIUvpSK0&pos=10

As for your last paragraph,no offense but those are typical Democrat party talking points. The reason most folks don't understand the legislation is because NO ONE can understand it. It is layers and layers of bureaucratic confusion. Most people would love for universal healthcare to happen, but they don't feel like the country can pay for it right now. I'd be all for it if someone would show me the proof that our government can run an entitlement program efficiently. Medicaid and Medicare prove to me that the US government has NO CLUE how to run large health care programs efficiently.

Edited to add two other interesting links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html?ref=todayspaper

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/03/the-unkindest-cut/37288/

I read the entire Bloomberg article and it was largely positive about Obama's policies. Jobs are scarce, I agree, but jobs are always the last thing to recover.

As for health care reform, it is a very complicated issue. I like to keep myself informed and I have a hard time understanding it all. What I do know that our current healthcare policy is unsustainable. Like I said, I'm for single payer i.e. Medicare for all, but there is no political will for that. As a result, no govt. run healthcare for us. You asked for an example of government doing a good job running healthcare, I'll give you one: the VA. See link below.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_29/b3993061.htm

 

[Pearlstrand]

You asked for an example of government doing a good job running healthcare, I'll give you one: the VA. See link below.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_29/b3993061.htm

No offense, but the VA hospitals have been under fire in the past year or so for wide-ranging problems. A sample:

http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/87182102.html

http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/va-hospital-problems-to-be-examined-4222/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/24/va-hospital-slip-up-infec_n_191296.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/21radiation.html

I'm sure that any hospital has problems, but I don't know that the VA hospitals represent the gold standard for health care providers.

 

[carres1973]

No offense, but the VA hospitals have been under fire in the past year or so for wide-ranging problems. A sample:

http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/87182102.html

http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/va-hospital-problems-to-be-examined-4222/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/24/va-hospital-slip-up-infec_n_191296.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/health/21radiation.html

I'm sure that any hospital has problems, but I don't know that the VA hospitals represent the gold standard for health care providers.

I agree Kathryn. I definitely wouldn't hold up the VA as a positive example of "universal healthcare." If you listen to military retirees, you hear the same complaints that conservatives say happen in "socialistic" countries like England and Germany: long waits for appointments and procedures, having to get approval for EVERYTHING, etc. I was in the military and was lucky. Active duty military are treated much better than retirees...which is sad! Active duty get first crack at appointments, are called first at open "sick call" times, etc. This is what we want for Americans? I would much rather have universal healthcare done right. Study all different universal healthcare systems from states and countries. See what works and what doesn't.

Carrie

 

[hiitdogs]

If you listen to military retirees, you hear the same complaints that conservatives say happen in "socialistic" countries like England and Germany: long waits for appointments and procedures, having to get approval for EVERYTHING, etc.
Carrie

The problem is it is just not true!!! There is no wait period in Germany, the insurance industry is regulated. Unlike in the US the insurance company cannot overwrite the doctor. Your health care there truly is between doctor and patient, no insurance bureacrat will be making your diagnosis from his/her desk. If the doctor says it is medically necessary, there is not much that the insurance company can do.

You don't have to get approval for everything whereas in the US you can be carried in on a stretcher with a gaping hole in your head and the insurance will drag their feet and ask why you didn't get prior approval. Yeah, because I planned 7 days ahead of time that I will fall off my horse on Tuesday

Whenever I hear one of those douchebag politicians talk about the bad "socialist" healthcare in Germany or France I want to jump into the tv, they don't even know where those countries are on a map let alone how healthcare works there. Not only that but they don't seem to understand how health care works in the US. Try and get an appointment the same day when you are sick, let alone get an appointment with a specialist, be prepared to wait for several weeks to months.

Not to mention the cost!! You can get the same medication in Germany for 1/3 or 1/4 of the price that it costs here. And no, Germany is not a third world country, they are just as good at manufacturing the drugs there as we are here and salararies and standard of living are just as good if not better as here.

Unlike here, nobody in Germany dies because they can't get medical care, unlike here, nobody has to file for bankruptcy or lose everything they have because they have the audacity to get sick and are underinsured. But unlike here German doctors overall are a lot more into prevention than pill popping.

Ugggh! The misinformation that is spread to scare people drives me batty. Steps off soapbox. Phew!

 

[baylian]

The V.A.????

Your joking right. Pardon me while I roll on the floor laughing histerically . .

The V.A. is a mess. Trust me - have two immediate family members that go.

If you want a sneak peak at Obamacare - look no further than the V.A.

I want the government OUT OF MY LIFE!

http://www2.nationalreview.com/video/video_homie_030910_B.html

 

[joejack]

Agreeing that the VA is hardly the example to use to show how well the govt delivers healthcare!

Two other things:

If you think the reconciliation process requires just "tweaking" of the original bills you are the ONLY person in the country who actually believes that. It is a very complicated process that requires a ton of negotations and more backroom deals, and promises of "goodies".

The biggest problem I have with the legislation is that SIX years of benefits are paid for with TEN years of taxes. That is deficit neutral???

Obama should have been strong enough to tax employer-based health insurance as income so that health insurance itself becomes less tied to people's jobs. It's the only thing that makes sense. Instead he gave in to what the unions wanted. UGH!

I can't believe how weak he's been on the whole thing. I had such high hopes that he actually would deliver some change, but it seems that he's as much in bed with special interests as any of the other presidents and politicians.

 

[BuffyR]

Agreeing that the VA is hardly the example to use to show how well the govt delivers healthcare!

Two other things:

If you think the reconciliation process requires just "tweaking" of the original bills you are the ONLY person in the country who actually believes that. It is a very complicated process that requires a ton of negotations and more backroom deals, and promises of "goodies".

The biggest problem I have with the legislation is that SIX years of benefits are paid for with TEN years of taxes. That is deficit neutral???

Obama should have been strong enough to tax employer-based health insurance as income so that health insurance itself becomes less tied to people's jobs. It's the only thing that makes sense. Instead he gave in to what the unions wanted. UGH!

I can't believe how weak he's been on the whole thing. I had such high hopes that he actually would deliver some change, but it seems that he's as much in bed with special interests as any of the other presidents and politicians.

Really, you want Obama to raise taxes on every person who receives health care insurance from their employers? That would really go over well. What do you think the chances of getting that through Congress?

 

[dorothyrd]

About a year ago I saw an interesting piece on the CBS Sunday morning news about France's health care. Patients loved it, doctors loved it. It really, really is a good system for health. However, at the end of the piece the newscast talked about the cost. Apparently the wonderful care could not go on as is as it was fast heading toward broke because there simply was not enough money to pay for it.

I live in a broke state. Everyday on the news another school is talking about how many thousands to millions they will be cutting next year(translation, lots of teachers out of jobs). Everyday municipalities are talking about how many thousands to millions they will be cutting next year(translations lots of people out of jobs, lots of roads with potholes left). 20% increases in tuition in our colleges next year, probably a significant hike in income taxes next year, and it probably still will not solve things as the state simply has spent way too much money and never learned to live within its means.

This is Obama's home state. I have seen what this type of politician has done to my state, now it is the country's turn unfortunately. Is it all Obama, nope, there is plenty of people in Washington, and here in Illinois in Springfield to look at. I personally do not have much hope for the way things are going for my state, for my country.

 

[double t]

Respectfully, Bush....and most of the Dems and Repubs in Congress, wanted to go to war in Iraq. Bush did not go alone. Also, there were WMDs. Hussein used gas on his own people. I consider gas attacks to be mass destruction of people. They also found evidence of other types of weapons. A simple Youtube search will yield key Democrats as well as Republicans talking about Saddam and his WMDs.
About jobs, I don't know what to believe there because the administration has been caught fudging the numbers. So, I am not sure anyone knows what's going on there.
My feeling on the economic mess is that if you think that the very same people who created this mess are going to magically fix it, then I think you're in for a rude awakening. We need to clean house next election in my opinion, and stop voting party line.

 

[BuffyR]

About a year ago I saw an interesting piece on the CBS Sunday morning news about France's health care. Patients loved it, doctors loved it. It really, really is a good system for health. However, at the end of the piece the newscast talked about the cost. Apparently the wonderful care could not go on as is as it was fast heading toward broke because there simply was not enough money to pay for it.

I live in a broke state. Everyday on the news another school is talking about how many thousands to millions they will be cutting next year(translation, lots of teachers out of jobs). Everyday municipalities are talking about how many thousands to millions they will be cutting next year(translations lots of people out of jobs, lots of roads with potholes left). 20% increases in tuition in our colleges next year, probably a significant hike in income taxes next year, and it probably still will not solve things as the state simply has spent way too much money and never learned to live within its means.

This is Obama's home state. I have seen what this type of politician has done to my state, now it is the country's turn unfortunately. Is it all Obama, nope, there is plenty of people in Washington, and here in Illinois in Springfield to look at. I personally do not have much hope for the way things are going for my state, for my country.

I remember reading that France, like the rest of the world has been hit by the recession which in turn means less revenue to the govt. I read an article which said this is the reason the French healthcare system is struggling to make it financially. Personally, my own experience with the French healthcare system was nothing short of wonderful.

Almost every state in the country is suffering financially right now, mine included. The recession has hit state govt. hard and in turn cuts have to be made. States cannot, for the most part, run on constant deficits. I don't think we can necessarily put all the blame on politicians for this one.

 

[BuffyR]

Respectfully, Bush....and most of the Dems and Repubs in Congress, wanted to go to war in Iraq. Bush did not go alone. Also, there were WMDs. Hussein used gas on his own people. I consider gas attacks to be mass destruction of people. They also found evidence of other types of weapons. A simple Youtube search will yield key Democrats as well as Republicans talking about Saddam and his WMDs.
About jobs, I don't know what to believe there because the administration has been caught fudging the numbers. So, I am not sure anyone knows what's going on there.
My feeling on the economic mess is that if you think that the very same people who created this mess are going to magically fix it, then I think you're in for a rude awakening. We need to clean house next election in my opinion, and stop voting party line.

The country was told by Bush and Cheney that Iraq had or was about to obtain nuclear weapons. This was a complete fabrication which they knew to be false. That is why Rove and his cronies tried to discredit Joe Wilson because he called them on this lie. Bush lied to get the Congress to go to war. The fact that members of both parties authorized war does not get around the fact the it was all based on fabricated intelligence. The fact that Sadam Hussein used gas on his own people is not a reason to start a war. There is plenty of genocide taking place, in many African nations for example, but the U.S. is not going to war there. Why? No huge oil reserves there and no chance for Cheney and his Haliburton buddies to make billions.

 

[dorothyrd]

The French system has been having money problems longer than the recession. Here is an article about the French system.

It is mostly positive, but they do pay 40% if their income for it at this time, and that is not enough to cover the costs.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/051709dnbusfrance.40cc221.html

This article says they have run a deficit since 1985:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042070.htm

 

[joejack]

The country was told by Bush and Cheney that Iraq had or was about to obtain nuclear weapons. This was a complete fabrication which they knew to be false. That is why Rove and his cronies tried to discredit Joe Wilson because he called them on this lie. Bush lied to get the Congress to go to war. The fact that members of both parties authorized war does not get around the fact the it was all based on fabricated intelligence. The fact that Sadam Hussein used gas on his own people is not a reason to start a war. There is plenty of genocide taking place, in many African nations for example, but the U.S. is not going to war there. Why? No huge oil reserves there and no chance for Cheney and his Haliburton buddies to make billions.

How does a conversation about Obama always end up as a rant about Bush/Cheney? I can go on and on about what they did wrong, but it has no bearing on what Obama is doing now, or the HC legislation that may or may not be passed even though most people don't want it to be passed in its current form. People want something done, just not what is being proposed in this bill.