Did Obama REALLY say that?!

[neiltc13]

"We shouldn't worry about the deficit next year, or even the year after that. Short term, the most important thing is that we avoid a deepening recession."

From the interview he did with CBS News' 60 Minutes. I can see that he's showing his Democrat colours here by completely fobbing off the concerns about the US' worsening debt crisis.

I'm just wondering though, will the country support an even bigger amount of debt in order to fund his "change"? Is he just using this as a way to avoid giving people a tax rise (which will have to happen eventually to pay off all that debt he wants to accrue!)?

I think that the honeymoon period is about to end, and the more policies we hear about the more it will seem like he's been a bad choice. Indeed, in not tackling the debt problem he's looking very similar to Bush.

[leekohler]

Link, please.

[Blue Velvet]

Did you see the entire interview? Just before he said that, he said that almost all economists from both left and right agreed. Incidentally, they're doing much the same in the UK. These aren't normal times.

[neiltc13]

Link, please.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4608192n for the full video interview and http://africa.reuters.com/energyandoil/news/usnN16454566.html for a text version.

[Queso]

I'd like to see the entire quote to put that statement in context if you don't mind.

[leekohler]

Thanks- and really, I don't know what he could possibly do to fix the deficit this year. There's got to be a lot of things accomplished before we'll see any real changes. Seems to me that's what he means, and it's typical of times like these. I've seen it before, and it takes a while.

[Blue Velvet]

I'm getting a bit fed up with people dissing the guy before he even takes office. He's no fool and knows how to play the long game. Let's judge in 2012.

[jplan2008]

Yes, he did. (in the 60 minutes interview, I think it's all on HuffPo or try CBS News)

It's called Keynesian economics. Look it up. This approach is favored by all the countries (except Bush Admin) who attended the G21 conference, Nobel Prize in Economics recipient Paul Krugman, and just about anyone who doesn't believe in supply-side (trickle-down) economics. Look at thread about "mini-depression" for links. The CHines Govt will be spending 20% of their GDP to get out of the (US-caused) recession. Krugman is advocating 4% of ours ($600 billion). We'll probably end up with a plan for 1%.

[JLatte]

Honestly, if the economy wasn't looking like the black hole of a horse's ass right now, then yes it wouldn't be the best thing hearing him say that. As BV said, these are different times. I see nothing wrong with what he said, we have to get out of this mess somehow. The rate we're going, we can either continue to accrue more debt with no feasible way of paying it back in the future, or spend (hopefully wisely) more now with the hopes of being able to pay it back and not being stressed out that it's going to cost a bit from everyone. I'd rather take the latter chance.

[neiltc13]

I'm getting a bit fed up with people dissing the guy before he even takes office. He's no fool and knows how to play the long game. Let's judge in 2012.

It is natural for people to wonder if the right choice has been made, especially when that person has just told people to ignore the national debt.

[dukebound85]

I'm getting a bit fed up with people dissing the guy before he even takes office. He's no fool and knows how to play the long game. Let's judge in 2012.

lol anything he says or does now can be critiqued and will be

lets judge him now as well as every second till 2012 i say

[Queso]

It is natural for people to wonder if the right choice has been made, especially when that person has just told people to ignore the national debt.
How do you propose the USA pays the debt if the economy spirals out of control?

[zap2]

No...he's dead wrong. Screw the economy....raise tax on everyone right now, so we can get rid of our deficit.


Sure after that, their won't be anyone to collect taxes from, but heck we don't have a deficit!

Joking a side

This idea(the one Obama is talking about) makes sense, get the economy back on track, get people making money again, and then we can raise taxes to pay of the debt and/or cut spending to pay off the debt.

[JLatte]

It is natural for people to wonder if the right choice has been made, especially when that person has just told people to ignore the national debt.

Are you completely ignorant to the state of the American economy right now? You're taking that line he spoke out of context in relation to how the overall economy is. Our national debt isn't going anywhere, and if we don't fix anything, we're just going down in a fast spiral. Go look at the layoffs thread if you're still not getting it.

[Blue Velvet]

It is natural for people to wonder if the right choice has been made, especially when that person has just told people to ignore the national debt.

The choice is made. The national debt is the least of concerns. I suggest you read the thread.

Besides, John McCain wanted to impose a spending freeze. Disaster in a steep recession.

[mactastic]

From the interview he did with CBS News' 60 Minutes. I can see that he's showing his Democrat colours here by completely fobbing off the concerns about the US' worsening debt crisis.
First off, would you also say that Dick Cheney showed "his Democrat [sic] colours" when he said this (http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm)?
O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.
Second, as many if not most economists will tell you, bad economic times are when government SHOULD run a deficit, and lower tax rates. During the good times, you pay down your debt and slowly raise tax rates to where they were before the crisis hit.

Of course, if you cut tax rates and spend like drunken sailors on weekend shore leave during the boom times, you're not left with good options when the bad times inevitably come around again...

[.Andy]

especially when that person has just told people to ignore the national debt.
Worry and ignore are two completely different words with different meanings. You are making things up.

[jplan2008]

It is natural for people to wonder if the right choice has been made, especially when that person has just told people to ignore the national debt.

No, he didn't say that. He said that it was more important to get the economy going again in the short-term.

[mactastic]

It is with great amusement that I observe conservatives re-discovering their fiscal restraint. Too bad it happened 7+ years too late...

[JBazz]

From the interview he did with CBS News' 60 Minutes. I can see that he's showing his Democrat colours here by completely fobbing off the concerns about the US' worsening debt crisis.

I'm just wondering though, will the country support an even bigger amount of debt in order to fund his "change"? Is he just using this as a way to avoid giving people a tax rise (which will have to happen eventually to pay off all that debt he wants to accrue!)?

I think that the honeymoon period is about to end, and the more policies we hear about the more it will seem like he's been a bad choice. Indeed, in not tackling the debt problem he's looking very similar to Bush.


Hundreds of billions of dollars spent on war=OK

A few billion spent on giving people health benefits=irresponsible.


What nice priorities.

[mkrishnan]

Hundreds of billions of dollars spent on war=OK

A few billion spent on giving people health benefits=irresponsible.

It quite amuses me how Democrat it is to not care about the debt crisis without considering how Republican it is to create one in the first place. :o

http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg

(or some variant thereof)

[Peace]

It is natural for people to wonder if the right choice has been made, especially when that person has just told people to ignore the national debt.

Where did you vote at again ?

your profile says UK. I wasn't aware the British voted in our election. Are you living out of country?

[gotzero]

It quite amuses me how Democrat it is to not care about the debt crisis without considering how Republican it is to create one in the first place. :o

http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg

(or some variant thereof)

Thank you for posting this. I am using it in one of my sections tomorrow.

[NT1440]

Im really wondering what people think we should do?

Do we bitch that the deficit has to go up, or do we bitch that taxes have to go up?

In this situation its one or the other really, we have to go through worse time before things get better, there is no magic wand.

[mysterytramp]

You say:

It is natural for people to wonder if the right choice has been made, especially when that person has just told people to ignore the national debt.

But you said he said:

"We shouldn't worry about the deficit next year, or even the year after that. Short term, the most important thing is that we avoid a deepening recession."

Deficit and debt are two entirely different things. Our national debt would take generations of austerity budgets to pay off and really, that's a ridiculous plan. People have to pay their debts because they'll die someday. Governments can continue to rack up debt because, by definition, they last forever.

Having said that, out-of-control spending does no one any good. Clinton produced balanced budgets (in part because of the "peace dividend" that a previous generation of Bushes refused to admit existed) and brought some of the best years the U.S. has seen (at least in my lifetime).

Even if the statement was taken completely out of context, I don't think Obama is wrong. Having an exit strategy for the recession is a lot more important than an exit strategy on our debt.

mt

[Cleverboy]

From the interview he did with CBS News' 60 Minutes. I can see that he's showing his Democrat colours here by completely fobbing off the concerns about the US' worsening debt crisis.

I'm just wondering though, will the country support an even bigger amount of debt in order to fund his "change"? Is he just using this as a way to avoid giving people a tax rise (which will have to happen eventually to pay off all that debt he wants to accrue!)?

I think that the honeymoon period is about to end, and the more policies we hear about the more it will seem like he's been a bad choice. Indeed, in not tackling the debt problem he's looking very similar to Bush. I really wish this thread were called, "Should we be worried about the national deficit next year?" instead of "Did Obama REALLY say that?!" [sic] For ANYONE who's been watching what's been going on, and the context of what is being done to fix it, it seems VERY clear... painfully so... WHY worrying about next years budget deficit is not highest on the long list of priorities.

Emphasis next year, will be on stimulating the economy, shortening the recession, and avoiding a depression. A consensus of economists of all stripes have stated that being concerned over spending would be a mistake. If the economy slows to a halt, and freezes up completely, it would be a catastrophe.

Americans need to learn how to ask the right questions, if they're to understand what needs to be done to help our country. Moreover, non-Americans do too.
Thank you for posting this. I am using it in one of my sections tomorrow.
If I can find it, I'd posted something even MORE interesting than that, and much more comprehensive.

~ CB

[Aea]

GIRL YOU KNOW HE DID'ANT.

All joking aside, what's wrong with this statement? The large majority of economists agree that deficit spending is what's necessary right now. The Bush White House and nearly every Republican since Reagan has been for deficit spending in a recession.

Suddenly Obama follows the consensus of people with the credentials to speak on the subject and it's a full fledged panic? Next thing we know is somebody asking if this was the change he was talking about.

[mgguy]

First off, would you also say that Dick Cheney showed "his Democrat [sic] colours" when he said this (http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm)?

So now Obama supporters are actually quoting Cheney to make their case? Interesting.

The large majority of economists agree that deficit spending is what's necessary right now. The Bush White House and nearly every Republican since Reagan has been for deficit spending in a recession.

There are different ways to get a deficit. For example, you could raise spending a lot and not raise revenue, cut taxes a lot and keep spending the same, or various combinations of taxes and spending in which spending exceeds revenue. Which combination are you suggesting all economists agree on?


Suddenly Obama follows the consensus of people with the credentials to speak on the subject and it's a full fledged panic? Next thing we know is somebody asking if this was the change he was talking about.

I'll bite: Is this the change he was talking about?

[.Andy]

There are different ways to get a deficit. For example, you could raise spending a lot and not raise revenue, cut taxes a lot and keep spending the same, or various combinations of taxes and spending in which spending exceeds revenue. Which combination are you suggesting all economists agree on?
You need to read what you quoted from Aea again. You missed the point entirely.

[Aea]

There are different ways to get a deficit. For example, you could raise spending a lot and not raise revenue, cut taxes a lot and keep spending the same, or various combinations of taxes and spending in which spending exceeds revenue. Which combination are you suggesting all economists agree on?

Well Gee Whiz their Johnny, the most logical thing to do without restructuring the income tax system and to put more liquidy into the economy would be keeping revenue the same. I will leave it as an exercise to the user to figure out what happens with spending.

I'll bite: Is this the change he was talking about?

Rational solution to a major inherited financial problem, let's shoot from the hip instead.

[Cleverboy]

Thank you for posting this. I am using it in one of my sections tomorrow.If I can find it, I'd posted something even MORE interesting than that, and much more comprehensive. Ah. I found it! I thought this was excellent. It's a kind of horror story for economists, so make sure everyone's around the campfire and your marshmellows are ready. Loads of charts and graphs.

United States National Debt
An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible for the Borrowing
http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
There has been an interesting evolution taking place in the nation’s political parties over the last 30 years. Back when Mr. Reagan was elected the first time, the majority of Republicans believed in responsible government spending. Controlling spending was one of the major grass roots objectives that Reagan touted in his many campaign speeches. The Democrats wrongly defended deficit spending at the time. Once Reagan got into office he kept talking about needing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Yet all the while he was giving lip service to the idea of smaller government, behind our backs and with the help of a mixed Congress he was making it larger. He gave tax cuts to the rich and astronomically increased the debt. He obfuscated the issue so well that here we are over 30 years later and it seems the only party that got the message was the Democrats, both at the grass roots level and at the national level. Most of the folks talking about responsible government spending these days are Democrats. The Republicans were curiously silent on the issue of debt reduction (and term limits) during their time in charge. One might say that between 2000 and 2006 a fitting label for the Neo-Con Republicans was liberal spenders, and the Democrats were the fiscal conservatives.



Where have all the Republican deficit hawks gone? Not too surprisingly they are reappearing since the Democrats regained control of both Houses of Congress in 2007. Suddenly they are very interested in the debt, and are shocked at all the deficit spending. They are now quite willing to stall Congress in anyway they can to prevent spending that the majority party thinks in necessary. Their tactics have shown repeatedly that Republicans care more about their power than their country.

It was interesting to watch Mr. Bush and his Party fight the Democratic Congress as it tried to implement the will of the people. However that is probably not the best outcome for the county. If all the President and Congress do is fight, then nothing gets done; we have too many problems to put them on hold while politicians bicker over fiscal ideology.

~ CB

[mgguy]

Well Gee Whiz their Johnny, the most logical thing to do without restructuring the income tax system and to put more liquidy into the economy would be keeping revenue the same. I will leave it as an exercise to the user to figure out what happens with spending.

Huh? You are forgetting that Obama proposed changing the tax system to spread the wealth around. He said he would cut taxes on the bottom 95% income earners and raise them considerably on the top 5%, but the net result was going to be a tax increase to pay for health care and other social programs he favors. It looks like he will be doing a lot more spending than tax increasing to grow the deficit.

[CalBoy]

So now Obama supporters are actually quoting Cheney to make their case? Interesting.

No, it is meant to illustrate that he who is free of sin should cast the first stone. Cheney went so far as to say that deficits don't matter, while Obama is saying that the deficit next year will not be the primary concern, the economy will.

Which combination are you suggesting all economists agree on?

To be blunt, Keynesian economics doesn't really require any explicit level of tax breaks versus spending, or for the money to go towards any particular industry. Keynes himself once joked that if the government really ran out of ideas, it could always bury money at the bottom of a mine and contract companies to dig it out.

However, most economists and experts in the field advise the government to spend more in America's aging infrastructure, as this is government spending that will stimulate the economy in the short term, and provide long term advantages. Green energy industries are a particular target of such government spending.

[mgguy]

However, most economists and experts in the field advise the government to spend more in America's aging infrastructure, as this is government spending that will stimulate the economy in the short term, and provide long term advantages. Green energy industries are a particular target of such government spending.

Are you talking about infrastructure in terms of roads, bridges, and so forth? If so, would this advisement by economists preclude spending money on free health care and other social welfare programs, which many democrats seem to want to do a lot more of?

[Aea]

Are you talking about infrastructure in terms of roads, bridges, and so forth? If so, would this advisement by economists preclude spending money on free health care and other social welfare programs, which many democrats seem to want to do a lot more of?

Spending money on Healthcare will not create jobs for the lower educated segments of the population which are notoriously prone to losing their jobs when manufacturing takes a swan dive. The idea of deficit spending is in creating jobs, not just blowing money. By the way, the whole legitimization of deficit spending was the result of a Republican in office.

Huh? You are forgetting that Obama proposed changing the tax system to spread the wealth around. He said he would cut taxes on the bottom 95% income earners and raise them considerably on the top 5%, but the net result was going to be a tax increase to pay for health care and other social programs he favors. It looks like he will be doing a lot more spending than tax increasing to grow the deficit.


Did you forget that doing this 180 turn in the space of four months before taxes are due will never happen? Did you forget about the URGENCY of this situation?

[jplan2008]

Huh? You are forgetting that Obama proposed changing the tax system to spread the wealth around. He said he would cut taxes on the bottom 95% income earners and raise them considerably on the top 5%, but the net result was going to be a tax increase to pay for health care and other social programs he favors. It looks like he will be doing a lot more spending than tax increasing to grow the deficit.

No, that's not what Obama talked about. His tax plan was a net cut in personal income taxes.

Spending would be decreased in some areas to pay for increased spending in others. Corporate loopholes would be abolished.

Maybe you haven't noticed that most people favor healthcare reform, and not just Obama?

The current situation is a separate issue -- jobs are being lost at rapid rates, consumers aren't spending, so companies don't want to spend on growth -- they're laying off their workers, not expanding. Even if companies wanted to take the chance to borrow to expand, banks aren't lending. But the government can borrow money. Not only has infrastructure been ignored for 8+ years, this is the time to invest in it with the recession. If the government spends on "green" projects, that's increasing jobs and spurring economic growth, and decreases energy costs in the future. So in 10 years, we, as taxpayers, will be paying a few percent interest on the debt incurred, but will save more than that in decreased energy costs, and have a higher tax base from the growth that was developed, and can benefit from the improved technology, and will have a healthier planet than we would without the government spending. (this is in an ideal world where we wouldn't hear the usual backlash against Democrats spending, even when the evidence is shown that Republicans spend more)

[mgguy]

No, that's not what Obama talked about. His tax plan was a net cut in personal income taxes.

Spending would be decreased in some areas to pay for increased spending in others. Corporate loopholes would be abolished.

Maybe you haven't noticed that most people favor healthcare reform, and not just Obama?

The current situation is a separate issue -- jobs are being lost at rapid rates, consumers aren't spending, so companies don't want to spend on growth -- they're laying off their workers, not expanding. Even if companies wanted to take the chance to borrow to expand, banks aren't lending. But the government can borrow money. Not only has infrastructure been ignored for 8+ years, this is the time to invest in it with the recession. If the government spends on "green" projects, that's increasing jobs and spurring economic growth, and decreases energy costs in the future. So in 10 years, we, as taxpayers, will be paying a few percent interest on the debt incurred, but will save more than that in decreased energy costs, and have a higher tax base from the growth that was developed, and can benefit from the improved technology, and will have a healthier planet than we would without the government spending. (this is in an ideal world where we wouldn't hear the usual backlash against Democrats spending, even when the evidence is shown that Republicans spend more)

But closing tax loopholes does raise taxes on those affected. Raising taxes on corporations would ultimately reduce the spending power of individuals if businesses raised the price of items they sell to offset the increase in taxes they would have to pay. I think a fair assessment of Obama's campaign proposals would suggest that they would result in a net increase in taxes overall ("personal" and corporate) if implemented.

I don't necessarily disagree with government's (i.e., taxpayers') spending more on improving old infrastructure systems and developing new ones, but I don't support spending $125 billion right now to provide free health care insurance to everyone. I don't see how that stimulates growth in the near term.

[jplan2008]

I don't support spending $125 billion right now to provide free health care insurance to everyone. I don't see how that stimulates growth in the near term.

Well, healthcare spending is a kind of infrastructure spending, and could stimulate growth as well, and save money in the future (and lives)

But, it's a good thing you don't support providing "free health care insurance for everyone," since that is not Obama's plan and never was, so you can be happy.

[Aea]

Raising taxes on corporations would ultimately reduce the spending power of individuals if businesses raised the price of items they sell to offset the increase in taxes they would have to pay. I think a fair assessment of Obama's campaign proposals would suggest that they would result in a net increase in taxes overall ("personal" and corporate) if implemented.

Not to attack you personally, but this argument is getting absolutely ridiculous. It would of course hold true on products that are heavily subsidizes (corn for instance would rocket in price if subsidies / loopholes are closed), but on the other hand there's the free market which is there to do it's job. If corporate loopholes are closed then some companies will be willing (and competitively) offer the products for the same price because they'd rather take all of a smaller pie then a small piece of a slightly larger pie.

I for one would really like to see a "meet in the middle" corporate tax plan. Remove all of the loopholes, put in a law preventing lobbying for the creation of these things. And then lower the tax so it's halfway between current "intended" and current "actual" rate. Not only would this solve the lack of proper taxation issue, but it would also give incentives to corporations knowing that whether you can afford a multimillion dollar lobbying firm or if you're a small corporation you get hit with an equal (if progressive) tax.

[és:]

I can see that he's showing his Democrat colours here by completely fobbing off the concerns about the US' worsening debt crisis.

Oh come on! Showing his Democrat colours? Who is it that has doubled the national debt! The Republican president.

Oh, and it's exactly the right thing to do at the moment. Worrying about the deficit (a word that you need to look up) in times like this is probably not the way to go - so why the silly reaction.

I'm just wondering though, will the country support an even bigger amount of debt in order to fund his "change"?

No. The debt will rise, though.

Even if the answer was yes, wouldn't you prefer to get into debt doing good things in the country rather than spending trillions blowing people up and making the world hate you even more?

Is he just using this as a way to avoid giving people a tax rise (which will have to happen eventually to pay off all that debt he wants to accrue!)?

Why speak when you don't really have a clue what you're talking about?

I think that the honeymoon period is about to end, and the more policies we hear about the more it will seem like he's been a bad choice. Indeed, in not tackling the debt problem he's looking very similar to Bush.

This was one of the worst posts that I've read on this forum in a long time, and that really is saying something.

[Iscariot]

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/3/oh_snap_chart.jpg

[CalBoy]

Are you talking about infrastructure in terms of roads, bridges, and so forth? If so, would this advisement by economists preclude spending money on free health care and other social welfare programs, which many democrats seem to want to do a lot more of?

Infrastructure investments can come in many forms, and one that the US invests the least in is human capital. Kids aren't keeping up with other nations in terms of literacy, math skills, or scientific understanding. To top it off, many of them are plagued by diseases and conditions which wouldn't be a problem if they had access to even basic healthcare.

[Badandy]

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/3/oh_snap_chart.jpg


Part of me wants to believe you just took that off the net, the other part of me believes that you just drew that, took a picture of it, then posted in this thread.

[mactastic]

So now Obama supporters are actually quoting Cheney to make their case? Interesting.
I'm not making a case for anything. I'm curious as to whether this is simply another case of IOKIYAR. Your response here would indicate to me that, yes, it is.

I don't support spending $125 billion right now to provide free health care insurance to everyone. I don't see how that stimulates growth in the near term.
What part of "American businesses would be unburdened of their health care costs and able to compete in the world market again" don't you get?

Just to make sure you understand this, you're paying MORE to businesses right now than you need to because those companies have to pay health care benefits to their workers. The government can cover people more efficiently (see Medicare overhead costs versus an average HMO/PPO overhead costs), so let's shift that cost from business to government. Ok, so you pay a little more in taxes, but you pay a little less for all your goods and services. Net wash at worst, and quite possibly a net gain if government can keep the Medicare overhead rate constant as it expands.

I'm starting to think conservatives are more frightened that a national health care plan may work as opposed to being frightened because it may fail...

[mgguy]

What part of "American businesses would be unburdened of their health care costs and able to compete in the world market again" don't you get?

Just to make sure you understand this, you're paying MORE to businesses right now than you need to because those companies have to pay health care benefits to their workers. The government can cover people more efficiently (see Medicare overhead costs versus an average HMO/PPO overhead costs), so let's shift that cost from business to government. Ok, so you pay a little more in taxes, but you pay a little less for all your goods and services. Net wash at worst, and quite possibly a net gain if government can keep the Medicare overhead rate constant as it expands.

Are you seriously suggesting that it is a good idea for government to take over ALL health care insurance, not just coverage for those who don't have a job and can't afford it? Following your logic, why not just have government unburden businesses of all their costs so they can compete in the world market again, as you are suggesting?

The high cost to automakers to produce cars is largely due to the high cost of labor to meet union demands. I suppose you would want government to pay employee salaries so the auto industry could stay competitive. You seem to have a lot of trust in the government's ability to solve problems and run programs efficiently, but I don't see much evidence of that heretofore. Perhaps you are not aware that the cost of these expanded programs would eventually come out of the pockets of workers who are trying to move up the economic ladder. What good is it to spread the wealth around when you are just going to take it away later?

[CalBoy]

Following your logic, why not just have government unburden businesses of all their costs so they can compete in the world market again, as you are suggesting?

Healthcare is not a standard labor benefit: it is an absolute necessity.

We don't let anyone go without fire or police service, so why do we let them go without medical services?

This isn't so much about making life easier for businesses (although national insurance would do that too-call it a win-win) as it is about recognizing the humanity in all of us.

You seem to have a lot of trust in the government's ability to solve problems and run programs efficiently, but I don't see much evidence of that heretofore.

Compare Medicare's overhead to that of any other private insurer. I assure you, you will be shocked.

[mgguy]

Healthcare is not a standard labor benefit: it is an absolute necessity.

We don't let anyone go without fire or police service, so why do we let them go without medical services?

Health care may be a necessity, but that doesn't mean that spending $125 billion right now to provide health INSURANCE to everyone is a good idea from the standpoint of generating near-term growth in the economy, which is what some posters in this thread have advocated. Whether it is a necessity and the humane thing to do is another question that can be taken up in another thread.

[jplan2008]

Health care may be a necessity, but that doesn't mean that spending $125 billion right now to provide health INSURANCE to everyone is a good idea from the standpoint of generating near-term growth in the economy, which is what some posters in this thread have advocated. Whether it is a necessity and the humane thing to do is another question that can be taken up in another thread.

Some of us advocate single-payer healthcare, which is different from providing health insurance. That unfortunately is not Obama's plan, nor is providing health insurance to everyone -- that's not his proposal now and never was. He's talked about beefing up medicaid, to be paid for by cuts in fraud, and make an investment in digital records, and tax breaks for employers. Those are the government costs. Otherwise, people would have an option to buy into a public plan (not free) or keep their current insurance, or get new private insurance, whatever. There's nothing "free" about it.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

http://change.gov/agenda/health_care_agenda/

[mgguy]

Some of us advocate single-payer healthcare, which is different from providing health insurance. That unfortunately is not Obama's plan, nor is providing health insurance to everyone -- that's not his proposal now and never was. He's talked about beefing up medicaid, to be paid for by cuts in fraud, and make an investment in digital records, and tax breaks for employers. Those are the government costs. Otherwise, people would have an option to buy into a public plan (not free) or keep their current insurance, or get new private insurance, whatever. There's nothing "free" about it.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

http://change.gov/agenda/health_care_agenda/

Thanks for explaining Obama's plan in clear terms. Most of my comments were directed at proposals other poster's have made, not Obama's plan specifically. I wasn't aware that Obama's plan would not provide some kind of coverage for those who can't afford to pay anything at all. The liberals in Congress will have a problem with that I'm sure.

[Iscariot]

the other part of me believes that you just drew that, took a picture of it, then posted in this thread.

Oh MAN, we wish I was that cool.

[CalBoy]

Health care may be a necessity, but that doesn't mean that spending $125 billion right now to provide health INSURANCE to everyone is a good idea from the standpoint of generating near-term growth in the economy, which is what some posters in this thread have advocated.

On the contrary, that could work well for the economy.

If you think about it, as a society we lose a great deal of money when someone goes into the emergency room for a procedure that could have cost a tenth as much if caught early.

We also lose as a society when kids go without healthcare, and are hence less likely to be healthy (and consequently will be less healthy as adults).

Insurance for everyone will reduce transaction costs for the economy as a whole and improve the status of our human capital: both of which are good for the economy in the short and long term.

If you doubt the efficacy of such ideas, consider the implementation of Social Security during the Great Depression. This too was a transfer payment and tax which didn't actually alter the "G" component in GDP (C+I+E+G). What it did was allow older Americans to engage in the economy and younger workers to have higher rates of employment. Healthcare can have a similar effect, as workers will be better able to find better jobs (ie, ones that aren't tied to specific medical plans), and employers will have fewer long-term obligations and reduced labor costs, which will ultimately allow them to hire more workers both now and later.

Whether it is a necessity and the humane thing to do is another question that can be taken up in another thread.

Not really, because it is in recessions that we must consider our humanity the most; if we don't, we are an even bigger disgrace to the animal kingdom than we are now.

[Cleverboy]

Thanks for explaining Obama's plan in clear terms. Most of my comments were directed at proposals other poster's have made, not Obama's plan specifically. I wasn't aware that Obama's plan would not provide some kind of coverage for those who can't afford to pay anything at all. The liberals in Congress will have a problem with that I'm sure. That was HILLARY's plan, and moreover, Obama was beat over the head during the primaries, because of the amount of people his plan would not cover... and because it was NOT "universal healthcare" as much as it was "universal coverage" (you can't be turned away from healthcare from a precondition, and its affordable).

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/theyve_got_you_covered.html
If you think about it, as a society we lose a great deal of money when someone goes into the emergency room for a procedure that could have cost a tenth as much if caught early. The president of my wife's job "Tufts Health Plan", just got tapped to be on the Transition team. She suspects because Tuft's puts such a HUGE emphasis on prevention and early detection programs. He sent out a note to everyone the other day. She thought that was cool. The guy revolutionized their company and brought them from #10 to #2. For me, that's an EXCELLENT sign.

~ CB

[jplan2008]

Thanks for explaining Obama's plan in clear terms. Most of my comments were directed at proposals other poster's have made, not Obama's plan specifically. I wasn't aware that Obama's plan would not provide some kind of coverage for those who can't afford to pay anything at all. The liberals in Congress will have a problem with that I'm sure.

I think there's confusion partly because of the terminology you were using about the government buying INSURANCE for people. Also, maybe you don't know what programs already exist. No one in this thread, that I can remember, and definitely not Obama, recommended buying insurance for anyone. There's no reason to buy insurance on a massive scale, it's cheaper to pay the healthcare costs directly. The only person I've ever heard suggest that the government cut checks to insurance companies is John McCain.

The government already pays for medical services in a few ways. There's medicare, that everyone pays into from their paycheck and can receive at age 65. There's medicaid, paid for by states with the US government's help, which covers people on disability -- people who have paid into social security but are unable to work before reaching 65, medicaid does also cover people on "welfare." Currently, you have to wait two years after a disabling accident or illness to receive medicaid coverage. Obama does want to change that, since it's silly. Again, he has a proposal of how to pay for it. There's also a program for government employees. That's what Obama wants to give people and businesses a chance to buy into. If big companies (over 500 employees) don't provide health insurance, they would have to pay into the system. ("play or pay"). Then there's emergency medicine. Hospitals can't turn away a critically ill patient, regardless of whether they can pay. (I hope you don't think that should change). The costs for people who don't pay their bills is picked up in higher rates, and local and federal governments also refund some of the money. Emergency medicine is much more costly and leads to less overall health than ongoing and preventative care.

Hillary Clinton also did not want to provide single-payer. The only difference with her plan was that we would all be required to have insurance. Obama's plan requires children to have insurance. No one in any position of power is suggesting single payer health coverage, which most industrialized nations have. This would involve everyone, rich or poor, to be covered by a national plan. (of course people could choose to use private insurance) It would not be "free," we would pay for it in taxes. But it cuts out the middle man and the huge profits that insurance companies make. We spend more per capita than any other country on healthcare, and are less healthy than citizens of many countries. Insurance companies have paid billions in lobbying efforts to make sure single-payer doesn't happen anytime soon, so you can rest easy, since you seem to think the insurance companies' interests are your interests.

[Unspeaked]

Anyone who's played SimCity 2000 knows exactly how difficult it is to choose between addressing the economy or debit...

[mactastic]

Are you seriously suggesting that it is a good idea for government to take over ALL health care insurance, not just coverage for those who don't have a job and can't afford it? Following your logic, why not just have government unburden businesses of all their costs so they can compete in the world market again, as you are suggesting?
Are you seriously suggesting that we keep things as they are? Following your logic, why not just have private insurers murder sick people to keep health care costs down?

Now that we're both done putting insanely stupid words into each other's mouth, how about a rational discussion, hmm?

The high cost to automakers to produce cars is largely due to the high cost of labor to meet union demands.
And what comprises a large part of those labor costs? Exactly, BENEFITS! Which include the company's portion of the employee's -- say it with me -- health insurance costs.

So you're right. Labor costs are, in large part, killing our automobile industry. Wouldn't it be wonderful if someone had a plan to help keep those labor costs down...

I suppose you would want government to pay employee salaries so the auto industry could stay competitive.
Here we go again... Where did I ever suggest that I want the government to pay private employee's salaries? Why do you insist on making this crap up, and pretending I said it? It's a straw man, it's juvenile, and it's stupid to boot. Grow up.

You seem to have a lot of trust in the government's ability to solve problems and run programs efficiently, but I don't see much evidence of that heretofore.
Three words -- Medicare overhead costs.

Perhaps you are not aware that the cost of these expanded programs would eventually come out of the pockets of workers who are trying to move up the economic ladder.
How so? Are you arguing that if the government payed for health care as needed, it would cost more than private citizens spend currently on insurance plus the cost of using their insurance? Because that's the only way you can make this argument with a straight face.

The reality would be that the cost would be deducted from the costs of privately provided goods and services (making those goods and services more competitive worldwide as a bonus), and added to your tax bill. Assuming the Medicare / private overhead costs hold true, that means your tax bill goes up by less than the cost of your goods and services goes down. A net gain for the citizen.

What good is it to spread the wealth around when you are just going to take it away later?
See above.

Health care may be a necessity, but that doesn't mean that spending $125 billion right now to provide health INSURANCE to everyone is a good idea from the standpoint of generating near-term growth in the economy, which is what some posters in this thread have advocated. Whether it is a necessity and the humane thing to do is another question that can be taken up in another thread.
Providing insurance is different from providing health care.