Pelosi Presents Health Care Bill To Insure 36 Million People
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has unveiled a $894 billion health care package,
[The bill] would provide insurance to up to 36 million people by broadly expanding Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for the poor, and by offering subsidies to moderate-income Americans to buy insurance either from private carriers or a new government-run plan.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill would reduce future federal deficits by about $30 million over the next 10 years, meeting President Obama’s demand that the health legislation not add “one dime” to the nation’s indebtedness.
There are some differences between the House bill and the Senate measure:
The House bill, for instance, would impose a new income surtax on individuals earning more than $500,000 and couples earning more than $1 million — a so-called millionaire’s tax.
The Senate would impose a tax on high-cost insurance policies, a move that experts say could help lower long-term health care costs by giving employers, employees and private insurers incentive to reduce expenditures.
And there are many similarities:
In addition to expanding coverage for the uninsured, both the House and Senate version of the legislation would severely tighten restrictions on the health insurance, for instance, by barring the denial of coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions.
Let’s see what the party of “no” says.
Millionaire’s tax? Love it.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
of course you would..you’re not a millionaire…
EricG Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Who gives a damn about 1% of the population that has proven time and time again they could care less about the rest of society?
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
you’re right…I don’t care about whatever 1% you happen to be a part of…
October 29th, 2009 at 11:58 am
How do you know she isn’t a millionaire? And why wouldn’t the ‘rich’ wish to help out the less fortunate amongst us? Oh, that’s right, GREED.
piffle Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Don’t worry, the more of these entitlement programs there are, the more philanthropic donations will dry up and the evil rich will move their money offshore, decreasing tax revenue and requiring cuts and delay of services. Thats why socialism doesn’t work, when you steal people’s money they start hiding it. You think the Pelosis and the Kennedys and Heinz-Kerrys of the world stay rich by actually following the rules they set for everyone else?
OldLefty Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
I know, piffle,
That’s why we need to privatize the highways and fire departments……those poor deadbeats have been using roads and getting fires put out for free for way too long.
And why should the small business people keep paying for the roads, fire and police that the big corporate welfare queens get to use for free, while they move only their money offshore.
Let them move themselves and their families offshore too.
Thats why plutocracy doesn’t work….. when you steal people’s money they start hiding it.
piffle Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Roads and fire departments are municipal services provided by voluntary association that when you agree to live in a certain area you will contribute to those services. If you don’t agree to that social contract you may vote with your feet and move somewhere that taxes are lower.
You liberals do it all the time, you destroy states like Michigan and Pennsylvania and California and Massachusetts and then spread like a virus to reasonable places where jobs exist like New Hampshire and Colorado and Nevada and Virginia, and then vote for the same garbage that destroyed the cesspools you fled.
Stop using the bogus argument of Michael Moore’s “socialist fire departments,” especially when 70% of calls are responded by volunteer fire departments. And highways are serviced by a consumption tax on gasoline, so the more you consume the more you contribute. Isn’t a consumption tax a LIBERTARIAN type of payment, rather than confiscation of someone’s labor for the benefit of those who don’t work?
ZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OldLefty Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
ZING!!!?????
What ZING!!!?????
We are talking about services that are supported by taxpayers who do NOT qualify for off shore tax shelters or government subsidies, and are USED by corporations who do not pay taxes .
And the people DID vote for a social contract in Nov 2008.
Reaganonomics destroyed the manufacturing base, with help from Clinton, then Bush.
“You conservatives “ always fought the creation of a middle class, then choose to support the same garbage that destroys the towns and factories that support a strong middle class.
Stop using the bogus “everyone will run off shore if you “steal” their money”, argument.
The deregulation worked real well so far.
They run off shore to make workers compete with the people whose repressive governments hold them to the lowest standard of living, anyway and still come to the government with their hands out.
piffle Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
You’re talking about offshoring industry, which is a deliberate product of the Chamber of Commerce and not at all what I was referring to.
I was talking about people who are loaded moving their liquid assets to tax havens so they can cash in whenever they feel like without having to pay the taxes which the MIDDLE CLASS you people lie about caring about end up having to foot the bill for. I’ve read Krugman’s insane rants in “Conscience of a Liberal,” all of which have been debunked by real economists who don’t claim to be an expert in all areas of economics for winning a Nobel Memorial (not a peace prize, check the site, its very explicit) and the deceptive mathematic practices of misrepresenting median incomes. The only decade real wages went down was 2000-2006, maybe there is more recent data, but yes things DID get better for people in teh 1980s and anyone who took basic statistics and can read a symmetrical distribution and knows wehre the z scale is placed knows better. Krugman knows his followers are lackeys who at best got law degrees, but most of whom just suck off of society and look for a boogeyman to blame. Keynesianism was disproven worldwide in the 1970s and is not embraced by any country even now EXCEPT the US. Even Australia represented by the very liberal Kevin Rudd is raising its interest rates, and Germany , with half the people who actually lived under the nightmare you all call utopia, is liberalizing its economy.
Factories are closing because the nature of the world is changing, all you are doing is advocating protectionism which fails, just ask a French farmer. The problem is you have dominated the education system and are more interested in teaching children to put condoms on cucumbers and reading “Mary has two mommies” so when they get to college all they can finish is Literary Criticism or Women’s Studies. The few engineers, biomedical technicians, and chemists are facing increasing competetive troubles in this country because of the lack of focus on real agendas, mainly promoting a New Frontier instead of a giant welfare state and telling people its ok to have 8 children without any job qualifications because the community is obligated to give them a free check crowd the schools with low performing students and the free clinics. Thank god for Dick Morris talking slick willy into cutting that crap or this country would be swamped.
Buddy, look at the GDP “growth” Obama keeps touting. Use your head for a second. That “growth” is a combination of government spending, which is deficit spending, and the CONTINUED prevalence of hedge funds and money managers increasing their assets while jobs are being shed nationwide. You create a vibrant middle class by lowering taxes, the part you Air America listeners always leave out about the top marginal rates of the 1950s is that the average middle class citizen was paying 2% in taxes. Thats TWO FREAKING PERCENT.
But then if you continue to dumb down the math education because that might hurt the self esteem of the teacher’s unions, you just might keep getting away with it. And reinventing history.
“the people DID vote for a social contract in Nov 2008.”
The plurality of peopel voted for a swindler who promised to change politics, create jobs, and cut the budget deficit in half. Are you saying in 2004 the people voted to ban abortion and occupy the middle east indefinitely? Oh, thats right, Republicans steal elections when liberals flip flop on what $87 billion bills they vote for/against.
“corporations who do not pay taxes”
The United States has the highest corporate tax in the world after Japan, and that will probably change again. You realize in the last sixth months that the US is no longer considered the best place in teh world to do business after all of Obama’s policies have made it impossible to start a new enterprise?
You’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Anyone can make up talking points, it helps them deny that they don’t know what they talk about.
“people whose repressive governments hold them to the lowest standard of living”
At least you understand its the governments of those people keeping them in the living conditions they are in. Too bad you don’t see it in your own.
OldLefty Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
piffle,
Paul Krugman is just one of many, many economists….most on my side agrees with some of what he advocates for and not other things.
It is certainly true that EVERYONE can get stats that bolster their case, and misrepresent our opponents.(else we would not be in disagreement).
Things got better for some in the 80s, and much worse for others.
Supply side, deregulation, tripling the deficit and raising taxes on credit and the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act started the decline of the middle class.
Ronald Reagan worked hard to pass one of the largest tax increases in American history in September 1982, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, even though the nation was still in a recession that didn’t end until November of that year
and unemployment also did a lot of damage
Symmetrical distribution, like any stats are there to be manipulated. .
Actually, Krugman believes that “Globalization of goods has been an unambiguous, major evolution – a good thing.”
Keynesianism has not been proven or disproven anymore than any other economic model.
The idea that any model is 100% good, 100% of the time is ridiculous to me.
As for . Austrailia and Germany, of course nations cave into corporate pressure, then swing back again.
And factories are closing because politics have become a pay to play venture….” And corporations have more power than we the people.
“The nature of the world is changing” so says the multinational corporations who benefit from the trade agreements,.
Kids from our public school districts did very well thank you very much.
You must love Obama who supports as meritocracy in teaching.
Maybe you need to get out to meet some scientists and engineers.
And we REALLY need to hear from the likes of Dick Morris…..please.
And NOBODY is telling people its ok to have 8 children without any job qualifications . Perhaps you need to complain in the abstinence only states who boast the highest rate of teen pregnancies.
Two thirds of welfare recipients are either on assistance only for a short time, For some, the problems are concrete and potentially addressable: lack of child care or transportation, while public assistance rolls continue to decline sharply.
Again, I’m struck by the lack of concern for the greater amounts squandered on corporate welfare.
As for the GDP now, we’ll see. It took 30 years to destroy the economy, it will take a few to fix it.
“top marginal rates of the 1950s is that the average middle class citizen was paying 2% in taxes. Thats TWO FREAKING PERCENT.”
……………………..
But from U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2009, in 1952
Ranges between 22% 60%, 90 %
Most Companies Pay No Federal Income Tax
GAO Study Also Finds 68% Of Foreign Companies In U.S. Avoid Corporate Taxes
(AP) Two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes between 1998 and 2005, according to a new report from Congress.
The study by the Government Accountability Office, expected to be released Tuesday, said about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period.
Collectively, the companies reported trillions of dollars in sales, according to GAO’s estimate.
I’m sorry, but it seems that you are awfully long on opinion and insults and short on facts.
And I don’t listen to ‘Air America , and you have NO idea who I care or don’t care for or what is my “utopia”.
piffle Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 2:50 am
“As for . Austrailia and Germany, of course nations cave into corporate pressure, then swing back again.”
Ha, the low interest rates in the US are from pressure at Wall Street. They are bad for the country, they are what got us into this mess.
‘“The nature of the world is changing” so says the multinational corporations who benefit from the trade agreements,.’
“Ronald Reagan worked hard to pass one of the largest tax increases in American history in September 1982, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, even though the nation was still in a recession that didn’t end until November of that year
and unemployment also did a lot of damage”
Personally Reagan’s taxation policies are overcredited with the economic recovery, mostly it was his fierce defense of Volcker’s strong dollar policies that caused the recession but made the necessary corrections to provide the decades long growth. Greenspan and Bernanke are Wall Street shills who have created a low yield dollar and that is why the economy was so volatile under Bush and is crashing under Obama. If the president had replaced the chairmen with someone who advocated a strong dollar I would be yelling his praises, even if the whole FOX staff said it was a mistake. Most people don’t realize the distinction between fiscal policy and monetary policy, any other Republican in 1980 more than likely would have been a failed single termer doing the easy way out like nixon and Carter did which ultimately screwed the economy.
“Perhaps you need to complain in the abstinence only states who boast the highest rate of teen pregnancies”
Most of those problems are from a subculture, not the education system. We live in an oversexed culture and no government program will change that. But to imply kids don’t know what a condom is just means you haven’t flipped on the TV. I’m talking about financial incentive, no I don’t want children to starve but people should be scared to DEATH to get pregnant without a reliable financial base, not treated like its normal.
“Kids from our public school districts did very well thank you very much.”
The US has the lowest education performance of any industrialized performers. I’m not Sean Hannity, I can admit America’s failures. I’ve also worked in education. There are a lot of problems with the education system, primarily curriculum, but also lack of discipline in this crop of children, social promotion, and experiments with schools. This is one area where I actually wish we would copy Western Europe and allow a variety of options for education tailored to the abilities of individual students. Not everyone is college material and its cruelty to keep them in school on that trek learning material they can’t learn, while neglecting students who coudl tackle it much earlier if it weren’t for the fact they have to slow down for class pace. I also think there should be more emphasis on career classes to learn how to plan a family budget and conduct an interview, a skill many young people sadly lack.
“But from U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2009, in 1952
Ranges between 22% 60%, 90 %”
Yes, those are top marginal rates. I said the average middle class citizen paid 2% in 1950 while the average millionaire was paying 98%. I’m not opposed to progressive taxation, to a point, but soaking the rich is flawed for psychological reasons, primarily moving their money offshore which is why the Laffer curve had a modest amount of credibility.
I included the first paragraph intentionally because I knew you’d throw out that canard. The nature of the world is changing, manufacturing does not keep up. If the automotive industry changed their design specs in teh US they could compete. They don’t, wont, and the bailout infusion and further government infusion into engineering standards only delays the process. I’m not saying jobs leave offshore, get used to it. I’m saying the nature of business must advance with the times, which change very quickly. Assembly line production is going the way of the elevator operator because of a number of factors, adn the explosion and subsequent crash of the tech industry has strapped a lot of the need for those workers. The VH1B visa is a necessary evil because the most qualified candidates are not available from US universities.
“You must love Obama who supports as meritocracy in teaching.
Maybe you need to get out to meet some scientists and engineers.”
Obama’s not as bad as he could be on schools, but he’s still not solving the problems. Any American scientist will tell you research is geared towards whoever is footing the bills for grants. We could have cured cancer years ago, or at least fought it, if there was as much money as Botox treatments. Viagara was discovered because of side effects during heart therapy medication trials, think of it for a second. The SIDE EFFECT made the cutting board, not the wellness. I know you will say thats capitalism for you, but its a crass vulgar kind of misallocation of wealth. Just because the music industry raises a lot of money doesn’t mean that it improves QOL, and there is a similar element of the pharmaceutical industry the way its configured by the government.
“The study by the Government Accountability Office, expected to be released Tuesday, said about 68 percent of foreign companies doing business in the U.S. avoided corporate taxes over the same period.”
Yeah, you’re agreeing with me. If you know how to scam the system you won’t pay. You could raise taxes to 100% and they would pay the same, it only serves as a barrier of entry to START UPS. I am not a Randian Objectivist, I never argued the rich don’t have to pay taxes. I argued that they will get creative if you ostensibly go about it the wrong way. Thats why I am in favor of consumption taxation so people who spend get screwed.
Althoguh its not configured the best way, Obama’s administration idea for tax credits for jobs created is what they should have done to begin with, not a giant pork barrel stimulus plan. If you repealed Reagan’s tax cuts for top marginal income and then offered it as a deduction for pay raises, insurance, and new hires, you would avoid the mess of contractual bonuses for executives while people get laid off. They might be obligated to be paid big money but they won’t get to keep it unless their workers benefitted.
“I’m sorry, but it seems that you are awfully long on opinion and insults and short on facts.”
You’ve actually agreed with me all over the place and most of your rebuttals were expected, i.e. that I think offshoring is the market or that teen pregnancy is some kind of product of education. You can change the industries operating, but people’s jobs will eventually become obsolete and if you don’t have aready replacement everyone is screwed. And the social question is way too complicated to have a simple solution, but if you look at any Scandinavian country’s illigetimacy rates it becomes obvious taht government nannycare only exacerbates the problem. And the US doesn’t have the same cultural values as Western Europe that contribute to a low overall birthrate, a giant welfare state would cause an explosion of underclass citizens. Unless you had forced abortion, which opens up a whole new can of worms.
Lee Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 5:13 am
Piffle,
Well you post even longer than I do.. I’m predominantly liberal thinking but there are certainly many points I agree with.
However H1B’s being necessary because of a lack of talent became false circa 2001. For example you don’t hear Tech companies lamenting the quota being reduced back to what it was. Many don’t even consider them anymore due to the challenges of visa justification and length of time to get it done.
Interest rates were not ‘the’ cause of our economic problems. Government deregulation was the real beginning of the disaster.
As for education, it’s partially true. Our high school graduates are amongst the worst in the Western world but our colleges are still world-renowned and we rank as the worlds best even if we are getting increased competition from Asia.
I like consumption taxes. However, you need to be careful to protect the very poor. But in general indirect taxation is much better for the economy than direct forms as unlike the latter it does not meaningfully retard economic growth.
This is a lesson Ireland learned and countries like Belgium, France etc did/have not.
OldLefty Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 10:29 am
I somewhat agree about Volcker, (although some economists say that his policy of raising interest rates so dramatically actually created the most severe depression since the 1930s.) however, others say it all happened the way Keynesian economics predicted.
I find it amusing that many think that although Volcker’s intentional recession was a classically Keynesian approach to combating inflation, he “called” it “monetarism”, so that the Chicago Boys liked it.
I’m not sure if the economists who say that the dollar has to come down are right or wrong….many of them (like Ravi Batra,) were right when they predicted in Sept 08 that the REAL crash was still coming, and that it would be because of OTC derivitives.
.
Who said, “ kids don’t know what a condom is?”
The kids who are at risk aren’t even afraid of aids or driving drunk, and you want them to be afraid of financial concerns?
I probably agree more about education.
But from U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2009,
For brackets over $20,000 but not over $22,00 …Marginal tax rate…62.0%
For brackets over $70,000 but not over $80,000… Marginal tax rate…83%.
I don’t think it is soaking the rich at all.
I think they move the money off shore because they are allowed to.
While I do agree about the auto industry, I think that is where tariffs come in.
My belief in market forces is that..,if the foreign products are better, people will pay more for it. The industry should make the adjustment; if not they become relegated to the low end.
“VH1B visa is a necessary evil because the most qualified candidates are not available from US universities.”
Sometimes true, but often abused, in order to drive down wages.
On the paper, ON THE NEED FOR REFORM OF THE H-1B
NON-IMMIGRANT WORK VISA IN
COMPUTER-RELATED OCCUPATIONS
http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Mich.pdf
found that: “There has been no shortage of qualified American citizens to fill American computer-related jobs, and that the data offered as evidence of American corporations needing H-1B visas to address labor shortages was erroneous.
The United States General Accounting Office found in a report in 2000 that controls on the H-1B program lacked effectiveness. The GAO report’s recommendations were subsequently implemented.
I think it’s a mixed bag.
Cancer research is A LOT more complicated than that, I DO know what all is involved in applying for grants.
But I absolutely agree about the money factor….One only has to look at how much we value a model over a teacher, nurse or doctor, for that matter; The same reason we have an oversexed culture….It’s the money Lebowsky!
I disagree with a consumption tax because the poorest people are the ones who spend most of their income on goods.
The problem with jobs becoming obsolete has always been there, and people have adjusted.
My problem with offshoring is that it was always held off by tariffs…now we see the result of years of predatory capitalism gaining sway over world governments.
I don’t think it IS a matter of the markets, I think it is a matter of the end cancerous stage
You are the one who brought up teen pregnancy. I never attached it to education, other than mandated abstinence ONLY education (right wing nanny state).
It’s very difficult to get objective info from the Scandinavian countries.
You have to go to Tom Delay’s “petri dish of capitalism”, the Marianna Islands or China for forced abortions.
Budda Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
…”steal peoples money”..?? you think taxes are stealing?
TDro319 Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Well, let’s see. Stephen Helmsley, the CEO of United Healthcare makes $3.2 million per year. With the new tax, his salary may go down to $2 million per year.
Now, how can anybody live on only $2 million a year? Why, if he gets an additional tax, he may have to apply for welfare.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
how do you know she is?????
most millionaires don’t make condescending remarks about money being taken away from their fellow millionaires…
I’ll say it again…the problem here is that we are shifting the weight of everyone’s issues on the shoulders of a few.
I don’t mind richer people being asked to pay more…but I have a fundamental issue with having the rich pay 100% of the bill, especially since they won’t be using the program.
Even if the minimum wage lacky paid a measly portion of his wages towards the program, it would make more sense than just giving away a service for free.
sort of like the post office. Postage doesn’t cover the costs of running the service, but even the broke of the broke will pay 40 whatever cents it is to send the rent.
phillipd Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Why not let them pay? They are enjoying 90% of the spoils of our economy. The top 2% make their money off the backs of the lowly many. No millionaire would become wealthy without the collective efforts of the many, so yes, they DO owe the “little people” something.
John Galt Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
they DO owe the “little people” something.
The “little people” are getting something; a job. No one works for less than they think they deserve. Employment is voluntary.
OldLefty Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
“The “little people” are getting something; a job.”
……………
Just ask all the big corporate executives who owe THEIR jobs to the government.
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
Abraham Lincoln
Teddy Roosevelt: living wage:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/trspeech.html
We stand for a living wage. Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations. The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living–a standard high enough to make morality possible, to provide for education and recreation, to care for immature members of the family, to maintain the family during periods of sickness, and to permit of reasonable saving for old age.
Teddy Roosevelt: living wage:
In the third place, certain industrial conditions fall clearly below the levels which the public today sanction.
We stand for a living wage. Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations. The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living–a standard high enough to make morality possible, to provide for education and recreation, to care for immature members of the family, to maintain the family during periods of sickness, and to permit of reasonable saving for old age.
hours per week is abnormal and should be prohibited. We hold that the seven day working week is abnormal, and we hold that one day of rest in seven should be provided in law. We hold that the continuous industries, operating twenty-four hours out of twenty-four, are abnormal, and where, because of public necessity or of technical reasons (such as molten metal), the twenty-four hours must be divided into two shifts of twelve hours or three shifts of eight, they should by law be divided into three of eight.
*****************
“The man of great wealth owes a particular obligation to the state because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.”
Teddy Roosevelt
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. [...] Is there no other way the world may live?
-Dwight David Eisenhower, “The Chance for Peace,” speech given to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Apr. 16, 1953.
Commie bastards!!
John Galt Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Lefty, you can quote all you want. The fact is, there is only one real minimum wage; $0.00 an hour. Anything after that is negotiated by the two parties. Anything that artificially changes that negotiation [arbitrary laws setting arbitrary wage floors] only changes the normal operation of the market dynamic. The result is that while some folks make more money than they otherwise would, other people make less, even if that means no work at all.
The generation of wealth is not labor. For example, you may have as much labor as you want. And place that labor on a beach full of all the silicon you could ask for. All that labor and all that silicon could not make a single computer. It is the mind, the raw ideas of man, in his desire to make things, that generates wealth. in the end, labor is a commodity just like any other resource; copper, iron, lumber or water.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
in response to the Teddy Roosevelt quote, he references industrial laborers…in the United States our industrial laborers are paid a handsome sum for their efforts on average, even the non-union industrial workers make a better than average wage.
unfortunately we’ve incentivized the heck out of globalization, outsourcing and a “service” based economy to the point where our industrial complex is in tatters. (this is an ongoing problem that has been going on for 40+ years…and not an issue that our current administration, congress, or senate is even remotely trying to fix).
Ike’s speech is a call for peace more than a call for disassembling our military structure, even he knew that by simply laying down your arms it doesn’t mean the enemy will.
It would be nice if we could divert our resources towards building homes and not bombs, but unfortunately the world isn’t as simple as that.
It’s also noteworthy to point out that he didn’t advocate taking money from the rich to do so.
and our dear Mr. Lincoln makes an astounding point. capital is the fruit of labor…no labor no fruit…but the simple fact of the matter is that not all labor is equal, the fruits of a pear tree are much more desirable than the fruit of a crab apple tree.
OldLefty Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Well, you can quote the Ayn Rand, and Chicago School dogma all YOU want, it doesn’t work.
The beliefs and policies of the presidents I quoted are what built the middle class upon which a strong democracy depends.
Everytime the government gives out no bid, cost plus contracts, or subsidies or tax exemtptions they create artificial conditions.
Everytime the Chinese force populations of people to move, to accommodate foreign investors or use taxes collected to accommodate the same foreign investors ( who avoid the taxes here), they “create artificial conditions.
When banks can pay rating agencies for AAA ratings, they “create artificial conditions.
Those with the money to control the government have always been able to artificially tip the scales in their favor against the will of the people with greater numbers, but fewer dollars.
And you are not making one computer without labor…. Get your ceo to pick and mine the materials.
And many would say that the labor of the mind is also labor…which is why the IT community feels they are also threatened, and may need the protection of the government.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
who in the hell is quoting Ayn Rand????
you assume because someone is rich they do not labor…
John Galt Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
The beliefs and policies of the presidents I quoted are what built the middle class upon which a strong democracy depends.
No. The beliefs of the Presidents you quoted kept them in power; more people voted for them because they believed “mommy” when she said “Come here, everything will be alright; I’ll take care of you.”
Everytime the government gives out no bid, cost plus contracts, or subsidies or tax exemtptions they create artificial conditions.
I agree. Most times the government should set for bid certain contracts. Sometimes, however, it doesn’t make sense to do so.
Any time some one gets a tax break it’s like they are being given their money back. And that’s a good thing.
When banks can pay rating agencies for AAA ratings, they “create artificial conditions.
You make it sound like those on the right don’t wanna arrest those that break the law. Pah-lenty of people, both Democrats and Republicans, break the law.
Those with the money to control the government have always been able to artificially tip the scales in their favor against the will of the people with greater numbers,
And how does this significantly differ under your idea of government? You think that just because we “tax the rich” that the rich won’t have continued influence?
which is why the IT community feels they are also threatened, and may need the protection of the government.
Lord. When did we stop raising MEN?
OldLefty Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
“Come here, everything will be alright; I’ll take care of you.”….
………………
Says the government to their corporate donors….We will be your Mommy AND your Daddy if the check is big enough.
“You make it sound like those on the right don’t wanna arrest those that break the law.”
…………………………
I think that conservatives, Republican AND Democratic conservatives, wrote those laws…..It’s all perfectly legal.
I believe in REAL campaign reform, whereby the number of votes carries more influence than the number of dollars. The only way to achieve that is to get the money out.
Of course the IT community is concerned when high paying, white collar jobs are being outsourced along with blue collar jobs.
What in the world does it have to do with MEN?
I see MEN from Wall Street crawling to the government to protect their big bonuses, and MEN sniveling and obeying their corporate masters and snickering about “girly men” while women like Elizabeth Warren and Brooksley Born are the ones with guts to fight.
Not to mention the women who lost life and limb in the wars, while many MEN sat home in their recliners shouting WE’RE #1!!! And calling anti war protesters cowards and traitors…..MEN, Indeed!
October 29th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Good for Pelosi in coming out with a real bill instead of just big-talk like we hear from the right wing.
This sounds like a slightly better bill than the House bill, to me.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Harry needs to take a lesson from Nancy on how a real man leads.
Okay, that came out funny but you know what I mean.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
“No one works for less than they think they deserve.”
More Ayn Rand bullcrap.
I have news for you, bucko. There isn’t a soul in this entire country who does NOT think they are working for less than they deserve.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
October 29th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
i’m vastly over paid.
Budda Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 2:03 am
If you make minimum wage flipping burgers at Mickey D’s you are definitely overpaid…what ever you do, you are overpaid. Now, about the rest of the people in America it’s different.
John Galt Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
If you make minimum wage flipping burgers at Mickey D’s
Virtually no one makes minimum wage at McD’s.
Lib Patriot Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 2:07 am
Guido has just admitted he needs his salary capped!
(8-0
October 29th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Mr. Tauzin, a Democrat turned Republican, is the chief lobbyist for drug makers. After cutting an $80 billion, 10-year deal for his industry — blessed by the White House — to help pay for a health care overhaul, he is now working quietly to keep his pact from unraveling on Capitol Hill.
Ms. Ignagni, a Democrat who represents insurers, stood up at the White House in March and told President Obama he had her “commitment to play, to contribute and to help pass health care reform this year.”
October 29th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Alan, if this bill does not deal with torte reform, insurance accessability across state lines, then it will not be reform. It is a bill full of deceit, lies and tyranny penned in secret. Any bill done this way cannot be good for the country. No transparency in this congress or administration at all.
Lee Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 4:57 am
“Alan, if this bill does not deal with torte reform, insurance accessability across state lines, then it will not be reform.”
Please explain how such policies these will benefit the system? If you think they will cut the consumer cost, how much do you think and why?
October 29th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Government deregulation was the real beginning of the disaster.
Can’t let that pass; government forcing banks to loan money to people that had no hope to replay that money was the cause of this.
you need to be careful to protect the very poor.
Why wouldn’t the poor be careful to protect the poor?
if the foreign products are better, people will pay more for it. The industry should make the adjustment; if not they become relegated to the low end.
First, if the products are better, they most likely are already charging a premium?
But more important, why would you wanna rob the poor people of the US the chance to buy a high quality care for less money?
I’ll never understand, in your quest to help the little guy, why you hate that little guy so much. Virtually every single one of your policies has the opposite result of your well intentioned desires.
Lee Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
“Can’t let that pass; government forcing banks to loan money to people that had no hope to replay that money was the cause of this.”
Well you should have passed.. Because you are wrong.
Banks had been doing subprime loans without problem for over 20 years without issue. Even the subprime push between 1993 and 1999 that added 2 million new subprime owners did not cause a meltdown and could not have caused this.
What blew up the market were Glass-Steagal being repealed in 1999 (Clinton had initially fought against this but was faced with a veto-proof senate vote) and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. These two acts of deregulation fuelled an insane rush to sell as many mortgages as possible with no incentive whatsoever to make sure the borrower could actually pay back the loan. People were talked into ARM loans and convinced they could refi later. People selling mortgages were making 500-600k a year!
On top of that you have Fitches, Moodys and S&P stating all the bundles securities containing these mortgages are AAA grade! (making lots of money for doing so) and there is your recipe for why/how banks took on billions of dollars of liabilities that they could not afford to cover if people stopped paying their mortgages.
And so, what finally blew up the market is when the ARM’s started resetting causing the wave of defaults and ensuing domino effect throughout the entire financial sector.
You can certainly add Alan Greenspan into the mix for the interest rate cuts and associated increase in consumer borrowing but it was the deregulation that collapsed the system, there is no sensible argument otherwise.
“Why wouldn’t the poor be careful to protect the poor?”
Because the poor have a very small disposable income as it is. A consumption tax on basic goods would affect them disproportionately more than richer people. That’s why you either confine it to luxuries or figure out implementation of a minimum threshold to pay.
OldLefty Reply:
October 30th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
I also could not let a few things pass;
“government forcing banks to loan money to people that had no hope to replay that money was the cause of this.”
…………………………………
In addition to what Lee said,
GW bush, 2002;
“Freddie Mac recently began 25 initiatives around the country to dismantle barriers and create greater opportunities for homeownership. One of the programs is designed to help deserving families who have bad credit histories to qualify for homeownership loans.
And then there’s my friend Kirbyjon Caldwell. He not only provides counseling and job training, he actually decided to encourage a development of homes in the Houston area. People — low-income people are going to be able to more afford a home in Texas because of Kirbyjon’s vision and work.
The other thing Kirbyjon told me, which I really appreciate, is you don’t have to have a lousy home for first-time home buyers. If you put your mind to it, the first-time home buyer, the low-income home buyer can have just as nice a house as anybody else.
This was all because of the demand for Mortgage backed securities.
By 2003, when everyone who qualified for a mortgage got one, the global pool of money still wanted more, so they changed the the mortgage qualification guidelines.
At first, the stated income, verified assets (SIVA) loans came out. People didn’t have to prove their income any more. They just needed to “state” it and show that they had money in the bank.
Then, the no income, verified assets (NIVA) loans came out. The lender was no longer interested in what you do for a living. People just needed to show some money in their bank accounts.
This wasn’t enough to satisfy the huge appetite of global investors. The qualification guidelines kept going looser in order to produce more mortgages, more securities, till we got NINA, No Income No Assets. Basically, NINA loans are official loan products and let you borrow money without having to prove or even state anything. All you needed to have in order to get a mortgage was a credit score.
All this because banks no longer had to keep their loans and artificially propped up by AAA ratings.
Then, “if the foreign products are better, people will pay more for it. The industry should make the adjustment; if not they become relegated to the low end.”
……………..
That was a different conversation about foreign v domestic products.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Please note “36 million people” is not the same thing as “36 million Americans”.
October 30th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
I thought the bill on the floor would only bring in 14 million Americans of the 50 million uninsured. I think they could solve the problem without raising anyones taxes but I need your help again Eric. I was thinking about the Social Security Link up provided me with. They stated in 2008, they collected 2.66 Trillion from Americans and their Employers (and that was at the heels of all the 2007 Job loss and Business closure). Now if they could collect that much in one year, just how much do you think the Insurance Industry collect each year from Americans and their Employer Health Aid? Now the figure I got (unverified by me) was the Insurance Companies and Hmo’s take 37% off the top for operating expenses, Not for Profit Blue Cross Blue Shield takes 10% of the top (amount given from my Insurance Agent and the Canadian Government take 3% of the top of what the collect for Health Insurance administrative costs. Get the middle man out and we are talking trillions of previously wasted Health Care American Dollars, that could go to profit for Doctors and their staff providing Care, (which keeps the money circulating in our Communities and Country) which is good for the Economy and Jobs, we could lower Premiums, it would allow us to compete in the Global Market and still have enough left over to fund research and techno. Millions of American Health Care Dollars would no longer be wasted on Insurance Lobbyist and fighting reform which could help save the lives of millions of Americans. What am I missing here?
October 31st, 2009 at 2:23 am