14
   

Will Obamacare Destroy the Democrats?

 
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 01:49 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

The Republicans better stop counting their chickens and start offering people something more than carping and obstructionism.

Have you read that the Republican mantra is now

Repeal and REPLACE: It takes work to "replace", does it not?
0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 01:57 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

Obama inherited an economic mess. His job, and the job of the Democratic party, is to convince voters that they have a better conception of how to turn things around, and that the economic fixes already undertaken are starting to pay off. November is still months away. If the unemployment situation improves, or the housing market picks up, that will certainly give them a tailwind.
******************
I suggest you read recent economic reports which say that the housing market is a long long way from improvement. There are many economic analysts who indicate that so many people are walking away from their homes because the homes are now worth less than the mortgage they are paying, there will be a glut of houses on the market for at least another year(That,of course,is after November 2010.

And, if the Unemployment situation improves? I suggest that you look up the predictions of respected Economists about Unemployment in October 2010.
It will not be below 8%. That is a level which American citizens will not tolerate and they will blame the President and the Democrats in Congress.

If you check out the Bureau of Labor Statistics( See U6) you will find that the REAL Unemploment figure is closer to 16%. U6 includes those people who are working part time who need to work full time and those people whose benefits have run out and are still not working.
MASSAGAT
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 02:05 am
@nimh,
nimh(who really doesn't know much about the USA since he is an expatriate, cites someone named Romano who allegedly destroys Fred Barnes' argument. Romano is obviously either highly confused or does not have essential information at hand.

Romano writes:

But if the bill passes, the process will be over. There will be no more process to report on or read about.

wrong--Already there are articles about the fact that the insurance companies are claiming that they do not have to write policies which cover children who have pre-existing conditions until 2014. If Romano thinks that controversy won't be part of 24/7. he knows little about the modern news media.

Romano is obviously unaware of the suits put into play by at least thirteen Attorney Generals from various states. Again, that will get big play in all the media. I think Romano is whistling in the dark.

Romano also wrote:

In the first year alone, lifetime (and annual) caps on coverage will be outlawed. Insurance companies won't be allowed to discriminate against people with "preexisting conditions" or drop patients for getting sick. All children will be covered until the age of 26. Small businesses that offer coverage will receive tax credits worth up to 50 percent of premiums. All new insurance plans will offer free preventive care. And seniors will receive $250 rebates to help cover the Medicare Part D "donut hole." Each one of these changes will take effect before the November elections, and each will be appealing to important groups of voters"seniors, young people, small-business.

****************************************************************

And, of course, when lifetime and annual caps on coverage is outlawed( insurance companies have already allegedly found a loophole that allows them NOT to write policies for children who have pre-existing conditions until 2014( See NY Times) Romano thinks that insurance companies will not inform all of those people who were told by the President that they could keep their present insurance policies that "due to new legislation, we must raise your insurance premiums by 28%"

Some small businesses do not give health care coverage to their employees since they cannot afford to do so. They can't even afford to do so even with a subsidy.


and, the item-"All new insurance plans will offer free preventive care". Does Romano realize that this alone will cause premiums to sky rocket and preventive care to be rationed?
0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 02:26 am
Romano continues with his nonsense--

But I'm not sure how well this will play politically. Again, the process arguments will have ended; many people will be enjoying their new benefits. It's unclear to me how, in this environment, as unemployment still hovers at uncomfortably high levels and the public demands action on jobs, the Republican Party will build a governing coalition around the notion of repealing a bill that passed months or even years earlier.

******************
When the Republicans begin campaigning in earnest--September is usually the month in which they will begin, it is unclear that the ever efficient, never screwed up central bureaucracy in DC will have all of the incredible complex pieces together to begin processing the Obamacare bill. They are still holding Billions of dollars from the vaunted Stimulus Bill which was passed early last year. Mr. Romano does not realize that the Republicans who are running will FIRST, attack the incredibly high unemployment rate and then indicate the obvious weaknesses in Obamacare with a promise to Repeal and REPLACE.
Maybe Mr. Romano is so busy writing his columns he does not take the time to view the polls which show that not only is Obama's Job Approval rating( see the latest Gallup Poll0 at its lowest point since he has been elected( 47%) but the election prospects of most of the Democratic Senators are dismal.

We will see.
Only 218 days until Nov. 2, election day!!
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 04:29 am
Saw on local news television this AM, that a newborn was denied insurance, because of a pre existing condition.
Below viewing threshold (view)
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 01:51 pm
@MASSAGAT,
MASSAGAT, I do follow economic reports fairly closely.

The problem of unsold homes on the market, and depressed selling prices of homes, does vary by geographical location. The problem is much worse in some areas than others. Gluts of unsold homes on the market are not found in all areas. In the area in which I live, there has been some slight increase in the selling price of homes compared to a year ago. The decline in selling prices appears to have stabilized here. It is still a buyer's market, and those who are looking to purchase a home can get good value for their money, and that is some incentive for people to purchase now, before prices start to increase.

The government has just announced a new proposal to help owners prevent foreclosure, particularly those who owe more than the house is worth. This may produce positive results before the November elections. The administration can at least claim that they are addressing the problem



Quote:

The New York Times
March 26, 2010
A Bold U.S. Plan to Help Struggling Homeowners
By DAVID STREITFELD
Will it work this time?

Once again, the federal government is adding to its arsenal of programs for troubled homeowners, seeking to help those who urgently need it while neither angering nor creating perverse incentives for those who do not.

The new measures, announced by financial policy makers at the White House on Friday, are among the boldest to date. They are aimed not only at the seven million households that are behind on their mortgages but, in a significant expansion of aid that proved immediately controversial, the 11 million that simply owe more on their homes than they are worth.

Some of these people, if the government plan works, will emerge with a house whose payments they can afford and whose new mortgage reflects its market value. Unlike many previous modification recipients, they would presumably be less likely to re-default, helping to stabilize a housing market that remains queasy.

“We’re walking that delicate balance to make sure these solutions are sustainable and not temporary,” said David H. Stevens, commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration.

It is a balancing act in numerous ways. If the plan falls short " and some experts were skeptical on Friday " the Obama administration could find itself having to start over yet again in six months or a year.

“The housing market is the Vietnam War of the American financial system,” said Howard Glaser, a housing consultant. “The federal government is in so deep, they have to keep ramping up to find a way out.”

The latest programs, together with foreclosure assistance efforts already in place, are aimed at helping as many as four million embattled owners keep their houses. But the measures, which will take as long as six months to put into practice, might easily fall victim to some of the conflicting interests that have bedeviled efforts to date. None of these programs have the force of law, and lenders have often seen no good reason to participate.

To lubricate its efforts, the government plans to spread taxpayers’ money around liberally. For instance, it had previously planned to give homeowners that sell their homes rather than let them go into foreclosure a “relocation assistance” payment of $1,500. The plan announced on Friday increases that amount to $3,000.

All told, the new measures are expected to cost about $50 billion. The White House was careful to stress that the money will come from funds already set aside for housing programs in the Troubled Asset Relief Program. There will be “no additional commitment of taxpayer dollars,” Michael S. Barr, an assistant secretary of the Treasury, said at the White House briefing.

Here is what the $50 billion is supposed to buy:

The simplest component of the plan involves assistance to unemployed homeowners. Mortgage companies will now be encouraged to reduce payments for at least three months and possibly six months while the homeowner pursues a new job.

To be eligible, borrowers must submit proof they are receiving unemployment insurance. The new payments will be 31 percent or less of their monthly income. The missing money will be tacked onto the loan’s principal.

A second and more complicated program is a requirement that mortgage servicers consider writing off a portion of a borrower’s loan to get it down to a more manageable level.

Borrowers in the government modification plan who owe more than 115 percent of the value of their home and are paying more than 31 percent of their monthly income toward the mortgage are eligible. The write-downs are to take three years, with the borrowers in essence being rewarded for making their payments on time.

The third major new program strays the farthest from the government’s previous approach. Borrowers who owe more on their homes than they are worth will get a chance to cut their debt " providing the investor or bank who owns the loan agrees.

Mr. Stevens of the F.H.A. said the program was “for responsible homeowners who through no fault of their own find themselves in a situation of negative equity.”

There is no official requirement that these homeowners be in distress, but it would probably make the investor more receptive to a deal. Whether homeowners will scheme to get into the program is one of the big uncertainties.

The investors will write down the loans to 97.75 percent of the appraised value of the property, at which point the F.H.A. will refinance them through new lenders. The F.H.A., which currently insures about six million homes, will insure the new loans as well.

If the homeowner has a second mortgage, as many do, the total value of the new mortgage can be as much as 115 percent of the value of the property. The F.H.A. will spend up to $14 billion to provide incentives to the banks that service the primary loan as well as the owners of the secondary loans. Some of the money will also provide additional insurance on the new loans.

Numerous parties will have to work together to make these deals fly. The primary loan might have been bundled into a pool and sold to investors during the housing boom. The investor must agree to cut the principal balance for a deal to work, and any bank holding a second mortgage on the property would have to go along, too.

The only incentive for the first lien holder is a quick exit from a loan that might ultimately default. Payments for second lien holders will be made on a sliding scale.

Early reaction to the refinance program among lending groups was less than enthusiastic.

“The magnitude of this program will likely be measured in the tens of thousands rather than the hundreds of thousands of borrowers,” said Tom Deutsch, executive director of the American Securitization Forum. Both banks and investors belong to the forum.

The Mortgage Bankers Association, which represents the banks that service the primary loans and own outright many of the secondary loans, warned that “each servicer will need to determine whether this is the best approach to help the individual borrower.”

The new proposals irked many people, who flooded online forums Friday. Some said those in trouble deserved their fate. Others asked why the government was propping up housing prices when many renters still could not afford to buy a house. And some wondered about the message these rescue plans were sending to those who resisted the housing bubble.

Dave Juliette, a software worker in Pittsburgh, is in the last group. He paid off his loan eight years ahead of schedule and now owns his house free and clear. “I’m a homeowner in a more genuine sense of the word than many of these people with mortgages,” Mr. Juliette said. “But I won’t be seeing a dime.”


Economists have always said that employment and job creation would be the last area to show improvement in a recession. Other things have to fall into place before the unemployment level can decline. There might be some improvement by November. If not, I'm not sure people will blame the Democrats and Congress--they did not create this situation, they inherited it. There really is no reason for the Republicans to be seen as a better alternative, since the problem developed under a Republican administration. And the Republicans have also tried to deny extending unemployment benefits to those who are jobless--which may not be seen as a popular or sensible thing to do. If things don't look better by November, voters may just be angered or disgusted at government in general, and take it out on both parties.

MASSAGAT, I am sure we both want to see the economy improve ASAP. It is in everyone's best interests for that to happen. Let's hope it does seem to be happening by November.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 02:10 pm
@firefly,
firefly wrote:

MASSAGAT, I do follow economic reports fairly closely.

The problem of unsold homes on the market, and depressed selling prices of homes, does vary by geographical location.


firefly wrote:
The government has just announced a new proposal to help owners prevent foreclosure, particularly those who owe more than the house is worth. This may produce positive results before the November elections. The administration can at least claim that they are addressing the problem

Quote:


I think the two quotes I've extracted sum up the problem nicely. There are qualified borrowers out there who would like to own a home. There are homes begging to be bought. If we would quit adjusting rates and even loan principle, the prices would have to drop, and the market would clear. This might even restore faith that contracts have meaning and lenders would have some sort of return on investment.

I realize we have differing perspectives.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 02:58 pm
@roger,
Quote:

I think the two quotes I've extracted sum up the problem nicely. There are qualified borrowers out there who would like to own a home. There are homes begging to be bought. If we would quit adjusting rates and even loan principle, the prices would have to drop, and the market would clear. This might even restore faith that contracts have meaning and lenders would have some sort of return on investment.

I realize we have differing perspectives.


I don't think this is entirely correct.

Those homes 'begging to be bought' are mostly in foreclosure, and people aren't just sitting around with cash to pay for the houses. Also, many banks are holding on to tons of properties, because they don't want to take a bath on them. At the same time, lending standards have tightened quite a bit in the last two years and we're in the middle of a big job recession.

I don't see any persuasive evidence here that Obama's proposals to help prevent foreclosures are in any way hurting the housing market. There are a wide variety of factors at play and helping people stay in their homes is a better idea then just letting the chips fall where they may...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  0  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 03:08 pm
@firefly,
firefly- of course there are regional differences. but the housing market has a long way to go to recover nationally/ I am sure that you know that the housing market is one of the most important drivers for consumer spending and that consumer spending is 70% of the economy. If housing doesn't improve radically soon, then consumer spending will not get better and Unemployment, the death toll for Democrats running in November, will not be lowered significantly.


Note:

In the economic world, there is widespread agreement that consumer spending accounts for 65-70% of Gross Domestic Product. As I will point out below, however, consumer spending that normally increases by 2-4% each year actually fell in the last half of 2008 and the first half of 2009.
*********************************************************************
One of the main reasons that consumer spending has softened is the continuing housing slump. It's a classic "catch 22" in that the more home prices fall, the less people have to spend, and millions of housing related jobs have been lost as well. While some analysts believe we have seen the worst of the housing debacle, most agree that it will take years for home prices to recover to where they were at the peak in late 2007.

firefly
 
  3  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 08:50 pm
@MASSAGAT,
Quote:
One of the main reasons that consumer spending has softened is the continuing housing slump. It's a classic "catch 22" in that the more home prices fall, the less people have to spend, and millions of housing related jobs have been lost as well.


MASSAGAT, I'm not sure I can agree with that conclusion. Consumer spending depends on a lot of factors, many of which have nothing to do with the housing market.
And it's not true that the more home prices fall, the less people have to spend. That might be true for people who are selling homes at depressed prices, but most people are not selling their homes. If you're not selling your home, or planning on selling it in the near future, why should the current market value of your home matter to you at all? In fact, I'd be rather happy if the county I live in reassessed my house at a lower value, because I'd see a reduction in my property tax. Paying less property tax would give me more money to spend because I live in an area where property taxes are very high and constitute a major problem for homeowners.

The health of the housing market, which also includes new home construction, certainly affects the general economy. But, for people who aren't buying or selling homes right now, and who aren't employed in construction or real estate, and who have no trouble meeting their mortgage payments, or have no mortgage payments, I'm not sure that the state of the housing market is directly influencing them or their spending habits. I know the state of the housing market hasn't influenced my spending habits in the past few years.

In the past, too many people may have drawn upon the appreciated equity in their home by using home equity loans or home equity lines of credit. This may have actually encouraged them to spend too far beyond their means, not unlike using a credit card for the same purpose. If fewer people are thinking about getting such loans now, because home values have declined, I think that's a good thing. The less unnecessary debt people incur, the better, particularly in a troubled economy.
0 Replies
 
MASSAGAT
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 02:16 am
firefly--When people feel they are poorer, they do not spend as much as they previously did. Most people in the USA count their homes as the major asset. When your major asset declines in value, especially if you are looking to retire in five or ten years, you look to save more money( Savings are up) and to spend less.

People who buy homes spend a great deal of money in the furbishing of the home as well as the upkeep.

The economy will not rebound until the consumer spends much more. The consumer is facing the prospect of much higher health insurance premiums, a
dangerous Unemployment Rate, extreme caution by small and large business to expand and hire more people as well as raise salaries(They don't know what else Obama has in store for them. Indeed, just this week, Verizon, Caterpillar and ATT indicated that there may be changes in their bottom line and employment because they must meet the strictures of the new ObamaHealthCarePlan.
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 03:47 am
@MASSAGAT,
MASSAGAT, you're not succeeding in convincing me that people, average consumers, are spending less because of their home values, or fears about anything that Obama, in particular, is doing.

Of course, people spend less when the economy is precarious, particularly people who are worried about losing jobs, or whose incomes have declined, or whose investments are not doing well, or anyone who worries about not having money for basic necessities. And people should be prudent in a still uncertain economy. They should try to save more money. One of the problems we had before was that people were spending too much--buying homes they really couldn't afford, running up credit card debt, spending too much and saving too little. Trying to live within one's means is a good lesson to learn.

But all is not doom and gloom. The stock market has perked up, and along with it, the retirement assets of a lot of people. Interest rates are low, but inflation is not a problem. Fixed income returns are low, but there are opportunities for growth in the stock market, so speculative investments offer the possibility for decent returns. Those things have reassured many consumers.

People are still shopping and buying. Maybe not quite as robustly as before, but the cash registers are still ringing. And there are incentives to keep people buying. The problems of the auto makers created incentives to buy cars, either in terms of reduced prices or low (or no) interest financing. And, almost everywhere else you turn, you can find price cuts that make buying things very tempting. I have personally been doing my bit to keep the economy humming by shopping and buying in my usual fashion. Smile

We both know that Obama is not to blame for the economic mess. And other voters know that as well. And the economy is improving, slowly, but it's getting there. The health care legislation isn't going to affect the consumer spending of the average person. In fact, it will give some people more money to spend by reducing their medical and drug costs.

Passing the health care bill has invigorated and solidified the Democrats, and it's also enhanced Obama's stature as the leader of the party. More importantly, it's also helped Obama's stature on the world stage, because he can be now be seen as an effective leader on his own homefront. I also think we're going to see a tougher Obama from now on. By nature he is conciliatory, he really believes in negotiating, and he really tried for bi-partisanship. But the Republicans put up such a stonewall they really threatened to derail anything he wanted to accomplish. He just learned he can't let them do that, and if he has to forgo bi-partisan agreement, so be it. Hence those appointments he just made while Congress is in recess.

So right now, I think Obama has strengthened not just his image, but his actual position. If the Republicans do nothing but obstruct between now and November, they won't have anything to offer to the voters--they certainly won't have leadership to offer. Right now, I think the President is looking pretty good.
MASSAGAT
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 02:54 am
@firefly,
firefly, you wrote:

So right now, I think Obama has strengthened not just his image, but his actual position. If the Republicans do nothing but obstruct between now and November, they won't have anything to offer to the voters--they certainly won't have leadership to offer. Right now, I think the President is looking pretty good.

******************************************************************************

I disagree. I disagree because just a week after the signing of the Healthcare Bill, Obama is still losing ground in the polls. His approval ratings have dropped steadily in the long run since January 2009.

Note:
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 10:17 am
@MASSAGAT,
MASSAGAT, I really don't think the latest polls are predictive of what can happen at the voting booth in November. Many people still don't know what's actually in the health care bill, or they have distorted ideas about what it contains. The Dems and Obama now have to sell and explain it to the general public. When more of the general public knows what's actually in it, and what isn't, it may well win wider acceptance, and Obama's poll numbers will go back up. The speech the President gave this week on the health care bill was very good, and, if he keeps that up, it will help to counter some of the Republican nonsense about the arrival of "Armageddon".

The latest job figures are also positive--finally. We're still a long way from where we want to be (yesterday I heard an economic pundit say it might take 5 years to bring employment back to the level it was at before the recession), but any positive uptick is better than the continuous downward slide we have been on.
Quote:

The New York Times
April 2, 2010
U.S. Economy Added 162,000 Jobs in March, Most in 3 Years
By CATHERINE RAMPELL and JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ

The clouds have parted.

After more than two years in which more than 8 million jobs were lost, the country’s nonfarm payrolls surged in March.

Employers added 162,000 jobs last month, and employment numbers in the previous two months were revised upward. Nationwide, the unemployment rate held steady at 9.7 percent.

To many ordinary, out-of-work Americans, the recovery may finally start to feel real.

“The key message from this report is that we’ve finally turned the corner,” said Nigel Gault, chief United States economist at IHS Global Insight. “Going forward, we should expect things to strengthen further over the rest of the year.”

Christina D. Romer, chairwoman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, said in a statement that the report showed “continued signs of gradual labor market healing.”

Ms. Romer added, however, that “there will likely be bumps in the road ahead.”

Nearly a third of the gains came from temporary hiring for the 2010 Census, which will continue over the next couple of months. The report was also complicated by a rebound from weather-related work stoppages in February.

But even setting aside these caveats, many Americans found work in March.

“Every major industry, except financial services and information, showed gains in employment,” John Ryding, chief economist at RDQ Economics, said. “From manufacturing, to construction, to retail, it really didn’t matter. They’re all hiring now.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/03/business/economy/03jobs.html?hp=&pagewanted=print


So, this economic news is good for Obama and the Democrats. The economy is probably on far more people's minds than heath care.

I also think the Republicans are making a big mistake in letting the most extreme right-wing base of their party do most of their talking for them, and then having their party leaders actually mimic the rhetoric of this faction. This is going to turn off independent voters, and that's the group that both parties have to compete for.

If Obama is in difficulty, I think it's with the more liberal elements of the Democratic party. He's too centrist and not progressive enough for them. They expected him to be much more liberal than he's turning out to be. With all the carrying on that the Republicans are doing about encroaching socialism and "Armageddon", Obama really isn't very liberal, he's much closer to the center.

If voters are still angry in November, they'll vote all incumbents out of office--from both parties. Even the Tea Partiers are going after some Republicans. Different groups are angry for different reasons, but there is a lot of general dissatisfaction with government, both for getting us into a recession (the Republicans) and for not getting us out of it fast enough despite huge government expenditures of money (the Democrats). That, plus all the nasty partisan bickering that went on with the health care bill, doesn't make either party look like a sure-fire alternative when it comes to problem solving. The Democrats may have a slight positive edge simply because they are more actively taking the initiative. If the Republicans just continue to obstruct and block, they aren't offering much in terms of change, and they have no strong party leader.

Right now, Obama is showing decisive leadership on several fronts, including foreign policy and national security, as well as domestic issues. He is getting bolder, and I think that will pay off for him with a much more positive appraisal in the polls once the dust from the nasty health care debate settles. I think the public does want to see a strong leader in the White House, and I also think that most people have a positive image of Obama personally, even if they disagree with some of his policies.
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 10:39 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
I really don't think the latest polls are predictive of what can happen at the voting booth in November. Many people still don't know what's actually in the health care bill, or they have distorted ideas about what it contains. The Dems and Obama now have to sell and explain it to the general public. When more of the general public knows what's actually in it, and what isn't, it may well win wider acceptance, and Obama's poll numbers will go back up.


I disagree...I don't see anybody changing their current position on the healthcare bill because the Dems in Congress have not given the president any substantive things he can point to that will demonstrably prove that a person is better off now that the thing has passed. All people will see over the next few months is increases in their insurance premiums. The president's flowerely but repetitious rhetoric that "this was good for people...just wait and see" won't fly with voters since very few of the "benefits" will be realized before 2013.

Having said that, the economy will destroy the Democrats, not Obamacare in the long run. It is a huge mistake for Obama to continue to tout healthcare even now after its passed. With the exception of a couple weeks in Jan/Feb 2009 and another couple weeks in Mar 2010, he's spent his entire presidency on this one issue. The economy must turn with substantial decreases in the unemployment rate before Nov so Obama can really claim his near-trillion dollar stimulus bill actually did something good. Independents have already and will continue to flock to the Anti-Democrat party unless the economy makes a decided recovery in the next few months.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 10:51 am
@slkshock7,
You'd be hard-pressed to find an economist who thinks that the ARRA didn't do our economy quite a bit of good, silk.

I do like how you say 'the Anti-Democrat' party. It shows an awareness on your part that people do not trust the Republicans, even if they don't like everything the Dems are doing.

I must also point out that Obama wouldn't have spent the last year working on healthcare, if your party didn't do everything they could to drag the process out and stop it. You're blaming him for something that was caused by YOUR elected leaders...

Cycloptichorn
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 11:22 am
@slkshock7,
slkshock7, you expect people to change their views on the health care bill in only a week? After all the confusion and disinformation that's been put out there? The President was right this week when he said you don't plant seeds and expect a garden to grow overnight. He's just begun to get out there and explain what's in the bill--give him time.

And many people will see a benefit by November--children with pre-existing conditions will be covered, seniors will see reduced costs for prescription drugs, those under age 26 can still be covered by their parent's insurance etc. Insurance premiums have been going up before the bill was passed, the bill may actually slow this down. The government is going to watch any price increases carefully, and I doubt the insurers will get away with any outrageous jumps.

Quote:
The economy must turn with substantial decreases in the unemployment rate before Nov


But that was today's good news. We were losing 500,000 to 700,000 jobs a month before. That horrible downward slide in employment appears to have halted, and jobs have actually been added--finally. We do appear to have turned a corner. The unemployment situation will continue to improve, but that will likely happen slowly. This recovery will take years. There is no way to climb out of a recession rapidly, and employment is the last thing to substantially improve in a recession, regardless of what this government does. But at least we're not in cardiac arrest anymore, so something positive is happening.

Obama has not spend his whole presidency on the issue of health care. If you believe that, you really haven't been paying attention. I am continually impressed with how many different things he has been able to address--both domestically and internationally. The man seems to be a dynamo, and doesn't appear to be ignoring anything. Give him a little credit--he inherited an economy in shambles, two wars, and a lot of negative foreign attitudes toward our country. Can you personally remember the last time a new President walked into such a mess?
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 11:37 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo,
Your party had a filibuster-proof majority until 2 months ago. You yourself might blame Republicans for doing "everything they could to drag the process out and stop it", but most folks will blame Obama and the Dems for being completely ineffectual despite overwhelming majorities throughout Govt.

The fact that you folks can't seem to absorb is that it isn't Republican obstructionism...it's the bill itself or more accurately...the cost of the bill that is behind the opposition.

As for the success of the ARRA...I think that only those economists who initially touted it as necessary are now continuing to tout it as successful. And those who touted it as a useless waste of money are continuing to tout is as such.

You may recall that you and I have an on-going (and by your own admission) quite fair evaluation of what constitutes success or failure of the bill. Still remains to be seen who will be on the winning end of our disagreement, but your own metrics at the time especially re: jobs growth this year are failing...

Cyclo wrote:
I would like to see 4 consecutive quarters of growth in 201o; for lending to increase and foreclosures to decrease; for the job market to have a year of consecutive months of adding more than 150k jobs per month in 2010.
source

I'm waiting until Feb of next year to assess the remaining points...but several of them are also not looking too good for your side.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Apr, 2010 11:48 am
@slkshock7,
slkshock7 wrote:

Cyclo,
Your party had a filibuster-proof majority until 2 months ago. You yourself might blame Republicans for doing "everything they could to drag the process out and stop it", but most folks will blame Obama and the Dems for being completely ineffectual despite overwhelming majorities throughout Govt.


And you seem to forget that they passed a bill under the majority in December, 60-40. I don't understand how you can call them 'completely ineffectual' when they passed the bill. I mean, it shows a lack of analysis on your part.

Quote:
The fact that you folks can't seem to absorb is that it isn't Republican obstructionism...it's the bill itself or more accurately...the cost of the bill that is behind the opposition.


Bullshit. Republican obstructionism absolutely delayed the HC bill, as well as complete lies and falsehoods perpetrated throughout the media (death panels? c'mon). The Republicans in the House were especially shameless in dragging the thing out.

Quote:
As for the success of the ARRA...I think that only those economists who initially touted it as necessary are now continuing to tout it as successful. And those who touted it as a useless waste of money are continuing to tout is as such.


Once again, bullshit. Do us a favor and look at reports which survey economists on this issue; they nearly universally agree that the ARRA helped the economy significantly over the last year. Only Republican politicians disagree with this.

Quote:
You may recall that you and I have an on-going (and by your own admission) quite fair evaluation of what constitutes success or failure of the bill. Still remains to be seen who will be on the winning end of our disagreement, but your own metrics at the time especially re: jobs growth this year are failing...

Cyclo wrote:
I would like to see 4 consecutive quarters of growth in 201o; for lending to increase and foreclosures to decrease; for the job market to have a year of consecutive months of adding more than 150k jobs per month in 2010.
source

I'm waiting until Feb of next year to assess the remaining points...but several of them are also not looking too good for your side.


Well, we will have 4 consecutive quarters of growth, so that part's cool. The job market has lagged but is adding jobs so that's looking better then it was before; and the housing market is still looking bad, though lending has increased somewhat. It's a mixed bag so far.

What is 'your side?' Surely you agree with me that these things would be good for all of us?

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

Immortality and Doctor Volkov - Discussion by edgarblythe
Sleep Paralysis - Discussion by Nick Ashley
On the edge and toppling off.... - Discussion by Izzie
Surgery--Again - Discussion by Roberta
PTSD, is it caused by a blow to the head? - Question by Rickoshay75
THE GIRL IS ILL - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/29/2021 at 10:27:59