The symbolic vote to repeal the health care bill passed in the House today, Harry Reid says he will not bring it up in the Senate, GOOD FOR YOU HARRY REID!! Today's vote did one important thing, it showed Americans exactly who the GOP is and whose side they are on.
If you missed the debate on C-Span take a look at this clip of Rep. George Miller D-California, I love this guy. His speech was one of my favorites of the day!
I can't believe we are back here once again talking about health insurance. As I watched those GOP House members come to the microphone and LIE about "a government takeover of health care" I was stunned they are still using that LIE, That LINE, That rethug talking point...IT IS SICKENING! Listen up Republicans, There is NO PUBLIC OPTION, There is no government takeover of our hospitals, The parts of the bill already in effect rely largely on the free market!
PolitiFact chose “government takeover of
health care” as the 2010 Lie of the Year. Uttered by dozens of
politicians and pundits, it played an important role in shaping public
opinion about the health care plan and was a significant factor in the
Democrats’ shellacking in the November elections.
Readers of PolitiFact, the St. Petersburg Times’ independent
fact-checking website, also chose it as the year’s most significant
falsehood by an overwhelming margin. (Their second-place choice was Rep.
Michele Bachmann’s claim that Obama was going to spend $200 million a
day on a trip to India)
Does this sound like a government takeover??
1. Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.
2. Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health
coverage. The law sets up “exchanges” where private insurers will
compete to provide coverage to people who don’t have it.
3. The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors.
4. The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers.
5. The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording
insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the
exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with
regulations, not socialized medicine.
The Rethuglicans still claim a government takeover is exactly what Obama planned, and the provision that requires Americans to buy insurance is proof, BUT the citizens will be buying their insurance from private insurers, which BTW will increase business for insurance companies...... so where's the logic? There is NO logic when it comes to the GOP.
12 hours ago
73 comments:
HERE is what you will lose if the health care bill were to be repealed. This is a list for each congressional district. If you want to find out what will be lost where you live, check it out.
These are the things that the republicans DO NOT WANT YOU TO GET.
For example, in my congressional district, repeal of the health care bill will have the following consequences:
Allowing insurance companies to deny coverage to 113,000 to 289,000 individuals, including 7,000 to 30,000 children, with pre-existing conditions.
Rescinding consumer protections for 368,000 individuals who have health insurance through their employer or the market for private insurance.
Eliminating health care tax credits for up to 15,100 small businesses and 136,000 families.
Increasing prescription drug costs for 8,300 seniors who hit the Part D drug “donut hole” and denying new preventive care benefits to 94,000 seniors.
Increasing the costs of early retiree coverage for up to 8,400 early retirees.
Eliminating new health care coverage options for 3,100 uninsured young adults.
Increasing the number of people without health insurance by 74,000 individuals.
Increasing the costs to hospitals of providing uncompensated care by $10 million annually.
Why would anyone bring a bill up that had no chance of becoming law if it were not purely politics?
Yessir, the GOP is working hard for those Tea party folks intent to live on symbolism, rather than solutions.
BIG WHORE MEDIA at your service which will get worse with the recent FCC vote on the Comcast merger. The dims were way too happy to reach across the aisle to ensure corporations get what they pay for.
Everything in this post is correct but you can not win without a truthful media. It's a fact Fox has the ability to manipulate this country's opinion at will and very quickly.
The recent assassination attempt had a chance to shape public opinion in a good way but it does not appear to be happening. It still could if this lady is able and chooses to communicate to this country. That could possibly be a defining moment.
Dave the teabaggers are dropping in their favorable ratings yet the GOP still feels they need to pander to them, hideous!
OF, I was just saying to Mom, Giffords comeback to the House should be focused on one thing, gun control legislation. When she hears for the first time the number killed that day including her good friend and the 9yr old, she will be not only devastated but probably driven to do something drastic.
I hope this Comcast merger won't affect my MSNBC shows! Will it??
Sue, even Dick Cheney is saying perhaps we should limit the size of an ammo clip, something that would have prevented some people from being shot...
I am waiting for the Tea Partiers to brand even him a RINO for this apostasy!
Fly, the thought of Giffords making a public address is very intriguing...
sorry Jerry, I found your comment in SPAM!! Don't know why!!
Thanks for the list, isn't it amazing! Thankfully it won't be repealed but improved. All those rethugs want is the credit for this bill. They want their name on it because they know it will be a turning point in our history.
It's funny Dave, as Obamas popularity soars and more republicans begin to praise him, maybe then the teabaggers will fade away...They don't want any moderates in the party and surely no Obama supporters.
If only those who voted to repeal would be honest enough to admit if they actually read the legislation.
Add to that, the idiots who ALSO didn't read the legislation and demanded their representative go for this idiotic idea.
I already know why they did this, so that when the time comes they can say, "Well, I tried..." Only problem is that they "tried" to help the idiots that voted them into office serve against their best interests.
When, for the love of all that is the Stig, will people stop voting against their best interests?
Sue,
A few of your readers probably think my comment should stay in SPAM. Thankfully, you do not!
Thanks!
I didn't hear Rep. Millers speech on the floor today, wow I love that guy.
And thanks Jerry for the list!! Rep. Miller has been tweeting out what the districts will lose all day, and I thought I was going to have to attack Google for it, you just made my life so much easier! With my husband and I both turning 50 this year we were kinda looking forward to the free health screening that was implemented on January 1st.
Did you hear Rep Wiener? If you are playing the 'drink if the Republican's lie game, please assign a designated driver'! I love that line!
When the vote was finally taken this evening, even though I knew it would die right where it was, I was still very sad. All that hard work I and all of us who fought so hard for a year...they could take it all away in just two days. I know it isn't going anywhere...just was hard to take.
That was a great speech - sounds like something Teddy Kennedy would have done if he were alive.
C, those GOPPers are working for the tea party who are not even sure what they want, just shows ya how much the GOP pays attention to the country and what the majority wants!
Jerry that's not true! We're a family here and we love you and your comments!
Mary I did hear Weiner and love him too! With Grayson gone Weiner must take the lead and give the GOP hell, He's great! I wasn't a bit sad, I know the country is watching those bozos on the right and the GOP will be sorry for pandering to the minority tea party.
Hi Lisa G, Miller can sound like Kennedy when he gets fired up. Can you imagine if Ted was here, the place would be on fire! Damn I miss him so much!
Sue wrote..."C, those GOPPers are working for the tea party who are not even sure what they want..."
Actually, those GOOPers are working for the Koch Brothers, the multi-billionaires who have financed the "grass roots" Tea Party.
Remember the TP appeared just months--less than 3--after President Obama's inauguration--before he was beginning to fill his cabinet.
How could these "grass roots" people have known anything about the details of what Mr. Obama's policies would be? They didn't, but the Koch Brothers and their minions didn't waste time in trying to undermine the brand new president's agenda before anything was implemented, with the aid of the Hindenburg of Gasbags, Rush Limbaugh, with his famous "I hope Obama fails," rhetoric BEFORE Mr. Obama was sworn into office!
If anyone is interested, the can follow the links in the Frank Rich column and read about the Koch Brothers, whose father was actively involved in the John Birch Society.
The Koch Brothers and their influence in American politics make George Soros look like a junior varsity player.
Good point Shaw, you are exactly right!
Click the link if you want to know the definition of a "dog and pony show".
A predictable way for the DO NOTHING 112th Congress to start work.
It'll really get interesting when these guys attempt to cut or underfund the provisions of the bill. So much for the House adhering to "the law of the land".
Thanks for keeping me current everyone! Off to finish another pot of coffee...
My niece had Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia. Three years she endured chemo, resulting neuralgia, weight loss, an incredible burden of emotional and physical pain. Days, weeks and months of horrible, crippling malaise and sickness. All care was paid for by my sister's employer-based insurance. Amazing without any doubt. I am so pleased to say that she is in remission and living quite normally today.
Without this law, she could have been dropped this year on her 24th birthday. She would have very likely become difficult, if not impossible to insure. There are hundreds of thousands of similar cases across our fair land. Maybe it will cost a little more in the long run. With all the new business the insurance companies are getting, it seems likely that prices will eventually come back down.
The dirty republican lie is that poor people can always get free indigent health care. This is no way to maintain good health. This is probably one of the biggest factors besides fraud driving up costs of health care and hospitalization.
FJ - You know how many people are in Missouri that have a similar situation or story to tell like that and yet they are STILL concerned about the "government takeover" rather than reading what this legislation will do FOR them, instead?
People need to read the legislation and not listen to any talking head on the news channels with "their" take on the situation which not only leaves things out conveniently, but make shit up as well.
People that vote against their interests simply because they feel the republican way to go is just that, the way to go. Most of them don't really know what they're representatives are doing, they just vote that way because of something as so stupid like family tradition or peer pressure. I'm at a loss.
that's right Hugh, the cutting and defunding the provisions will be a fight, more than that display of stupidity yesterday. Can Obama veto the defunding??
Thanks Expresso, glad to be of service! :-)
FJ, my sister died from Leukemia when she was 37, I'm so glad your niece is in remission and has insurance. No it is never the same for the poor who are uninsured.
C, I'll never understand why the conservatives vote the way they do. I think it is tradition and also religion based stupidity.
Thank you for the thought Sue. That's just too young. Nice to hear from you, C. I always hated complainers. That's coming from a lifelong complaint generator.
Happy Reagan's 100th Birthday Lisa. I often wonder why there were so few events honoring Lincoln's bicentennial, don't you?
I agree, Sue. The Republicans are basically full of shit on this issue. The Democratic bill is almost identical to the 1993 Republican bill (co-sponsored by, of all people, Orrin Hatch), the Romney bill, etc........But, please, let us not delude ourselves into thinking that there aren't some serious concerns pertaining to the bill. a) It does virtually nothing about bending the cost curve. And b) it's fraught with some serious absurdities (the fact that the fine for noncompliance is significantly less than the cost of the insurance - something that ultimately could lead to people holding off on buying insurance until they're sick). This is just the beginning, Sue - not the end.
Let's be clear about something. The health care bill is NOT about controlling health care costs. It is about getting everyone covered by health insurance in order to spread the cost of health care over the most people possible.
Reducing the cost of health care is a separate issue. How many doctors out there want to take a pay cut?
How many corporations want to reduce the cost of their health care equipment?
How many pharmaceutical companies want to reduce the cost of their medications?
How many hospitals want to reduce their charges?
Where will the force come from to make these changes if not from the government?
FJ said, "The dirty republican lie is that poor people can always get free indigent health care."
Obviously these Republicans have never been in a position of having to try to get free health care or depend on a city clinic or hospital where they have to wait for hours to be seen. But I forget, our Republican reps already get free HC. Funny how those who complain the most about so-called government this or that are the ones who benefit the most from it.
Jerry, in my opinion, the only way that we're going to be able to solve this health-care mess is if we end up taking the best ideas from both sides. Dr. Ezekial Emanuel (a former Obama adviser) is maybe the best example of that. In his book, "Healthcare Guaranteed", he puts forth a plan that accomplishes both, a bending of the current cost curve AND universal coverage. He does this by fusing the best conservative ideas (vouchers, individual choice, and competition) with the best liberal ideas (strong federal regulations, managed care). Please, go to Amazon and pick up a cheap used copy. I think that you really might like it.......And, NO, I'm not saying this because I get a percentage.
BREAKING: MSNBC BREAKS OLBERMAN CONTRACT. HIS LAST BROADCAST IS TONIGHT.
NO FUCKIN WAY!!!!!
Quite the little echo chamber you have here; how nice that you all reinforce each other's ideas without challenge.
First, the vote will never reach the Senate or the President's desk, but it was symbolic, and symbols have meaning. It also fulfills a campaign promise by most of the new House members.
Second, in terms of voters acting against their own interests, some of us believe freedom of choice is in our best interests, and stricter government regulation is not.
Third, this was only a first step (and a bi-partisan one). The next step, as of Thursday: "By a vote of 253 to 175, the GOP directed key House committees to report on ways to lower health care premiums, allow patients to keep their current health plans, increase access to coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, and decrease the price of medical liability lawsuits."
Lastly, Republicans vote the way they do because of principle, not just emotion or compassion. It's not religion -- plenty like me who don't believe but still know how to think. It's not payoffs from business. It's not that we're all wealthy -- I'm not a billionaire or even millionaire.
Even this choir will decry the "wealthiest 1%" so how do you explain the rest of us non-wealthy voting Republicans? Obviously there must be something else that makes us stand against you.
I'm not sure how to define a republican HR, I don't know what makes a republican vote the way they do. To me it is against their own best interests. What has the GOP ever done for the middle class and the poor? What have they done for education, environment, except CUT CUT CUT funding for everything that makes our country great. They believe in exceptionalism but tear down everything that will make us the greatest nation on earth. I could go on and on. Let me say, I would rather be dead then be a republican.
The GOP has done plenty for the middle class and the poor. Across-the-board tax cuts do help everyone. I'm sure you buy in to the notion that tax cuts only benefit the rich, but the facts are different.
Welfare reform, while signed by Bill Clinton, was introduced by Republicans. Look, I don't want to try and list everything throughout history. I can agree that Democrats have done good things for the middle class and the poor. Why do you insist that Republicans have done nothing?
As for the definition of "cut", I defy you to find a single instance in the past 50 years where federal spending has been cut. I know what you're referring to: any time a Republican suggests a cut in the rate of growth of a federal program, it's called "cutting the program." In fact, the program grows, just not at the growth rate a Democrat would choose.
"Across-the-board tax cuts do help everyone."
That's an opinion. The facts are that the economy grows faster with an increase in the top marginal rates -- and a faster growing economy benefits everyone.
One of the reasons we have such a big deficit now is a result of tax cuts. We went from a surplus to deficit spending as a result of tax cuts and two unfunded wars.
Republicans have done SOME good things over the years, Sue; Teddy Roosevelt with national parks, Ike with the interstate highway system, Gerry Ford granting amnesty to draft-dodgers (he took a lot of heat from the right for that), Reagan with arms control, the first Bush with the clean air bill and the Americans with Disabilities Act. It hasn't ALL been terrible.............Jerry, I do agree with you, btw. The Reagan and 2nd Bush administration were not at all fiscally responsible.
I want to talk about help for the middleclass and the poor at times like this when our country is in deep shit trouble. The GOP wants to stop unemployment benefits at the worst time, they want to slash food stamps, cut funding for healthcare, etc etc. Programs that help people during hard times are considered entitlements that the republican party abhors. These are the things I hate about the republicans. They don't blink an eye when it comes to tax cuts for the rich 1% but gag when it comes to helping our fellow man. "It has to be paid for" they say, but not their tax cuts, they don't have to be paid for. They are hypocrites and I have nothing nice to say about republicans, sorry...
Jerry, maybe you don't know what "across the board" means. It means everyone gets a tax cut. Even those who pay no taxes got a tax credit from Bush.
And at what point do tax increases at the top marginal rate stop benefiting the economy? Is 100% too high? You might be interested in my post on an optimal tax rate. There is a point of diminishing returns and you can't raise taxes forever. When would you stop?
Sue, you're stuck in stage one thinking. Extending unemployment benefits feels like the right thing to do; it's the compassionate thing.
But there's evidence that it lengthens periods of unemployment and keeps unemployment high. It also keeps wages high when they would naturally adjust downward in times of recession (e.g. supply and demand). Don't you see that indefinite extensions are not an incentive to go back to work?
Stage two thinking means looking at the longer term consequences. We can't pay people not to work indefinitely.
"And at what point do tax increases at the top marginal rate stop benefiting the economy?"
Here is a statistical analysis covering the last 80 years+, from 1929 to the present, that shows the fastest real GDP growth occurs when the top marginal tax rate is 59%.
my argument is the GOP says they will extend benefits if they are paid for but they don't argue tax cuts need to be paid for. It's a fact tax cuts to the upper 1% do not spur anything. The rich do not need a tax cut, they need to be paying more in this bad economy, even they admit that. So why is the right so obsessed with giving these cuts? Because they know who butters their bread?
These are the kinds of arguments I hate because the 2 sides will never come to any agreement on the issue of tax cuts. I don't believe your thinking on unemployed stop looking for work because they get extension after extension. Have you ever lived on 300.00 a week? It's not something most can do comfortably.
Let me introduce you folks to the fine art of compromise. On taxation - a modified flat tax. a) The first $20-30,000 isn't taxed at all (or maybe people could pay a $100 bucks a year or so - just so they could say that they've contributed something). b) After that a flat tax of 20-30% kicks in. c) But then, all of a person's income of over, say, $1,000,000 a year gets taxed at an additional 5-10% surcharge rate.......What do you think? Is it a start? Am I on to something?
why is the right so obsessed with giving these cuts?
The media-driven story line was tax cuts, but in fact the right was obsessed with not raising taxes in this poor economy. Had nothing been done, everyone's taxes would've gone up.
You're right, we'll never agree. You spout off about fairness in every other area of life, but it never occurs to you that there is a tax rate (pick your own number) that is immoral and unfair. My number is around 30%. The government taking more than 30% of any dollar is unfair, regardless of your total income.
I don't believe your thinking on unemployed stop looking for work because they get extension after extension. Have you ever lived on 300.00 a week?
Let's use your example of $300 (equivalent to $7.50/hour). Two propositions for you:
1) If I am offered a job paying $280/week ($7.00/hour), what is my incentive to accept the job if doing nothing earns more?
2) If I am offered a job paying $320/week, what is my incentive to go to work for 40 hours to earn an extra $20? The incentive comes in at the delta between $300 and $320.
I don't expect you to "believe" me, but I'm happy to debate the logic of my arguments. You always talk about the right being blinded by ideology, or bought and paid for by big business, or the party of the rich. I think the two arguments above are unassailable, and I predict you will gloss over them instead of consider that I might be right.
Alright, let me tackle unemployment compensation. Yes, as long as unemployment is upwards of 8%, we continue with the benefits. But a) we pay for it (either through taxation or by trimming other programs) and b) we add additional controls (audit people more often, mandate that they take work that pays 70-80% of what they were making prior, stuff like that). Love, but tough love, in other words.
Will,
How is your modified flat tax different from what we have now except you have 3 brackets and currently there are six brackets?
Personally, I would add additional brackets at the top. Right now, for single filers the top bracket of 35% starts at $373,650. I would at another bracket, say 40% at 1 million, and 50% at 5 million.
Jerry, I'm exempting the first $20-30,000. That would clearly put more purchasing power into the hands of the working class (a concession to the left). And I'm flat-taxing everything up to a million (a concession to the right). And, yes, I'm certainly willing to negotiate on the rates, levels, and exemptions.
Maybe even exempt the first $40,000. I'm thinking out loud.
Will,
So are you saying that a person earning $30,000 will pay nothing, or maybe a nominal $100, but a person earning #30,001 will pay 20% ($6000) or 30% ($9000) in taxes? Or is that 20% - 30% on income over $30,000.
If it is the second way, that is basically what we have now with different rates and fewer brackets. So, the arguments are still the same, like you say, rates, brackets, and exemptions.
I am trying to understand where the difference are.
On income over.
Jerry, I dug out my 2009 tax instructions book and scanned the tax tables. A single person with a taxable income of $30,000 (granted, that amount includes his exemption and standard deduction) pays out $4,086 in taxes. A married person filing jointly pays $3,669. It sounds like my system (perhaps with a tweek or two/three) could possibly put a lot more money into the hands of the working and lower middle classes.
Will,
I have no problem with your system. I agree that no tax on people at the low end give them more money and will benefit them greatly. What I am saying is that you system is basically the same as we have now with different brackets, rates, exemptions, and deductions.
For example, with our current system if you are married and filing jointly, the tax is 10% on income between $0 and $16,750. What you are proposing is changing the tax to 0% and raising the upper limit to #30,000.
In a sense, you want to make the federal income tax more progressive, and I think that is a good thing to do. I have no problem with lowering the rate at the bottom and raising the rate at the top.
I am not arguing against you.
Sue, if you're still interested in the challenge, I expanded upon my argument and added a third scenario over at The Heathen Republican.
http://heathenrepublican.blogspot.com/2011/01/disincentive-of-extended-unemployment.html
The Klanservative Klanbagger Kaukus is only there because the President is a n____r, and beyond that.... they really don't have much of an agenda. They are going to continue to try to refudiate everything the President likes, but I don't think you're going to see anything in the way of ideas come from them.
Apology accepted. Live long and prosper.
"Extending unemployment benefits feels like the right thing to do; it's the compassionate thing."
"compassionate" equalling "stupid and weak" in conservative cant. After all, why don't we just let them and their families starve to death instead? Genius in a time of 9 jobs for every 10 people.
By the way, we have unlimited unemployment benefits, and the unemployment rate has just fallen again, to about half yours. Unemployment benefits do not necessarily increase unemployment.
It is the endless cynicism of the Right to think that nobody wants a better life unless faced with social death, or the fantastic experience of working for next to nothing. It also affirms their belief that people are only poor if they deserve to be.
A fucking century of progress spent getting away from that Dickensian model of permanent underclass, and all the Right can do is peddle their way back to it as fast as they can...
Love it Magpie! You do describe our American conservative party perfectly.
The flat tax is an idiotic idea proposed by fools who apparently have no idea beyond what Rush told them about how Government funding works.
There has to be progressivity, in either income, or in VAT. I am sick to death of seeing this "flat tax" stupidity floated.
Congratulations Sue and Magpie. As I predicted, you completely avoided addressing my point and chose to bash conservatives instead. I'll assume it's because you're unable to come up with a coherent response.
I'll ignore your jabs and respond as though you are seriously trying to engage in a discussion. I think unemployment extensions are compassionate, and my heart breaks for people I know who are out of work. On a societal level, however, continually extending benefits does more harm than good, as I've demonstrated.
And when you say "about half yours", I assume you're comparing unemployment rates between the Bush and Obama administrations, in which case you're not entitled to your own facts: average unemployment under Bush was 5.4%.
Your view of conservatives is a caricature. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you need to try to understand your opponent, not claim that we think people deserve to be poor and are stupid and weak. When you're ready, you should check out my nine secular conservative principles to actually understand where we differ.
Heathen,
I have a couple of issues with your statements about not extending unemployment benefits. First of all, while there may very well be a few people who would follow your scenarios, I have yet to see that evidence that there is a great number of them.
Secondly, under normal economic times the normal limits on unemployment benefits seems to have worked very well. However, we are not in normal economic times. Unemployment is very high primarily because the jobs are not there, not because the pay is too low and people will not take them. People need additional assistance until the economy gets back on it's feet.
HR, even if a segment of the conservative party has compassion for the unemployed, it is your party in Congress who is doing all they can to avoid extending benefits unless paid for. They control the flow of money, they say whether or not people can put food on the table and pay their mortgages. I agree Jerry with your point on these are extraordinary times and they call for extraordinary measures. The rights thinking is leave everything alone and the economy will fix itself in time. Well when the economy starts to improve and the unemployed get back to work who will try and take all the credit? The GOP, when they have done nothing for this country in the past 2 yrs.
Jerry, I don't have the evidence either; I'm trying to outline the bad economic incentive that continual extension of benefits provides. Because I didn't want to take over the comment thread with my entire argument, I expanded on it here.
So I guess, in the absence of evidence, you think everyone who is unemployed is acting illogically? Do you disagree with the two scenarios laid out here (and the third over at The Heathen Republican)? If you can't dispute the logic, your only rebuttal is that people don't respond to economic incentives, which I don't buy.
I find your second comment very interesting -- I think this is another great example of how progressives and conservatives think differently. You believe extended benefits are needed because we're in particularly bad economic times. I believe we are still in particularly bad economic times because benefits continue to be extended.
I don't think either of us can prove which is the cause and the effect, but I think my three scenarios provide a logical presentation of the economic incentives that extended benefits create. I think that backs my position that the benefits are making the economic situation worse, not vice versa.
Sue, I see that you're not going to respond to my points, so I'll call that a win in my column.
it is your party in Congress who is doing all they can to avoid extending benefits unless paid for
What I've done above is explain why Republicans don't want to extend benefits. How we pay for them is a political tactic. It's a lever to try and get Democrats to agree to cut spending elsewhere, because Dems won't cut spending unless they're forced to. I prefer to debate ideological issues instead of political tactics.
Your comment that the GOP has done nothing in two years is a red herring. Democrats had full control of the executive and legislative branches and the GOP couldn't do or stop anything. If the Democrats had held their caucus together, you could have your social utopia by now.
HR said "I believe we are still in particularly bad economic times because benefits continue to be extended."
That's ridiculous...we really are on opposite ends of the spectrum.
When Bush was president the dems and repubs worked together on legislation, why has the GOP done everything in their power to work against the American people just to hurt Obama? You guys consistently bring up the last 2 yrs of Bush's term, but you don't say Bush's veto pen worked overtime. The next 2 yrs will be do or die for republicans, we shall see what our future holds. No use assuming anything.
Heathen,
You are assuming that salary is the only basis that people make a logical decision about taking a job. There are many other factors involved as I am sure you are aware.
Unemployment benefits have a very positive benefit to the economy. In fact, it is one of the highest dollar for dollar.
we HAD to have 60 votes to pass anything and we all know Bluedogs were a thorn in our side, but where were republicans when legislation should have been passed for the sake of Americas economic future, for the people in this country? Their backs were turned and their noses were in the air.
Unemployment benefits have a very positive benefit to the economy.
Jerry, every dollar paid as a benefit must first be taxed out of the economy. Subtract administration costs, payroll for government employees, and other overhead, and there is no way that $1 taxed = $1 dollar in benefits.
That dollar would be more productive left in the economy to begin with. If the dollar came from a taxpayer, that taxpayer would buy the same products and services the unemployed person would. If the dollar came from a company, that company could hire more people.
Some backup.
It is irrelevant if the dollar should have been left in the economy. It wasn't. We have to deal with what is, not what should have been.
It is well documented that a dollar of unemployment benefit generates substantially more than one dollar in economic activity. In fact, it is one of the most short-term economically stimulating things the government can do.
Keep repeating it Jerry, over and over. Maybe it will be true if you say it enough.
Gee, Heathen. That sounds more like opinion than fact.
Musicians never collect unemployment when they lose their job. Because that's just our day job. You don't see me crying about it. I still pay into the mess even though I never collected a dime in my life. Anybody who has ever worked two jobs knows that every cent you make is subtracted from your (theoretical) benefits. I should hope I could keep on making more than a lousy unemployment check. I wouldn't be sitting here today if I didn't.
More to the point. Unemployment benefits are "pity pennies." Nobody's not going to look for work just because they are receiving benefits. Never was enough to live on. The truly lazy people that conservatives fear so much will figure out a way to get on S.S.I. or disability or welfare or possibly die trying. There's nothing you can ever do to change that. So just tune in Rush or your favorite personality and check out of reality.
I guess that nobody liked my compromise. Extend the unemployment benefits during times of high unemployment (in some states the rate is 14%). But a) pay for the benefits - either through taxation or cutting in other areas; defense, unspent stimulus money, etc. and b) add additional safeguards; audits to make sure that people are actually looking, mandating (at some point) that people take jobs outside their field, etc.. This way, folks, we can still be compassionate but fiscally responsible also.
I don't know who's right, Jerry or HR, about unemployment benefits being stimulative. Moody's, however, seems to agree with Jerry. They put it at or near the top in terms of things that stimulate the economy......Now, this isn't to say that HR's concerns are totally without merit. I, personally, have known legions of people who've milked the system with impunity. They collect and collect, and don't even look for work until the benjies start to dry up (in CT, you're supposed to make 3 contacts a week, but they rarely, if ever, check on it). And, yes, that's in fact why (in addition to providing these benefits) we really need to supervise this stuff.
Will,
I agree with you in principle -- extend benefits, pay for them, and supervise the use of unemployment benefits better.
Of course the troubles are in the details.
You and I could definitely work together, Jerry (a blue-dog meets progressive caucus, so to speak).
Heathen Republican,
"when you say "about half yours", I assume you're comparing unemployment rates between the Bush and Obama administrations"
No I am comparing the current rates of unemployment between Australia and the United States.
I'm Australian. Hence my mention of time zones when I apologized for not getting back to you on your blog - which comment you deleted, even though I was being polite.
Perhaps you should have read it first.
"Your view of conservatives is a caricature."
No. I use some hyperbole in how I write, but the summation is accurate. You personally don't seem like such a bad person (I've met 'bad')... but the dominant emotive substance of the conservative attitude to poverty is exactly how I described it.
"You need to try to understand your opponent"
You're not my opponent. You're someone giving their opinion based on a bankrupt and regressive ideology, and talking with lecturing conceit. But thanks anyway.
thank you Magpie. I love having my Australian friends point of view on my blog. It shows us what others around the globe think of our politics in a clear and honest way!
Post a Comment