11
   

If and when do you think this stimulus plan will work?

 
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 04:21 pm
@hawkeye10,
I thought that all republicans thought that FDR's recovery plan was a failure. Now here is one who claims that Obamas plan isent FDR enough. Fancy that.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 04:49 pm
@cicerone imposter,
c.i. wrote :

Quote:
Have you ever visited a busy port in any country where thousands of containers are being loaded and unloaded?


interesting point , c.i.
when i worked in the port of hamburg - mind you , that's 50+ years ago - a midsize cargo ship would be unloaded in 3 to 4 days with a lot of HARD manual labour by many longshoremen .
nowadays a huge containership is in port for less than 24 hours - with hardly a person in sight . there is often not enough time in port for the sailors even to leave ship .

that's how i remember the port of hamburg ... a lot of ships ... hustle and bustle ...

http://www.hamburger-fotoarchiv.de/hamburg_historische-fotos/bilder-hafen/02_historische-fotos-hafen/0953977_schuten-saecke-ladung.jpg

now it looks like someone is playing with lego blocks ... ...

http://www.bildarchiv-hamburg.de/hamburg/hafenelbe/haefen_kais/08_containerterminal_altenwerder/11_17458_luftaufnahme_container.jpg


and who knows what it's going to look like in just another ten years ???

even looking at docking a ship there is an enormous difference . there used to be 3 to 5 tugboats to bring a ship dockside , there would be the motorlaunch with crew dragging the huge ropes from the ship to the dock .
now even the "queen mary II " can dock in most ports without any tugboat assistance .

containerships have their quai positions well marked out and the huge crane-bridges are in operation the minute the ship is secured .

it's sometimes difficult for me to appreciate how much and how quickly things change - but change they do .
hbg
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 04:57 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
No, it isn't. It's because you only look at what the stimulus plan will create; not all the jobs that will follow from the jobs created by the "plan


FDR created 12 million jobs plus created or saved all the jobs that were dependent upon those paychecks. Obama hopes to create 4 million plus the dependent jobs. WHat is your argument, that the obama jobs will create more secondary jobs than the FDR jobs did? On what do you base this expectation?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 05:16 pm
@hawkeye10,
I never claimed that Obama's plan will create more secondary jobs than FDRs.

That number is unknown even though Obama claims his jobs will create 3.5 to 4 million jobs.

No economist alive can answer that question, so get real, will ya?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 05:28 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
That number is unknown even though Obama claims his jobs will create 3.5 to 4 million jobs


of course the actual number can not be known. However, we do know that historically administrations have tended to way over estimate the good that will come from their spending, and we also know that even Obama's presumably optimistic number is not even in the same league as what FDR did. On this basis it is rational to question if Obama's plan should have been DOA. The $300+ billion that he sunk into tax cuts looks like a waste of resources, and his refusal to run the jobs creation out of public agencies opens up the likelihood of diversion of resources.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 05:30 pm
@hawkeye10,
You miss one very important point; the economy today is much different than when FDR took action to increase jobs.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 06:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
You miss one very important point; the economy today is much different than when FDR took action to increase jobs.


the burden is on you to make a rational argument for why the difference in the economy matters when trying to create jobs. I don't think that it does, I think it is a psychological difference, that we have been kicked so many times with the pronouncement that government can't do anything well that we believe the propaganda even though there is no factual basis for it. Just as we refuse to nationalize the banks even though we must because we can't bring ourselves to do it, we also spend $700 billion on a stimulus package where $300+ billion is mostly wasted because we think that we need to funnel the money through the private sector. we will nationalize the banks after we have suffered enough pain and failure from not doing it, however once the money is out the door in the stimulus package it is gone for good. We have a limited amount of credit, we can't afford to get this wrong. There very well might not be enough credit to do another better designed stimulus package after we learn the hard way that what we are now doing does not work well. after the rush into the Iraq war and after the rush into the $700 billion Tarp misadventure (mostly a failure because we refused to let the public sector control banking assets) you'd think that Americans would wise up.

Those who believe that government can't spend resources wisely have always not had a leg to stand on evidence wise. Those who claim that the private sector always does has no argument after 20 years of a bubble/bust economy, the collapse of said economy, and the outrageous amount of fraud and corruption in the private sector which has now been proven to exist.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 07:48 pm
@hawkeye10,
It should be "self-evident." Today's economy is much more complex than during FDRs time. Not only in the variety and complexity of similar industries today, but also looking at the problem as a world marketplace. Many foreign companies own companies in this country and visa-versa. It's not as simple as you think it is.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 07:59 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
It should be "self-evident." Today's economy is much more complex than during FDRs time. Not only in the variety and complexity of similar industries today, but also looking at the problem as a world marketplace. Many foreign companies own companies in this country and visa-versa. It's not as simple as you think it is.


You create an agency, give them money, tell them to do good civic works and hire american citizens as workers.....what has changed that makes this not work today as it did 80 years ago???
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 08:34 pm
@hawkeye10,
They're already doing that; what do you think this "stimulus plan" is all about?

That's why they're calling it "public works."

On the same token, I disagree with our government's bailout of the auto companies - including the addition of all those extra social service programs.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 09:00 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
They're already doing that; what do you think this "stimulus plan" is all about?

That's why they're calling it "public works."


they are doing block grants to states, who for the most part subcontract management out to corporate America, and then use corporate America to do the work. Corporations skim a lot of the money off as profits, it gets diverted from the workers to management and shareholders. If you want to make jobs you have civil servants do the management, and you eliminate the profit skimming.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 09:23 pm
@hawkeye10,
Is that right! Since when does commercial enterprise run programs less efficiently than government?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 10:25 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Is that right! Since when does commercial enterprise run programs less efficiently than government

since always, compare the overhead of HMO's with Medicare for instance. I don't remember the numbers exactly, but is was something like 14% to 3% as I recall. Check out all of the comparisons that have been done since Clinton first and then Bush mandated that government agencies cost out their numbers versus what private enterprise will do it for, the so called reform of government......civil servants almost never lose the work to contract because the contracting costs are above what government does the work for.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 11:17 pm
@hawkeye10,
Come on, hawkeye, you know damn well Medicare is an animal all its own that has been cutting costs to health providers forever. I remember when my brother (a physician) complained to me about how his income was dropping like crazy about 25 years ago because Medicare was cutting his reimbursements for services, and I just laughed at him. It's been common knowledge since then that many physicians stopped taking Medicare patients, because the government fees failed to pay all their expenses.

I'm now laughing at you for bringing up Medicare to base your thesis that government runs their programs more efficiently. LOL
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 12:10 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Come on, hawkeye, you know damn well Medicare is an animal all its own that has been cutting costs to health providers forever


Keep laughing CI if it makes you feel good, but please set aside some time to learn about the subject matter.
Quote:
By almost every measure, Medicare is cheaper and more effective than private plans, according to government and academic research. Medicare spends 2% on overhead; private insurers typically spend 25% to 27% for overhead and profit

Quote:
A UC Berkeley study last month found that a public option like Medicare could result in $1 trillion in national savings over 10 years by driving down costs, improving efficiencies and fostering innovation.


Critics contend that Medicare pays doctors so little that most physicians won't accept the coverage, and that it is too bureaucratic and financially unstable. Medicare does use its size to drive down what doctors and hospitals are paid. However, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission reports that 97% of physicians accept new Medicare patients, with 80% taking all or most patients, which is comparable to HMO acceptance rates. And with the massive consolidation of insurance companies and of HMOs, doctors and hospitals report to our group that Medicare payments are often as generous, if not more generous, than those of HMOs and private plans -- and received with less hassle and more consistency. Studies by AARP and the Commonwealth Fund also show that Medicare patients are more satisfied with every aspect of their care than patients with private plans.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-court24-2009jan24,0,6252534.story
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 01:37 am
@cicerone imposter,
HMO's as opposed to medicare.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 10:18 am
@rabel22,
HMO's are awful. One rarely establishes a relationship with a physician in an HMO, mostly due to the high turnover. Service is poor and unfriendly, and costs are not necessarily very low. You usually have CEO's, et al., taking huge compensation packages that are unjustified. A patient frequently denied care by certain types of specialists because the HMO doesn't employ them. Etc.!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 10:29 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Defense of Medicare Budget Cuts Takes Spotlight in Washington

Administration officials faced angry Congressmen from both parties

Feb.8, 2006 "Today President Bush defended his proposed $36 billion reduction for Medicare spending in his budget proposal for FY 2007 and prepared to sign legislation already passed that cuts another $39 billion from Medicare and Medicaid. Yesterday, members of his administration were busy defending the $2.77 trillion budget and the Medicare cuts. They also were facing questions about the budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs, according to a report by KaiserNet.org.

hawkeye, The government can keep cutting benefits like Medicare, and the result is not "cheaper" cost; it's cutting services to seniors and the needy.


It's the same with Bush's cuts to veterans. He cut the budget for veterans, and more vets were unserved. Because of these funding cuts by the government and their mandate to serve all patients who come into their emergency rooms, many hospitals just went bankrupt. You call that efficiency?

If that's efficiency for you, you have learned nothing about "budget cuts."

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 10:34 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
October 10, 1990
THE BUDGET AGREEMENT;
Critically Ill Hospital Keeps Ear on U.S. Budget Talks and Eye on Creditors
By LISA BELKIN, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES

LEAD: In the tiny West Texas town of Alpine, in a nondescript single-story building that does not even have a sign out front, the abstractions of the Washington budget battle are colliding with reality.

The building houses the Big Bend Regional Medical Center, the only hospital in a 16,000-square-mile area of southwest Texas. It has been perilously close to closing for more than a year, administrators say.

Whether the doors remain open may depend on where Congress decides to cut the Federal budget. Officials of the hospital say the reason Big Bend is $400,000 in debt and losing $1,000 a day is that Medicare and Medicaid do not reimburse it enough for patient care. About 60 percent of the hospital's patients are covered by the two health programs - Medicare for the elderly and the disabled, and Medicaid for the poor.

The budget package defeated by the House of Representatives early Friday morning would have cut Medicare by about $60 billion nationwide, with half of that amount coming from hospitals and other health care providers, and the tottering hospital could not have absorbed its share of that blow, said Big Bend's chief administrator, Ron Ballew. The budget resolution now in the hands of Congressional committees still envisions raising about $30 billion from health care providers, although details have not been worked out.


hawkeye, Do you know what a "unfunded mandate" is?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 10:45 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye wrote:
Quote:
Keep laughing CI if it makes you feel good, but please set aside some time to learn about the subject matter.
Quote:

By almost every measure, Medicare is cheaper and more effective than private plans, according to government and academic research. Medicare spends 2% on overhead; private insurers typically spend 25% to 27% for overhead and profit


If any business could just keep cutting the funding like Medicare does to doctors and hospitals, that's not "more efficiency." That's called "decimating the product." That's the reason why many hospitals went bankrupt, and doctors quit taking Medicare patients.
 

Related Topics

Where is the US economy headed? - Discussion by au1929
The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/24/2021 at 07:09:23