What Party(ies) will control the House and Senate after the November Elections ?

@Advocate,

Well we would likely not have the albatross of health care and endless "stimulus" expenditures around our necks. In addition we would likely have found a reasonable solution to the problem of illegal immigrants. We would likely be actively pursuing policies that would improve our energy independence and reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well. Business activity would likely be greater and unemployment going down.

Hardly easy street, but vastly better than what we have now.

Are you forecasting continued Democrat control of the Congress after November??

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Relative to your health-care comment, I guess you have no problem with 45,000 people dying each year due to lack of coverage, or people dropped because of sickness, or people denied coverage due to a pre-existing medical condition, etc. The old health system, with which McCain had no problem, was killing our country. I don't see endless stimuli; after all, Obama has only been in office for a little more than 1 1/2 years. Moreover, the stimuli largely worked. We were losing 750,000 jobs a month when he came in office, and there are now modest job-growth gains. Further, McCain has been all over the map relative to illegals. Who knows what he would have done. McCain would not have been as tough as Obama is relative to auto mpg and emission requirements. Whether voters would reward this, I do not know.

I don't see a huge change in either the House or Senate. Increasingly, independents and the undecided will properly link Reps to the Tea Partyites, meaning the former are too radical. The Dems will successfully promote this view. Unfortunately for the country, the Reps will have more power to stymy needed legislation.

2 Replies

@Advocate,

Lots of words, but no answer to the question. Typical.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Well we would likely not have the albatross of health care and endless "stimulus" expenditures around our necks. In addition we would likely have found a reasonable solution to the problem of illegal immigrants. We would likely be actively pursuing policies that would improve our energy independence and reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well. Business activity would likely be greater and unemployment going down.

Hardly easy street, but vastly better than what we have now.

Are you forecasting continued Democrat control of the Congress after November??

What a farce, George. If only we had elected McCain - then the recession wouldn't have happened, immigration would be solved, energy would be solved, and we would be all eating magical fairy cookies while riding unicorns!

Your assertion that business activity would be greater and unemployment dropping - with no stimulus bills and no bailouts of GM - is a complete and total joke. Upon what do you base this projection?!?!! Nothing at all, other than an ideology which has never led to actual results - other than enriching the already rich, that is.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

And on what do you base your own analogous assertions? You are very given to this mode of attack but actually practice the behavior you demand only rarely yourself.

The only significant increases we have seen in employment have come from transient government programs such as the census and various make work programs in the much touted "stimulus" program. The name "stimulus" by the way refers to its promised effect on stimulating private economic activity. Damn little of that has occurred. However the resulting public debt is very real, and it will be a drag on the economy for a long time to come.

Indeed businesses that might have contemplated investments are sitting on their cash waiting to see on just whose neck the administration will nest deign to put its much touted boot and what new regulations might confound their inverstment plans. The rogue elephant in the room now is the Democrat Congress.

BTW, I didn't say the recession wouldn't have occurred, or even thast "energy or immigration "would be solved. As to the fairy cookies and unicorns, they are your fantasy, not mine. However, both energy and immigrations issues would very likely not be paralyzed as they are now as the current administration attempts to placate its own zealots; make political hay out of ethnic issues; and at the same time avoid screwing up our economy and society completely.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

And on what do you base your own analogous assertions? You are very given to this mode of attack but actually practice the behavior you demand only rarely yourself.

Which assertions? If you were to point them out, I'd be happy to tell you what I base them on.

Quote:

The only significant increases we have seen in employment have come from transient government programs such as the census and various make work programs in the much touted "stimulus" program.

The Stim bill helped save thousands of jobs on the State level, including a lot of first responders; the Auto bailouts helped save millions of jobs. You claim that McCain wouldn't have done either one, yet simultaneously say that employment would be rising again. How do you account for the several million additional unemployed - or do you just pretend that they wouldn't exist?

Quote:

The name "stimulus" by the way refers to its promised effect on stimulating private economic activity. Damn little of that has occurred.

Some has occurred; but not enough, true, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that the Stim bill was about half the size of what it should have been.

Quote:

However the resulting public debt is very real, and it will be a drag on the economy for a long time to come.

I don't take Republicans who complain about the debt seriously, as they are inherently un-serious about doing anything about it. Or you'll agree with me, that we should raise taxes - immediately - on all people?

Quote:

Indeed businesses that might have contemplated investments are sitting on their cash waiting to see on just whose neck the administration will nest deign to put its much touted boot and what new regulations might confound their inverstment plans. The rogue elephant in the room now is the Democrat Congress.

This is rank speculation on your part - an ideological stance with no evidence to either prove or disprove it. I figured this is what you were basing your projections on...

[quote\BTW, I didn't say the recession wouldn't have occurred, or even thast "energy or immigration "would be solved. As to the fairy cookies and unicorns, they are your fantasy, not mine. However, both energy and immigrations issues would very likely not be paralyzed as they are now as the current administration attempts to placate its own zealots; make political hay out of ethnic issues; and at the same time avoid screwing up our economy and society completely.[/quote]

I think you're totally wrong. There is no reason to believe that McCain could even grasp these issues, mentally, let alone build coalitions to solve them. He would have been facing an actively hostile Congress and been unable to pass anything but compromise bills. In short, I find your predictions to be specious and completely without merit, for you ignore several key factors of the equation..

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Quote:

The old health system, with which McCain had no problem, was killing our country.

In what way, exactly, was it killing our country? Or is this just rhetoric that you use to make it seem as though the end were near in order to scare the masses who don't think for themselves? Because I gotta tell you, while the US health care system needed some attention, I don't think it was "killing our country."

2 Replies

Oh yeah, to answer the question posed by the title of this thread, I still think the dems will control both houses albeit by the slimmest of margins in the House. I think the Senate will fall somewhere around a 53-47 split. Just a gut feeling in both cases.

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

Quote:
The old health system, with which McCain had no problem, was killing our country.

In what way, exactly, was it killing our country?

It was increasing in cost by 8-10% per year with no end in sight while providing mediocre service to only some of our population. Insurance rates skyrocketed over the last decade and medical bankruptcies did as well.

Quote:

Or is this just rhetoric that you use to make it seem as though the end were near in order to scare the masses who don't think for themselves?

Oh, I dunno, that seems pretty unsustainable to me. Especially while costs are dropping or relatively flat in other systems.

Quote:

Because I gotta tell you, while the US health care system needed some attention, I don't think it was "killing our country."

Perhaps you should put some more thought into it.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Since you referred only to the effects of the stimulus legislation in delaying the day of budget reconning for bloated state governments, and ommitted any reference to the stimulation of private economic activity, I'll take that as anb acknoweledgement of the validity of my point.

Saving first responders and the like in state governments is a joke. A time honored practice of all bureaucracies confronted with threatened budget cuts is to cut back on the very services deemed most critical by the public (and thus avoid the serious bloat within). This, of course is exactly the opposite of what should happen. New Jersey is giving us all an example of what a truly effective government can do to address the underlying problem of expensive and unaccountable bureaucracies focused primarily on their own welfare. This aspect of the stimulus bill was merely a payoff to the public sector labor unions which provide so much money and support for the Democrat party, and which do so much to drain the public treasury while resisting accountability in any form for the services they are supposed to provide..

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:

Quote:
The old health system, with which McCain had no problem, was killing our country.

In what way, exactly, was it killing our country?

It was increasing in cost by 8-10% per year with no end in sight while providing mediocre service to only some of our population. Insurance rates skyrocketed over the last decade and medical bankruptcies did as well.

My company is looking at increases in our employee health care policies far greater than anything seen in the past decade. Moreover they are directly attributable to features of the new legislation which Cyclo touts as restraining our costs. This is just one of the many disincentives for hiring new workers that this inept administration has created.

In the past decade our insurance costs escallated at an average annual rate of 4.5% - well below the rate that Cyclo touts - without proof or reference.

For reference we have about 550 employees and offer a fairly standard mix of PPO & HMO plans, ranging from Blue Cross to Kaiser Permanente, with an 80-20 split between employer & employee for the costs.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Since you referred only to the effects of the stimulus legislation in delaying the day of budget reconning for bloated state governments, and ommitted any reference to the stimulation of private economic activity, I'll take that as anb acknoweledgement of the validity of my point.

You still have no way to account for those lost jobs. They count on unemployment reports and are people who would be then flooding the marketplace. You specifically claimed that unemployment would be going down; how do you arrive at that conclusion, while simultaneously advocating actions that would result in millions of additional lost jobs? I haven't seen any explanation from you on this.

Quote:

Saving first responders and the like in state governments is a joke. A time honored practice of all bureaucracies confronted with threatened budget cuts is to cut back on the very services deemed most critical by the public (and thus avoid the serious bloat within). This, of course is exactly the opposite of what should happen. New Jersey is giving us all an example of what a truly effective government can do to address the underlying problem of expensive and unaccountable bureaucracies focused primarily on their own welfare. This aspect of the stimulus bill was merely a payoff to the public sector labor unions which provide so much money and support for the Democrat party, and which do so much to drain the public treasury while resisting accountability in any form for the services they are supposed to provide..

I disagree with you that it's a joke. I agree with you that bureaucracies get bloated and have to be culled from time to time. Let us examine, however, the recent Oakland police layoffs. Do you pretend that this same sort of thing wouldn't have happened on a much larger scale without the stim bill?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:

Quote:
The old health system, with which McCain had no problem, was killing our country.

In what way, exactly, was it killing our country?

It was increasing in cost by 8-10% per year with no end in sight while providing mediocre service to only some of our population. Insurance rates skyrocketed over the last decade and medical bankruptcies did as well.

My company is looking at increases in our employee health care policies far greater than anything seen in the past decade. Moreover they are directly attributable to features of the new legislation which Cyclo touts as restraining our costs. This is just one of the many disincentives for hiring new workers that this inept administration has created.

In the past decade our insurance costs escallated at an average annual rate of 4.5% - well below the rate that Cyclo touts - without proof or reference.

You should be ashamed to ever bring up 'proof or reference.' You haven't ever provided one ******* link or proof for ANYTHING you've ever written.

Now, let me show you how it's done, George:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32860555/

Quote:

Health costs double for workers over decade
Study: More cost increases expected in company-sponsored plans in 2010

U.S. workers who have health insurance for their families through employers have seen premiums more than double in the last decade, according to a survey released on Tuesday.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average premium for a company-provided family health insurance plan rose from $5,791 in 1999 to $13,375, a 131 percent jump.

Employees' portion of those costs have risen accordingly, from $1,543 on average a decade ago to $3,515 this year.

Employers, too, have see their costs shoot up from $4,247 in contributions in 1999 to $9,860 in 2009 on average.

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/images/HealthPremiumsRiseChart.jpg

That's more than I even claimed!

Here's another graph showing just how much our costs have exploded compared to other countries, while the quality of service has remained flat - or dropped:

Your companies' costs notwithstanding, George, the rest of the country has been experiencing much higher rises in costs. It is clear that it is time for the system to change. And that doesn't count the ancillary benefits, such as much greater access to insurance for the poor and unemployed, and the ending of Recissions - not that you give a **** about that, I'm sure.

You might want to try linking and providing evidence for your arguments sometime, it's a nice feeling and it's easy to do. Took me 5 minutes.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I disagree with you that it's a joke. I agree with you that bureaucracies get bloated and have to be culled from time to time. Let us examine, however, the recent Oakland police layoffs. Do you pretend that this same sort of thing wouldn't have happened on a much larger scale without the stim bill?
Cycloptichorn

I believe the Oakland Police layoffs were a perfect example of the point I was making. The notion that there was nothing else in the Oakland city government that could be cut along with the police is ludicrous in the extreme. I have had substantial business relations with the City of Oakland for some years and know the cast of characters fairly well from Ron Dellums, to the perennial Lary Reid and our new/old contender Don Perata. Dellums was playing to his 14th street supporters and protecting the cronies doing very well indeed feeding off the City government.

I think all that should be obvious even to you.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Nevertheless, no matter who you blame, there would still be far less police and firefighters on the streets, George. I agree with you that Dellums is an idiot; but what would you have them cut instead? Specifically.

You didn't respond to my request for information as to how unemployment would be less, while millions more would be unemployed. Are you going to do so, or are you just going to ignore this obvious flaw in your argument?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I think you need a little refresher in arithmetic. You claimed 8%-10% annual increases in health insurance and then provided a link that establishes 6%-7% increases. Which is it? The 4.5% increases I cited are fact for our company.

In the information age a company's health insurance premiums are a direct function of the claims submitted by the employees of the company. We have run several wellness programs that have proven effective in containing costs, and give employees a menue of benefits to choose from. It worksd well, though its future is now in doubt due to the clumsy and heavy hand of an interventionist government.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I think you need a little refresher in arithmetic. You claimed 8%-10% annual increases in health insurance and then provided a link that establishes 6%-7% increases. Which is it? The 4.5% increases I cited are fact for our company.

You assert that this is a fact for your company, but how is anyone to know? You could be either wrong or low-balling it. Anecdotal evidence is useless in online conversations.

Not only that, I don't know how you claim that there were only 6-7% increases. Let's do the math:

In 1999, according to Kaiser, the average premiums were $5,791 per year, per family. Multiply that by an annual rate of 1.09 (an increase of 9% per year) and the final total after a decade is: $13,709 - or roughly exactly what the article said the new averages were.

You ought to do the math before criticizing, George.

Where in my link does it claim 6-7% increases over the last decade? Point it out specifically.

Quote:

In the information age a company's health insurance premiums are a direct function of the claims submitted by the employees of the company. We have run several wellness programs that have proven effective in containing costs, and give employees a menue of benefits to choose from. It worksd well, though its future is now in doubt due to the clumsy and heavy hand of an interventionist government.

Or, you'll figure out how to do it under the new system. So sorry that the government occasionally changes the rules in ways which make you have to do more work. I guess the fact that a bunch of people are helped a lot by this doesn't justify that extra work for you....

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cy, I take it then you believe our country was headed for death due to our health care system? Really? (I am making an assumption that you agree with the statement, otherwise why defend it.) I don't believe our country was dying due to a health care system that even with its flaws was better than most of the rest of the world's.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Your own post (above) has a chart which indicates an 8.7% annual rise between 1999 and 2009 and projects a 6.1% annual rise since then. This, of course is only a survey, and I don't know the regions investigated or the accuravcy of the survey. I do know what we have paid over the last decade.

In addition, health care services and pharmaceuticals have expanded greatly during that period. Treatments are available now that weren't available then and the number of not-critically-necessary ancillary services has multiplied. (Seen the scooter chair ads lately?). We use generic medicines where possible and limit unnecessary extras. If you are seriously ill there are few limits.

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

Cy, I take it then you believe our country was headed for death due to our health care system? Really? (I am making an assumption that you agree with the statement, otherwise why defend it.)

We were on an inherently dangerous path, one in which health-care costs continued to skyrocket, with no brakes. It begins to directly affect our competitiveness as a nation, in the same way that our auto companies' competitiveness is currently hurt by health care and retirement costs spiraling out of control.

Quote:

I don't believe our country was dying due to a health care system that even with its flaws was better than most of the rest of the world's.

I wouldn't call our system better than most of the worlds'; not the developed, modern world for sure. The very fact that Recission existed was a travesty in itself.

Refer to the graph that I posted above, showing our health-care costs rising relative to everyone else's - you think that just doesn't matter, in the long run? Or that things would have magically changed on their own?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

What Party(ies) will control the House and Senate after the November Elections ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know