world

Obama, Senate Republicans bicker over economic stimulus bill

81 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

81 Comments
Login to comment

The time to act is now. Bang on Mr President. It's great to know YOU are in charge. The main man, The Chief. In Obama we trust. Even Republicans are following your lead.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are funds, as well, for construction of highways and bridges, and it also includes a “Buy American” protectionist measure for iron and steel that has drawn strong criticism from major U.S. trading partners including Japan, Australia and Canada.

Criticize all you want, allies, the purchase of US iron and steel for infrastructure projects does NOT violate any provisions of the WTO. The WTO treaty allowed nations to make exceptions for government procurement for specific industries. What industries did the USA decide to include under the exception? That's right: iron and steel.

The outcry against the Buy American provisions is largely being orchestrated by corporate lobbyists working on behalf of foreign businesses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"our greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression"

That would be the Jimmy Carter Misery Index. We're not there yet.

Even Republicans are caving into this boondoggle. I can't stand it...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama is your saviour, you should be reverant to him with his humble way of trying to help America become relevant again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alf - "Obama is your saviour..."

Har!

"his humble way of trying to help America become relevant again"

Heck, we're still relevant! Everyone and his uncle are blaming us for the global economic crisis!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I find it funny - people like Sarge sat on their hands and said and did nothing when the previous U.S. administration burnt through more $6 TRILLION.

And now, when the new administration is trying valiantly to salvage a semblence of honor and financial sensibility from the carnage created by the previous administration, the same people are sitting on their hands yet again.

Sometimes, you've just got to wonder who Republicans like Sarge actually support, because it sure as heck isn't America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Every single Democrat and 3 Republicans better hope this trillion dollar scam of theirs works or they will be the ones looking for work in two and four years.

The fleecing of America continues.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"And now, when the new administration is trying valiantly to salvage a semblence of honor and financial sensibility"

With this $800 billion boondoggle? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Republicans like Sarge"

I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR - "The fleecing of America continues"

I get a real kick out of watching you and other Republicans rant and rave about the cost ("Oh, the COST!!') of Obama's $790 billion stimulus package, when you and your fellow comrades sat in basements and twiddled your thumbs whistling in the wind pretending you didn't notice when the previous U.S. administration burnt its way through more than $6 TRILLION over the last 8 years.

Another funny thing that exposes your outright hypocracy is the fact this stimulus package wouldn't be half necessary if the the previous U.S. administration hadn't wasted so much money and had to resort to borrowing from foreigers to fund this package.

But please go on - after me now, 1, 2, 3 - 'The cost! Oh, The COST!!!' ha ha :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge....you supported the wasting of $6 trillion over the last 8 years that helped terrorists and blackened the name of his nation, but don't support a $790 bilion package that will help Americans.

Sarge, where were you hiding when Bush & co. fleeced America of more than $6 trillion? I don't remember you saying all those spending bills the Republicans rubber-stamped like robots were too expensive.

Clearly, patriotism has never been one of your fortes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh yeah, ......"The cost! Oh, The COST!!! The cost of this stimulus package is an outrage!!"

(No wonder the Republicans have zero credibility, ha ha :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Watching Republicans trying to attack Obama's rescue package is like watching the architects of the Leaning Tower of Pisa trying to stop efforts to straighten the Tower.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

c'mon sushi, you are sadly mistaken. obama doesn't even call it a stimulus package anymore acknowledging CBO's assessment that the trillion in government spending does very little in the way of stimulating the economy. it is now accurately being referred to by the wet behind the ears president as a spending package. its a trillion dollar payoff by the democrats to its loyal followers. you know it, i know it, everyone knows it and when things really go to hell, it will be the Democrats who will be responsible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR - "everyone knows it and when things really go to hell, it will be the Democrats who will be responsible."

It's statements like this that illustrate precisely why the Republicans have zero credibility and had their clueless butts nuked in 2 elections in a row.

VOR, I think about the only thing I don't understand is why Republicans like you and Sarge moan about spending now when you said nothing about the previous administration that spent like a drunken sailor and got you into the mess we now have to ...spend our way out of.

Funnily, you and Sarge and many others caused this whole mess.

But, even funnier, you can't seem to see it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Congressional Budget Office:

"Obama stimulus harmful over long haul"

President Obama's economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/cbo-obama-stimulus-harmful-over-long-haul/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

wuzzademcrat, did you say/do anything at all while you watched the previous U.S. administration burn through $6 trillion and get us into the state today where America now has no money at all and has to resort to getting Japanese and Chinese central bankers to agree to fund this latest bailout package?

Because I think if you did/said little or nothing, by bashing Obam's plan you expose yourself as a complete hypocrite.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sushisake has written:

"wuzzademcrat, did you say/do anything at all while you watched the previous U.S. administration burn through $6 trillion and get us into the state today where America now has no money at all and has to resort to getting Japanese and Chinese central bankers to agree to fund this latest bailout package?"

Are you trying to tell us you are American? Do you identify that much with Obama?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sushi, you are obviously confused. you'll have to show me where I ever supported the Federal Government mismanaging the nation's budget.

your inconsistency and hypocrisy is coming from the fact that your were against Bush overspending but not against Obama's overspending.

Bush overspending departed from the precepts of conservative government. An argument can be made that 911, two wars, a bunch of natural disasters had something to do with it, but it pales in comparison to the fleecing which is currently taking place. Of course the argument that this trillion dollar spending is for economic reasons but we all know its not. Its nothing more than disgusting political payoff to loyal democratic supporters and a downpayment for future support. It will hurt the country more than it helps it and Obama and his Congressional ding dongs are about to hurt the future of the next two to three generations. if you want to be party to the fleecing of America, that's your prerogative.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, and wuzzademcrat - what's the Republicans Grand Plan to save the economy they were responsible for tanking?

"Cut taxes"?

Like that worked......

Let's face it - the Republicans don't have a plan.

They are simply grandstanding like headless chickens and pretending to still be relevant by trying to chip away at a plan created by Obama and the Democrats.

It was beyond shameful that not one of the anti-American Republicans voted for the stimulus bill. And it was beyond shameful that supposed Americans like Sarge, and yourself don't back it either.

But we always knew you don't put America first and never did... :-)

Exactly whose side are you on?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sushisake:"Exactly whose side are you on?"

I'll play your silly little game and say that I am on your side. I'm on the side of whatever silly little country it is you are from.

Satisfied?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"you ( VOR ) and Sarge and many others caused this whole mess"

Just the "many others" please. Can't vouch for VOR, but heck, I'm not one of the people who live beyond their means. I may not be rich, but I have no debt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR - "your inconsistency and hypocrisy is coming from the fact that your were against Bush overspending but not against Obama's overspending."

I think you misunderestimated what I said.

I was flat against Bush's overspending - on the 2 wars and everything to do with them. They siphoned funds out of America and you will remember this led the former president to implement a spending freeze on every domestic program that wasn't related to defence last year.

Obama on the other hand wants to - shock, horror - spend money IN America.

And yet there the Republicans and their misguided supporters line up in droves against it.

What you and other Republicans completely miss is the fact that your govt. debt has skyrocket from $4 trillion to over $10 trillion under Bush, and you said and did nothing, and have next to nothing to show for it.

If that wasn't bad enough, you also cheerleaded the last Bush initiative late last year in which he gave $270-350 BILLION to banks and other financial institutions with no checks, balances or conditions.

And now there is bipartisan outrage at where the heck that money has gone.

It has just vanished into thin air.

Outrage from Republicans and their supporters? Not a squeak.

But there is a squeak, in fact a torrent of anger over Obama's stimulus bill, that is aimed and focused on spending money in America on Americans.

And yet you STILL manage to find something to hate about it.

It's mindboggling....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wuzzademacrat: You should be gratefull you have a president who believes in making America great and make it more e qual with his economic bill and all that.

Even us Conservatives admire him for his success, especially in a country that still had segraegation only a few decades ago and all that.

Let's hope he can help the poor and rid America of its ghettos which are a disgrace to all first world nations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge, VOR, wuzza, etc., - do you or any of the Republicans have any better plan than the one the Democrats are pushing?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Even us Conservatives admire him for his success, especially in a country that still had segraegation [segregation] only a few decades ago and all that."

It was Obama's party that fought to keep segregation. Wilson implemented it throughout the federal government and the armed forces.

You are quite entertaining, Alf.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And now there is bipartisan outrage at where the heck that money has gone.

thats the problem, there is not enough bipartisan outrage and once again those in power are about to line their pockets and the pockets of their supporters at the expense of future generations. utterly disgusting behavior particularly from the party that claims to represent the little guy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR - "thats the problem, there is not enough bipartisan outrage and once again those in power are about to line their pockets and the pockets of their supporters at the expense of future generations. utterly disgusting behavior."

VOR, um, did you express any dissent or outrage when the previous U.S. administration was handing out no-bid contracts to Halliburton, a company that is now being sued for the shoddy work it carried out that resulted in the death by electrocution of 2 U.S. servicemen?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sushi: did you? and if you did, why are you wearing blinders now?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

VOR, I am asking you. I was against the no-bid contracts.

The point is you. You seem to be against Obama's stimulus package but for Bush's out-of-control spending. I have the opposite view on both.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Don't worry about what these republicans want to post here. The bill will go through.

This time it's the democrats turn and just like 16 years ago when Bill Clinton went into office, we'll fix what they screwed up.

I remember 8 years ago, the repubulicans didn't care whether there were no WMD or not, they took us to war. Well, this time whether the republicans want it or not, we've got to get the economy working again. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I remember 8 years ago, the repubulicans didn't care whether there were no WMD or not, they took us to war. "

Our current Secretary of State voted for regime change and liberation of Iraq, as did the Ted Knight impersonator who is our VP.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Shall we see the totals for the last hour from Sushi? ;)

the previous U.S. administration: 7

Republicans: 14

Bush: 5

the former President: 1

In just over 60 minutes the man was able to mention the previous administration, Republicans, Bush, or the former President 27 times.

Does anyone here think that isn't creepy? ;) Come on, Sushi. Fess up. Did a Republican run over your dog when you were a child? Did you have a nasty divorce with a Republican lady? No one becomes this obsessed without some major trauma.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i'm not a big fan of no bid contracts either and for the life of me I have no clue why you even brought it up or if any of your arguments have any relevence to the issue at hand; the Democrats are about to spend one trillion dollars on earmarks poorly disguised as stimulus. Is this really the responsible government the people thought they were getting back in Nov?

that will be answered in less than 2 years, and again 2 years after that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well I can see where he's coming from. This country has been royally screwed these last 8 years. SushiSake3 is just relaxing. Soon as he shakes off some of the crud left behind, he'll feel better.

It just too bad that we had to go to the extremes of this bell to get the country running again. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wuzzademcrate: Them who are against freedom and stopping torture is them REpublicans. Whom i may add is against Mr Obama helping poor people with his bill.

Any other country would call him a hero, but some Americans think he's bad and that. He wants to save America finacially and make world peace.

How can anyone criticise his principle, and may i add my views is conservative with a capital C. Give him a chance to do what he believes in.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It just too bad that we had to go to the extremes of this bell to get the country running again

What is the basis for your confidence that a trillion dollar in government spending is going to have a positive effect on the economy?

Similiar measures were tried in the 30's and it proceeded to make things worse...much worse.

This is rolling the dice at best, rolling dice with a trillion dollars. Too rich for my blood and I live in Vegas.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In fact the two countries have quite a bit in common:

Britons are spending more than they earn, racking up a household debt-to-income ratio of 1.62 compared with 1.42 in the United States and 1.09 in Germany.

[In the UK] the growth was also fueled by soaring demand for debt on the back of rising real estate prices and relatively low interest rates in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Those who did not own a house rushed to join the homeowners watching their property triple in value.

So the Brits are in essentially the same boat at Americans, in contrast to continental Europeans where credit markets were never liberalized and there was no real estate bubble.

The most controversial part of the stimulus plan will be unveiled on Monday, part two of the bank bail-out. The first part was done on an ad hoc basis, making it difficult for investors to know who is solvent and who is not. Nobody's going to invest if there's any question, and we may have to pump a lot into the banking system to clean out the bad loans, which extend into the homes of too many Americans. "Tough love" will be necessary to deal with the basket cases.

Moderator: Readers, Britain is not relevant to this discussion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is a "spendilus" bill for future Americans to bear. It has little to do with jobs creation, but rather a social spending program in the form of payoff to the Democratic base in the U.S.(60%! can win re-election any day) Jobs are created mostly in public sectors, not bigger government control. More and more this policy is leading the U.S. closer to the fail socialism of Europe. Obama is not about the future, for he is about the moment of his own ego. The time will tell....remember FDR!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The British has free health care.

And if you're fortunate enough to have money, you can get decent health care through private insurance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

wuzzademcrat brings up the CBO's report that the stimulus will be harmful to the economy over the long haul. Yes, it does say that by 2019, GDP may be reduced by a net 0.1 to 0.3 percent.

According to the link, the CBO also estimates that near-term growth will be 1.4 to 4.1 percent growth higher than if there is no action, and in 2010, the plan will produce 1.2 to 3.6 percent growth. I would call that "stimulus." Those who claim the bill won't do anything over the near-term are refuted by the CBO.

A lot can happen between 2011 and 2019, and no one knows how bad things may get in over the short term if Congress just sits on its hands. Now, those in the Republican districts may have elected their representatives to obstruct or to sit and do nothing, but the Americans who voted for Democrats have been expecting action.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

wuzzademcrat brings up the CBO's report that the stimulus will be harmful to the economy over the long haul. Yes, it does say that by 2019, GDP may be reduced by a net 0.1 to 0.3 percent.

Yabits,

Thank you. Too many posters supply links with no original content. So you have to take on the author of the article cited, not the poster who linked it. What's the point?

We don't know what will happen, but we should all appreciate how we got into this mess.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We don't know what will happen, but we should all appreciate how we got into this mess.

Betzee, You are welcome.

To appreciate how we got into this mess, a good place to begin is to go back to the campaign of 2000: a time when the CBO was projecting federal surpluses in the trillions and Alan Greenspan was warning about the dangers of paying off too much of the national debt too soon. Oh, to be in the position of confronting that problem again!

During one of the debates between Bush and Gore on the subject of tax cuts, Bush swore up and down that his cuts -- tax cuts for the rich -- would take no more than a third of the projected surpluses (a lie), and that he would use a third to shore up Social Security (another lie), and that the final third would go towards a trillion-dollar emergency fund (sheer fantasy). The CBO was correct in its estimates that the then-proposed tax cuts would return the federal budget back into deficit terrority, and they were proven right -- especially when coupled with yet another Bush lie when he failed in his promise to keep federal discretionary spending to the limits set by his predecessor.

Other Republicans, for their part, insisted that the tax cuts would pay for themselves via the magic of supply-side economics. That they were proven wrong is a matter of record. The component of the deficits due to the tax cuts is far larger than the level of increased spending.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agee with Alf and Obama on this very strongly. I saw the talk Obama had with William Hague, where he stated Britains welfare state is "a beacon of hope" for the nation and he said America would to well to emulate it.

Obama wants to help everyone with his bill, especially the poor with his bill. He is a kind and lovely man respected in Britain by socialists and conservatives alike because he is genuine.

Moderator please don't delete asd i go slightly off topic. But my bed ridden living on a state pension mother was rushed to a free NHS hospital after a stroke and receieved wonderfull immediate treatment, by lovely nurses and doctors.

Free healthcare is not a dirty word America, it is your future, and should be your ambition.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits,

The Republicans also bought into the view that the Chinese lacked sufficient investment opportunities in their own country. Therefore we could rely on them to cover our shortfall indefinitely and, in the process, keep interest rates low. We knew they would continue to purchase treasuries; it enabled them to keep the value of their currency low which made their exports, most of which were sold to us, competitive.

Now the house of cards has fallen down and many people, whatever the merits of their case, are blaming the United States for talking the global economy down with it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Free healthcare is not a dirty word America, it is your future, and should be your ambition.

It's not free of course, its paid for through taxes. But what will push us in that direction is rising unemployment since ours is an employer-paid system. Now, if you're married your spouse may be able to carry you in the event you get the pink slip. But if you are not in that position, the thought of a medical emergency while you are unemployed presents the prospect of being in debt for the rest of your life.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People should be able to see through the Republican opposition to the economic stimulus bill and clearly detect that their motive is not what is best for the nation, but what most benefits the weakened Republican brand politically. No one can look over the Republican record of the past 8 years and claim that what they did was in the best interests of the United States.

But we see some posters already licking their chops that Obama and the Democrats will fail, and that the nation will sink deeper into the mess its in so that it may benefit Republicans in 2012 and 2016. In their wishes, they are certainly showing their true colors.

Noam Scheiber of The New Republic has written some pretty good points of what is the likely Republican strategy regarding the economic bill: "My guess is that the GOP's best strategy is to oppose the stimulus as close to unanimously as possible, but then have it pass anyway. Even with the stimulus, we're still likely to be in for a tough couple years. Which means that, in 2010, the GOP would be able to claim that Obama spent all this money with little to show for it, and that their objections have been born out. It will obviously be a preposterous claim--an economy barely limping along after nearly a trillion dollars of stimulus would have been in terrible shape with a smaller stimulus, or no stimulus at all--but the thing about politics is that you never get to see the counterfactual. I suspect the GOP would make some headway with this argument."

He concludes: "On the other hand, I wouldn't sweat it too much if I were the White House. There are a certain number of Republicans in swing districts whose constituents, with only a little prodding, will understand that the GOP's preference was to do almost nothing at a time when people wanted quick, decisive action. I'm just saying my scenario probably gets the GOP more politically than the alternatives. (Derailing it is bad for the reasons I mentioned. And collaborating with Obama wouldn't really cut them in for much credit, but would leave them on the hook for part of the blame if the stimulus didn't do the trick...)"

Source: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/02/05/what-s-the-gop-s-optimal-stimulus-strategy.aspx

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But my bed ridden living on a state pension mother was rushed to a free NHS hospital after a stroke and receieved wonderfull immediate treatment,

She would have gotten the same treatment in the USA where we have Medicare, so it's a poor example. Maybe you can refer to another relative in your next comparison, try one a little younger tho.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee: A free health service means one that isn'T profit based.

That means better value and better service foe meoney for the customer (the taxpayer). Mr Obama belivees the NHS is one of the best ideas of the 20th century, but he can'T shout it out loud in America bacause they think it are commie claptrap. Well Obama aint thick and he is right. Time for USA to change to help everyone, not just the rich, the American dream is only an option for about 1% these days, and that are a fact.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits,

I'm not worried about a Republican resurgence. The party has no leader. And many Americans are now wary of entrusting everything to "the free market." It will take a long time to pay down the debt, both national and personal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yuppers, hand out a trillion $'s of tax payer money when tax payers are out of work. Brilliant Democratic logic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm British as well, and i saw Obama and his staement praising the NHS.

He wants it for America, but it was ingrained in peoples minds that free health care is something from the Soviet Union.

In fact he stated he wants free health csre and education for all. I know he is going to push for it, just wait and see. His new bill will pave the way.

If you have universal health care and benefits system, then insurance policies and the profits that go with it are gone. America spends more on GDP on health than BRitain and has a service taht does not treat teh whole srvice, and with alower birth survival and cancer survival rate.

It should be free in a civilised country, and i pray Obama will give that blessing bto his people, because we have hade it for over 60 years, and we are not commies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A free health service means one that isn'T profit based. That means better value and better service foe meoney for the customer (the taxpayer).

After helping me folks enroll, I would agree Americans got the worst of both worlds with GWB's prescription drug program. It's not only very bureaucratic but very expensive since it committed Uncle Sam to buying drugs at the retail price for an increasingly large proportion of the demographic.

Socialized medicine places a priority on preventive care, something omitted by the private sector. Here in the USA, the diabetes rate is higher than the UK because people can't enroll in prevention classes until they've already been diagnosed, by which time it's much more expensive to treat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee: Glad we agree on something. Socialised medicine is the same as a socialised military, run by the government without profit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you have universal health care and benefits system, then insurance policies and the profits that go with it are gone.

What you would get rid of is the insurance bureaucracy. I had a friend scheduled for surgery after an MRI. But the insurance company wouldn't pay for the MRI so the hospital wouldn't schedule the surgery. That type of story is quite commonplace. I can't imagine being seriously ill and having to deal with that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I used to doubt ideas like Obama and that. , but when you is poor like me, and most probably in USA i cannot pay insurance, so would they help me so quickly?

If Obama can get universal health care and free education for the needy, Americans will be really happy quckly, because as i said it aint for profit, and everyone wins. I hope he is brave enough to do these big choices like, and also protect the workers in his own country, because that should be his main focus.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dear Betzee, I don't know if you have Ip detection on your PC, but one would see that ib am unlinked to anyone else on this message board.

My ideas are totally based on how i feel, and i belive that Obama has the chance to be another Kennedy and change the USA for the better.

He has the good intentions and he beleieves in many social policies designed to improve social equality, but with the prssure groups can he make them pass the Senate. hope so because i beleieve he nbis a lovely man who can make America into an even more equal nation than European nations, without raising taxes too high, because America has so many natural resources.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee: A free health service means one that isn'T profit based.

Betzee: Ok i was cross eyd and had my eyes corrected for free. That was in the 50's.

Betzee: I had terrible migraines for 2 months and one day the pain was too much. I went down the local NHS hospital and had a scan within 2 hours.

Thanks, but I'll reserve judgment until I read the NHS has developed effective treatment for troll personality disorder.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The time to act is now. Bang on Mr President. It's great to know YOU are in charge. The main man, The Chief. In Obama we trust. Even Republicans are following your lead.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bezee: Here mate, i aint connected to Biggins. as much as i may agree with his/her ideas about health, i am against his/her liberal stance.

Look son, i is a staunch conservative right. I thought the free health care we have here was for scoungers until i needed it. I can say honestly, that it were brilliant service without charges.

Them hospital jobs, is jobs Obama couls svae and make more in America if he has the guts. I reckon he might do it. I remember Clinton trid free health and that, but big business made him change his mind, which amybe meant that loads of people have now died.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"If you have universal health care and benefits system, then insurance policies and the profits that go with it are gone."

You can force "universal health care" on a populace, but you can't force doctors to practice. We may well get HillaryCare, but Americans will see the quality of their health care decline.

"America spends more on GDP on health than BRitain and has a service taht does not treat teh whole srvice, and with alower birth survival and cancer survival rate."

LOL. Another fun with stats exercise. It's so easy refuting you I hardly knew where to begin. Since you probably wouldn't trust US sources I 'll offer these

"Huge gap in world cancer survival

"There is a huge variation in cancer survival rates across the world, a global study shows. The US, Australia, Canada, France and Japan had the highest five-year survival rates, while Algeria had the worst, Lancet Oncology reported." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7510121.stm

"UK cancer survival rate lowest in Europe"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html

US, btw, tops the polls in that one - best survival rates for men and women.

"Overall Cancer Survival Rates. According to the survey of cancer survival rates in Europe and the United States, published recently in Lancet Oncology:1

"American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women. [See Figure I.] American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men." http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba596/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wuzzademcart: check longevity rates, cancer survival rates compared to other G8 nations, then you might see why Obama wants a differney health service.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mr. President,

Junk this bill. Junk it now. Start working on a real long term recovery plan, not this short term pork party.

Look at what the CBO had to say about it after they looked at the numbers.

Be a leader and do what is right for the country this short term solution your pushing isn't it.

In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, the Senate legislation would reduce output slightly in the long run, CBO estimates, as would other similar proposals. The principal channel for this effect is that the legislation would result in an increase in government debt. To the extent that people hold their wealth in the form of government bonds rather than in a form that can be used to finance private investment, the increased government debt would tend to “crowd out” private investment—thus reducing the stock of private capital and the long-term potential output of the economy.

Read that again folks.

the increased government debt would tend to “crowd out” private investment—thus reducing the stock of private capital and the long-term potential output of the economy.

That is called job creation, real job creation, this bill kills it in the long term.

And finally this from the report, by the way the CBO is non-partisan and and the official Government agency that advises Congress on budgetary matters.

CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net.

No worries Mr. President, if you are a two term President you'll already be retired by then and had passed the seeds of the next big recession on your successor, as you tried to claw out of the current one by forcing more debt on him.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=205

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits is bang on - "People should be able to see through the Republican opposition to the economic stimulus bill and clearly detect that their motive is not what is best for the nation, but what most benefits the weakened Republican brand politically. No one can look over the Republican record of the past 8 years and claim that what they did was in the best interests of the United States."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sail, it seems like you want your country to cling to its addiction to oil (that sends billions of dollars out of the country every year to the ME) and forget about harnessing free energy that you could have if leaders like President Obama get their way.

Your opposition to this bill is embarassing.

Sure, it is not perfect, but at least have the decency to let him give it a try.

Anything is better than the policies behind the disastrous fiscal disaster the Bush Administration left behind.

Which, correct me if I am wrong, you voted for.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi

Anything is better than the policies behind the disastrous fiscal disaster the Bush Administration left behind.

Thats the whole point. We haven't learned anything from that? This bill is different from Bush's economic policies in what way? It's exactly the same, tax cuts and borrow and spend, spend, spend.

It does nothing for long term job creation. It creates short term jobs that are totally dependent of the GOVERNMENT to provide. Which the Government is funded by me the taxpayer. In order to solve our current ecomic crises and place the foundation for future growth and for our childrens sake, we need people less dependent on Uncle Sugar and promote economic policies that allow the people the confidence again to put money into future Microsofts and yes alternative energy companies.

Start-ups that will rise and fall based on their ability to attract investments and make a return on the money.

Not on their ability to get TAXPAYER money from Uncle Sugar and when that capital dries up can count on a nice bail-out as they Produced nothing but a way to get so called free money.

That is job growth, job creation and the only way to go. This bill is Bush policy part two, and I can't believe you didn't already learn from that and would support this pork party.

If Obama said spending freeze, capital gains tax abolished and corporate tax rates cut to 12.9 percent. I'd be screaming from the rafters in support of him.

So far we got Bush two in the economic department and the only difference is Obama wants to spend money we don't have on traditional Democratic priorities instead of Bush's spending on traditional Republican ones.

This isn't change, this is politics as usual and Obama is leading the charge.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am not sure I am for free medical for adults, I would say that I would love to have a more discounted system. Make damn sure one doesn't have to lose the farm for getting sick. If Obama plan works then great but I feel that free health leads to people abusing the system and going in for every little thing when they don't need to.

"If Obama said spending freeze, capital gains tax abolished and corporate tax rates cut to 12.9 percent. I'd be screaming from the rafters in support of him."

I second that fully.

I still think that education is gotten way out of hand as an expense also. You're almost an indentured servant after you get your full education. There are other ways that are more sound than just throwing money into the fire.

Yet you still have to do something or you get Hoovervilles and history remembers that as bad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Be a leader and do what is right for the country"

Unfortunately, President Obama didn't run on the "Country First" ticket.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ChrisBiggins: "Free healthcare"

Surely you don't expect all the doctors, nurses, hospital workers, clinic workers, ambulance drivers, medicine manufacturer workers, etc. to work for free? Heck, somebody's got to pay them...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unfortunately, President Obama didn't run on the "Country First" ticket.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party has an innate requirement to run on such slogans because "Country First" is precisely what what they are NOT about.

The country has decided at the polls that they want to give the Democrats a chance to get the nation out of the hole that the Republicans led it into. The Republicans want to obstruct that effort. They are more afraid that the economic stimulus package might actually work, and the Democrats getting the credit, than of it loading on more debt to that which the administration of the past 8 year has accrued.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's interesting to read that Liberals really don't object to high deficits after all. They just want the deficits to be used to create dependency. President Obama is striving to achieve the tipping point in the relationship between the people and their government. That tipping point will come when 50% of the public no longer pays taxes to provide the benefits that they receive from the state.

Besides the bad loans that the Congress forced banks to give to people that couldn't pay them back and the incentives that Liberal lobbyists at the big mortagage companies were able to buy from their colleagues in government, the current ecnonomic crisis is the result of too much wasteful government spending. More spending will not solve the problem of too much spending.

Huge Keynsian spending yeilds less in economic output then it costs. The private sector must be stimulated, not government programs. Obama's trillion dollar spending bill does very little to help the private sector and will only grow government. This is a huge mistake. How will Liberals pay for government when the private sector has been choked to death?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The argument against "free health care" in the early 1990s was that it didn't provide doctors with an incentive to specialize since the government's reimbursement rates were too low. One needed to look no further than the flight of Canadian specialists into the US after Canada nationalized its health care system in the 1970s for evidence of that. Yet the American system didn't remain what it was since costs had to be contained.

The market solution was HMOs. Wonders never cease, the reimbursement rates were also too low for specialists who faced the prospect that their additional years of training were not going to be compensated. If they have enough patients with private insurance they can remain solo practitioners. Those who need their services who lack private insurance, by contrast, are out of luck.

The bottom line is that no system can do everything for everyone. But if you lose your job in America, you may face the prospect it can do nothing for you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Some people like HMOs because they offer the assurance there will be no unexpected bills such as when an insurance company rejects your claim. Psychological peace of mind is certainly worth something. But if you need specialized care, what you get from an HMO is going to be less than what someone with private insurance is going to be able to get in the marketplace from solo practitioners.

If you have private insurance in America, you can get the best health care in the world. For those who lack it, that's not necessarily true. And for those who lose their jobs, a pressing concern in this economy, God help 'em if they need medical care.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's interesting to read that Liberals really don't object to high deficits after all.

In good times governments are supposed to run surpluses. Yet during the good times under GWB Uncle Sam continually came up short, which should have told us somethin' was amiss.

They just want the deficits to be used to create dependency.

What created prosperity during the GWB years was dependence on debt. This is what caused the private sector to retrench late in the game, without credit nobody's buying much. It's going to take the private sector a good long while to recover. Meanwhile, people have bills to pay and may need to see a doctor....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They are more afraid that the economic stimulus package might actually work, and the Democrats getting the credit, than of it loading on more debt to that which the administration of the past 8 year has accrued.

Yabits,

I completely agree. This past year free-market ideology has been discredited and the Republican Party doesn't have anything to fall back on. This was underscored in Frank Rich's column last week:

The House minority leader, John Boehner, from the economic wasteland of Ohio, declared on ''Meet the Press'' last Sunday that the G.O.P. didn't want to be ''the party of 'No' '' but ''the party of better ideas, better solutions.'' And what are those ideas, exactly? He said he'll get back to us ''over the coming months.''

His deputy, the Virginia congressman Eric Cantor, has followed the same script, claiming that the G.O.P. will not be ''the party of 'No' '' but will someday offer unspecified ''solutions and alternatives.'' Not to be left out, the party's great white hope, Sarah Palin, unveiled a new political action committee last week with a Web site also promising ''fresh ideas.'' But as the liberal blogger Markos Moulitsas Zúniga observed, the site invites visitors to make donations and read Palin hagiography while offering no links to any ideas, fresh or otherwise.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's interesting to read that Liberals really don't object to high deficits after all.

I certainly and strongly objected to the deficits that were projected to be created as a result of the tax cut plan in 2001. At the time, the United States was faced with the prospect of being able to pay off a substantial portion of the national debt. When an economy is running at near-full employment, running deficits is a terrible thing.

They just want the deficits to be used to create dependency.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, in a free market economy that continually creates winners and losers, a safety net will be needed at all times, but the individuals who need to depend upon that net will change as they get back on their feet and back into the system. Yes, there will be a tiny percentage who suffer chronic underemployment, but completely dismantling the safety net for everyone else is something only the most callous of conservatives can endorse.

Congress did not force any bank to give a loan to any party that was not qualified to pay it back. Such a position is a bizzare distortion of reality.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Congress did not force any bank to give a loan to any party that was not qualified to pay it back. Such a position is a bizzare distortion of reality.

I just went through the process of applying for a mortgage. It was a very thorough vetting process to determine what I could afford. Now that the housing market is depressed, I can get a nice home and afford to keep up with the payments.

If only everyone had had to go through this we wouldn't have ended up where we are now. Too many people were lured into home ownership by ever-escalating real estate prices, the mentality became "you can't afford not to buy." It's going to be a painful lesson.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here's a question: Who gives a sh*t about the Republicans?

We Americans voted the Republicans' sorry asses out of power entirely so America could ignore thier pathetic, hateful, un-American rants and move back onto the road of recovery with President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama at the helm.

The Republicans are in the minority, the Democrats gave them every opportunity to rise above party poliitics and do the right thing (for the first time in eight years); the Republicans refused.

So, simply outvote the Republicans again. Pass this stimulus bill despite and around the Republicans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US government is bought and paid for by lobbyist.

TARP Recipients Paid Out $114 Million on lobbying my US government. The return on investment was over 250,000 percent . So why play the stock market just promise your Congressman you will give him a Million and he will steal a Billion from the US tax payers and give it to you. You do not have to be a US citizen to get the Money. Just promise any US Congressman you will send him a million dollars kick back an he will come up with a reason to send you your billion US tax payer Dollars. http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php

I understand the rule he who has the gold makes the rules. But when he takes your Gold pays himself and pays his buddies that is stealing. Politicians are taking our Tax dollars and bailing out who ever contributes the most back to them. They are Selling the debt to china, to get the tax dollars that your children’s children will be paying the bill on. http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php

Why do Politicians hold up passing these bailout bills? They wait Until they receive their contributions from the lobbyist. Thats right they get their share of the bailout money. Million of your tax dollars end up back in the Politicians hands. They talk about bonus going to executives. Executives who gave the Politicians millions to get your tax dollars in the first place. That is like the pot calling the kettle black. http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php

Now Obama is screaming code red just like Bush did on the middle east. I believe we needed a little control over the arms race in the middle east. But I do not believe spending trillions of tax payers dollars and being Indebted to China will save the US economy. We will never be able to slow the flow of goods made in China when we owe them trillions of dollars. An open market to China means that to compete US workers will have to produce the same product at the Chinese labor cost. We will be working for a bowl of rice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What I most resent about the GWB is the wasted years. We desperately needed to rethink America's place in a changing world. Instead we were told to "go shopping." So did Uncle Sam, does anyone even have an idea of what that five trillion was spent on?

We'd already lost most manufacturing jobs to China, among other countries. Over the past eight years technology allowed service jobs to be outsourced to places like India. In some cases those who sent jobs overseas defended themselves on the grounds that it relieved them of footing the bill for an employer-paid health care system.

By not addressing these issues, we've ended up in a situation where growing numbers of laid-off Americans will be forced to seek help from underfunded state-government funded social services.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama forcefully articulated the perception that there's “two sets of standards, one for powerful people and one for ordinary folks.” This was undercut by nominating a succession of people who hadn't paid their taxes. (While Joe the Plumber's tax delinquency made a mockery of his claims he was going to buy a business, it was taken as a sad reflection on the ability of the semi-skilled to keep their heads above water in a post-industrial economy rather than evidence of double standards).

Members of Congress are insulated from the concerns of everyday Americans. John McCain's health care reform plan was laughable; but what could be expected from a man whose job provides the best health care options America has to offer and who couldn't tell you offhand how many homes he owns? He tried to compensate by picking a running mate who was from "real America," but her efforts to portray herself as a "regular hockey Mom" were undercut by revelations of Imelda Marcos style shopping sprees with someone else's credit card.

Institutionalized bribery of public officials, along with the revolving door between government and businesses lobbying for government contracts, may account for much of this obvious hypocrisy. But efforts to implement campaign finance reform went nowhere....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites