Nationalized health care inserted in the Stimulus package

[jreeves]

Color me naive, but when all is said and done, the 'revolt' against doctors will be mooted.

Only if constituents let their representatives know that they don't want Washington deciding what treatments they are going to receive.

 

[Modbert]

Bush didn't exactly vow to have unprecedented transparency did he?
Obama promises plan to cut mortgage costs - White House- msnbc.com
The president said he would insist on "unprecedented transparency, rigorous oversight, and clear accountability" for funds that went toward stabilizing the financial system.


On top of that Bush didn't exactly asked the American people to spend well over a trillion dollars in one swoop, now did he? I know you are going to cite TARP, but this is on top of additional spending for TARP. The American people should insist on a proper debate before they are asked to morguage their futures.

Bush didn't vow such a thing, but of course that doesn't stop Republicans from having a double standard on this does it?

I believe these should be televised, but not only for this. What I'm wondering Jreeves is when Republicans get back in power, will they dare propose such a thing? No, of course not. So let's not bullshit ourselves; honestly.

Furthermore, perhaps not in one swoop but Bush might as well. How much has Iraq cost us J? Or how about all those other failed Bush's policies? It didn't come cheap, I'll tell you that.

We should have a proper debate yes, however I think it's bullshit and ironic that Republicans are saying this NOW but not when they ran the Patriot Act through Congress faster then almost any bill EVER. NOBODY EVEN READ THAT BILL and yet it was a vital part of our National Security. Don't the American people deserve to have a proper debate or see one on that?

What's the excuse there? That it was due to the interest of time? Well hey, same thing is being used here by Obama.

Which is my point, at the end of the day; they're all the same type of animal but just paint themselves differently.

 

[jreeves]

Talking of revisionist history, who was in control of Congress when Clinton was President? Do you remember the budget battles when Clinton was President?

Republicans were in control of Congress from Clinton's time in office until almost the end of Bush's. So obviously Jreeves, Republicans have to take the good with the bad. They may of done some good in the 90's purpose but they fucked it up all later on then.

Ever heard of the Community Reinvestment Act? Don't get me wrong, Republicans do bare a lot of blame as well. They provided a springboard for Obama and Congressional Democrats to spend without any controls.

 

[Modbert]

Ever heard of the Community Reinvestment Act? Don't get me wrong, Republicans do bare a lot of blame as well. They provided a springboard for Obama and Congressional Democrats to spend without any controls.

I've heard of the CRA, yes. It's directly related to the current financial crisis. But we both have to admit that predatory lending was also a huge part of that.

Republicans bare a lot of blame as well for their own crazy spending, not just Democrats who commit such things. Democrats have been guilty of the same thing you speak of by allowing Republicans to spend without any controls.

When playing opposition, both parties allow the other party to do whatever so when they eventually fuck up; they can point their fuckin fingers and go "That's the Bad Guy." (Yeah, I'm quoting Scarface somewhat on that one).

 

[Sinatra]

Ever heard of the Community Reinvestment Act? Don't get me wrong, Republicans do bare a lot of blame as well. They provided a springboard for Obama and Congressional Democrats to spend without any controls.

I've heard of the CRA, yes. It's directly related to the current financial crisis. But we both have to admit that predatory lending was also a huge part of that.

Republicans bare a lot of blame as well for their own crazy spending, not just Democrats who commit such things. Democrats have been guilty of the same thing you speak of by allowing Republicans to spend without any controls.

When playing opposition, both parties allow the other party to do whatever so when they eventually fuck up; they can point their fuckin fingers and go "That's the Bad Guy." (Yeah, I'm quoting Scarface somewhat on that one).

Much better tone here Robert.

Thank you.

 

[jreeves]

Bush didn't exactly vow to have unprecedented transparency did he?
Obama promises plan to cut mortgage costs - White House- msnbc.com
The president said he would insist on "unprecedented transparency, rigorous oversight, and clear accountability" for funds that went toward stabilizing the financial system.


On top of that Bush didn't exactly asked the American people to spend well over a trillion dollars in one swoop, now did he? I know you are going to cite TARP, but this is on top of additional spending for TARP. The American people should insist on a proper debate before they are asked to morguage their futures.

Bush didn't vow such a thing, but of course that doesn't stop Republicans from having a double standard on this does it?

I believe these should be televised, but not only for this. What I'm wondering Jreeves is when Republicans get back in power, will they dare propose such a thing? No, of course not. So let's not bullshit ourselves; honestly.

Furthermore, perhaps not in one swoop but Bush might as well. How much has Iraq cost us J? Or how about all those other failed Bush's policies? It didn't come cheap, I'll tell you that.

We should have a proper debate yes, however I think it's bullshit and ironic that Republicans are saying this NOW but not when they ran the Patriot Act through Congress faster then almost any bill EVER. NOBODY EVEN READ THAT BILL and yet it was a vital part of our National Security. Don't the American people deserve to have a proper debate or see one on that?

What's the excuse there? That it was due to the interest of time? Well hey, same thing is being used here by Obama.

Which is my point, at the end of the day; they're all the same type of animal but just paint themselves differently.

Can't they just do the right thing? Regardless of what the other party has done in the past? You don't pass well over a trillion dollars in new spending without proper debate. A lot of members of Congress don't even know what the hell this bill contains. Do you need examples? The Iraq war has cost 600 billion dollars, that's not exactly over a trillion dollars now is it? Besides Bush nor Obama is responsible for spending bills that lies with Congress.

 

[American Horse]

Managed care companies have a very strong voice in what your doctor can or cannot do. This is often based on the cost of the procedure involved. Is this the best method of guaranteeing the best care?

You, yourself can have a choice: You can go to a local clinic where you can get treated for as little as $50 for numerous problems if that be the case. Sometimes the clinic will provided drugs at low cost and samples at no cost. These clinics are there to compete and not to be dicated to. Give it a try. Everything doesn't have to be a chronic problem. Waits are short and costs are low.

My wife and I recently went to our provider, a cllinic, and got our flue shots for $20.00 apiece, in and out in 10 minutes max. They asked if I wanted to apply it to my medicare, but since that raised the price to $30.00 for mine, I said to forget it, I'd just take care of it myself.

We hear so much that is negative in every aspect of health services, that people are completely mis-informed. Procedures? Ordinary health services aren't procedures, are they? But if you want the availability of "procedures" to become really limited, even rationed, just wait for the government to be the single payer or provider. Then they will force the costs down by fiat, and many procedures they don't consider cost effective will simply not be available, because those who would've provided them will have left the marketplace.

...

 

[Sinatra]

Managed care companies have a very strong voice in what your doctor can or cannot do. This is often based on the cost of the procedure involved. Is this the best method of guaranteeing the best care?

You, yourself can have a choice: You can go to a local clinic where you can get treated for as little as $50 for numerous problems if that be the case. Sometimes the clinic will provided drugs at low cost and samples at no cost. These clinics are there to compete and not to be dicated to. Give it a try. Everything doesn't have to be a chronic problem. Waits are short and costs are low.

My wife and I recently went to our provider, a cllinic, and got our flue shots for $20.00 apiece, in and out in 10 minutes max. They asked if I wanted to apply it to my medicare, but since that raised the price to $30.00 for mine, I said to forget it, I'd just take care of it myself.

We hear so much that is negative in every aspect of health services, that people are completely mis-informed. Procedures? Ordinary health services aren't procedures, are they? But if you want the availability of "procedures" to become really limited, even rationed, just wait for the government to be the single payer or provider. Then they will force the costs down by fiat, and many procedures they don't consider cost effective will simply not be available, because those who would've provided them will have left the marketplace.

...

Great post. Misinformed is the key - such a large segment of the population wants things done for them without looking into solutions themselves.

 

[Modbert]

Can't they just do the right thing? Regardless of what the other party has done in the past? You don't pass well over a trillion dollars in new spending without proper debate. A lot of members of Congress don't even know what the hell this bill contains. Do you need examples? The Iraq war has cost 600 billion dollars, that's not exactly over a trillion dollars now is it? Besides Bush nor Obama is responsible for spending bills that lies with Congress.

Is the right thing most profitable? Then many for them, no they won't do the right thing.

I agree that you don't pass well over a trillion dollars in new spending without proper debate.

And yes, Iraq has cost us $600 billion and that's just Iraq.

However, the only thing that occur at this point is delays. Come on J, do you really think all these Republicans are going to change their mind if some MORE changes are made? Unless the thing is entirely tax cuts, they don't give a fuck and won't pass it.

Paul Krugman sums it up nicely here:
What the centrists have wrought - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

The short answer: to appease the centrists, a plan that was already too small and too focused on ineffective tax cuts has been made significantly smaller, and even more focused on tax cuts.

According to the CBO’s estimates, we’re facing an output shortfall of almost 14% of GDP over the next two years, or around $2 trillion. Others, such as Goldman Sachs, are even more pessimistic. So the original $800 billion plan was too small, especially because a substantial share consisted of tax cuts that probably would have added little to demand. The plan should have been at least 50% larger.

Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending — much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan. In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast — because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects — and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high. But in the name of mighty centrism, $40 billion of that aid has been cut out.

My first cut says that the changes to the Senate bill will ensure that we have at least 600,000 fewer Americans employed over the next two years

 

[Modbert]

More from Paul Krugman:

What all but 5 Republicans support - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

Thirty-six out of 41 Republican Senators voted for the proposed DeMint amendment to the stimulus bill — a massive package of permanent tax cuts that would create a huge hole in the budget, while doing very little to help the economy.

The DeMint Amendment:

o Permanently repeal the alternative minimum tax once and for all;

o Permanently keep the capital gains and dividends taxes at 15 percent;

o Permanently kill the Death Tax for estates under $5 million, and cut the tax rate to 15 percent for those above;

o Permanently extend the $1,000-per-child tax credit;
o Permanently repeal the marriage tax penalty;
o Permanently simplify itemized deductions to include only home mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

o Lower top marginal income rates from 35 percent to 25 percent.

o Simplify the tax code to include only two other brackets, 15 and 10 percent.
o

Lower corporate tax rate as well, from 35 percent to 25 percent

Look boys and girls! Tax cuts to the rich! Now let's go over this again, TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS HAVE NOT WORKED SINCE THE BEGINNING, WHY WILL THEY MAGICALLY WORK NOW?

I put that in caps but people like Jim DeMint don't get the point.

But then again, let's all follow the ideas of the single mother hating, ban ALL forms of abortion homophobe.

And then there is this:

On February 6, 2008 Jim DeMint was joined by Saxby Chambliss, Tom Coburn, John Cornyn, James Inhofe, and David Vitter in the Senate to introduce the Semper Fi Act of 2008 which would strip federal funding from Berkeley in response to the Berkeley Marine Corps Recruiting Center controversy.[7] The bill would strip $2.1 million in education and youth nutrition earmarks for the city, and earmarks for the nearby University of California, Berkeley, a state institution unaffiliated with the city, and would instead earmark it for the Marines. His actions were reprimanded by both the House and Senate GOP leadership as divisive and unnecessary. As a result, he was demoted in the leadership of the Senate and was censured. His bill was met with heavy opposition and failed by a 74-25 vote.

Jim DeMint also happens to be the most Conservative member in Congress.

 

[Sinatra]

More from Paul Krugman:

What all but 5 Republicans support - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

Thirty-six out of 41 Republican Senators voted for the proposed DeMint amendment to the stimulus bill — a massive package of permanent tax cuts that would create a huge hole in the budget, while doing very little to help the economy.

The DeMint Amendment:

o Permanently repeal the alternative minimum tax once and for all;

o Permanently extend the $1,000-per-child tax credit;
o Permanently repeal the marriage tax penalty;
o Permanently simplify itemized deductions to include only home mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

o Simplify the tax code to include only two other brackets, 15 and 10 percent.
o

Look boys and girls! Tax cuts to the rich! Now let's go over this again, TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS HAVE NOT WORKED SINCE THE BEGINNING, WHY WILL THEY MAGICALLY WORK NOW?

I put that in caps but people like Jim DeMint don't get the point.

But then again, let's all follow the ideas of the single mother hating, ban ALL forms of abortion homophobe.

And then there is this:

On February 6, 2008 Jim DeMint was joined by Saxby Chambliss, Tom Coburn, John Cornyn, James Inhofe, and David Vitter in the Senate to introduce the Semper Fi Act of 2008 which would strip federal funding from Berkeley in response to the Berkeley Marine Corps Recruiting Center controversy.[7] The bill would strip $2.1 million in education and youth nutrition earmarks for the city, and earmarks for the nearby University of California, Berkeley, a state institution unaffiliated with the city, and would instead earmark it for the Marines. His actions were reprimanded by both the House and Senate GOP leadership as divisive and unnecessary. As a result, he was demoted in the leadership of the Senate and was censured. His bill was met with heavy opposition and failed by a 74-25 vote.

Jim DeMint also happens to be the most Conservative member in Congress.

Son, that DeMint bill would have done more good, more quickly, for far more, than the porkulus abomination passed by the Democrat controlled Senate today.

Those do not represent "cuts for the rich" - that kind of class warfare is Democrat 101 and it has always been a sham. The DeMint bill would have ushered in significant investment dollars into this country - job creation would be initiated far more quickly, the stock market would stabalize, followed by the housing market within a year after.

Particularly the corporate rate cut and the reduction of the tax brackets to 15 and 10.

MY GOD - that would have done so much.

The thing is - WHY the Republicans did not usher in this kind of proposal themselves when they had the political power. They wilted. They were lacking leadership - and only now are finding it again when they are politically outnumbered.

BAH!!

 

[jreeves]

Can't they just do the right thing? Regardless of what the other party has done in the past? You don't pass well over a trillion dollars in new spending without proper debate. A lot of members of Congress don't even know what the hell this bill contains. Do you need examples? The Iraq war has cost 600 billion dollars, that's not exactly over a trillion dollars now is it? Besides Bush nor Obama is responsible for spending bills that lies with Congress.

Is the right thing most profitable? Then many for them, no they won't do the right thing.

I agree that you don't pass well over a trillion dollars in new spending without proper debate.

And yes, Iraq has cost us $600 billion and that's just Iraq.

However, the only thing that occur at this point is delays. Come on J, do you really think all these Republicans are going to change their mind if some MORE changes are made? Unless the thing is entirely tax cuts, they don't give a fuck and won't pass it.

Paul Krugman sums it up nicely here:
What the centrists have wrought - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

The short answer: to appease the centrists, a plan that was already too small and too focused on ineffective tax cuts has been made significantly smaller, and even more focused on tax cuts.

According to the CBO’s estimates, we’re facing an output shortfall of almost 14% of GDP over the next two years, or around $2 trillion. Others, such as Goldman Sachs, are even more pessimistic. So the original $800 billion plan was too small, especially because a substantial share consisted of tax cuts that probably would have added little to demand. The plan should have been at least 50% larger.

Now the centrists have shaved off $86 billion in spending — much of it among the most effective and most needed parts of the plan. In particular, aid to state governments, which are in desperate straits, is both fast — because it prevents spending cuts rather than having to start up new projects — and effective, because it would in fact be spent; plus state and local governments are cutting back on essentials, so the social value of this spending would be high. But in the name of mighty centrism, $40 billion of that aid has been cut out.

My first cut says that the changes to the Senate bill will ensure that we have at least 600,000 fewer Americans employed over the next two years

If Obama's standard is job creation which he clearly stated was his main objective last night, then how many jobs will nationalized health care create? What will this bill do to the GDP? We are borrowing close to a trillion dollars. What happens if half of the stimulus bill fails?

 

[jreeves]

More from Paul Krugman:

What all but 5 Republicans support - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

Thirty-six out of 41 Republican Senators voted for the proposed DeMint amendment to the stimulus bill — a massive package of permanent tax cuts that would create a huge hole in the budget, while doing very little to help the economy.

Look boys and girls! Tax cuts to the rich! Now let's go over this again, TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS HAVE NOT WORKED SINCE THE BEGINNING, WHY WILL THEY MAGICALLY WORK NOW?

I put that in caps but people like Jim DeMint don't get the point.

But then again, let's all follow the ideas of the single mother hating, ban ALL forms of abortion homophobe.

And then there is this:

On February 6, 2008 Jim DeMint was joined by Saxby Chambliss, Tom Coburn, John Cornyn, James Inhofe, and David Vitter in the Senate to introduce the Semper Fi Act of 2008 which would strip federal funding from Berkeley in response to the Berkeley Marine Corps Recruiting Center controversy.[7] The bill would strip $2.1 million in education and youth nutrition earmarks for the city, and earmarks for the nearby University of California, Berkeley, a state institution unaffiliated with the city, and would instead earmark it for the Marines. His actions were reprimanded by both the House and Senate GOP leadership as divisive and unnecessary. As a result, he was demoted in the leadership of the Senate and was censured. His bill was met with heavy opposition and failed by a 74-25 vote.

Jim DeMint also happens to be the most Conservative member in Congress.

Son, that DeMint bill would have done more good, more quickly, for far more, than the porkulus abomination passed by the Democrat controlled Senate today.

Those do not represent "cuts for the rich" - that kind of class warfare is Democrat 101 and it has always been a sham. The DeMint bill would have ushered in significant investment dollars into this country - job creation would be initiated far more quickly, the stock market would stabalize, followed by the housing market within a year after.

Particularly the corporate rate cute and the reduction of the tax brackets to 15 and 10.

MY GOD - that would have done so much.

The thing is - WHY the Republicans did not usher in this kind of proposal themselves when they had the political power. They wilted. They were lacking leadership - and only now are finding it again when they are politically outnumbered.

BAH!!

The constituents in PA and ME should be calling their Senator's office on the hour to let them know that this is no stimulus bill. This so called stimulus bill is a GDP killer.

 

[Modbert]

Son, that DeMint bill would have done more good, more quickly, for far more, than the porkulus abomination passed by the Democrat controlled Senate today.

Those do not represent "cuts for the rich" - that kind of class warfare is Democrat 101 and it has always been a sham. The DeMint bill would have ushered in significant investment dollars into this country - job creation would be initiated far more quickly, the stock market would stabalize, followed by the housing market within a year after.

Particularly the corporate rate cute and the reduction of the tax brackets to 15 and 10.

MY GOD - that would have done so much.

The thing is - WHY the Republicans did not usher in this kind of proposal themselves when they had the political power. They wilted. They were lacking leadership - and only now are finding it again when they are politically outnumbered.

BAH!!

Let me ask you something Sinatra. And give me a honest answer here.

If the poor do not pay taxes supposedly because they don't make enough, then who is going to catch a break with these tax cuts? The Rich

The poor do not own corporations. These corporations also aren't hiring in the U.S. if you've last checked. They either hire illegals or send their business overseas where it's alot cheaper. Welcome to a little thing called REALITY!

These tax cuts would of done little to nothing to help the poor; the most would of been similar to bread crumbs given by the rich to silence the poor.

But George Carlin always did sum it up best:

"Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff. "

 

[jreeves]

Son, that DeMint bill would have done more good, more quickly, for far more, than the porkulus abomination passed by the Democrat controlled Senate today.

Those do not represent "cuts for the rich" - that kind of class warfare is Democrat 101 and it has always been a sham. The DeMint bill would have ushered in significant investment dollars into this country - job creation would be initiated far more quickly, the stock market would stabalize, followed by the housing market within a year after.

Particularly the corporate rate cute and the reduction of the tax brackets to 15 and 10.

MY GOD - that would have done so much.

The thing is - WHY the Republicans did not usher in this kind of proposal themselves when they had the political power. They wilted. They were lacking leadership - and only now are finding it again when they are politically outnumbered.

BAH!!

Let me ask you something Sinatra. And give me a honest answer here.

If the poor do not pay taxes supposedly because they don't make enough, then who is going to catch a break with these tax cuts? The Rich

The poor do not own corporations. These corporations also aren't hiring in the U.S. if you've last checked. They either hire illegals or send their business overseas where it's alot cheaper. Welcome to a little thing called REALITY!

These tax cuts would of done little to nothing to help the poor; the most would of been similar to bread crumbs given by the rich to silence the poor.

But George Carlin always did sum it up best:

"Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff. "

Hmm...
Federal Budget Spending and the National Debt
The interest expense paid on the National Debt is the third largest expense in the federal budget. Only Defense and income redistribution (The Departments of Health and Human Services, HUD, and Agriculture (food stamps)) are higher. Do you have "Compassion" for the lower income earners? (You may note that social spending is the largest item in our federal budget. (Anyone complaining about the run-up of the deficit, should note that almost all of it is going to social spending).

 

[jreeves]

Son, that DeMint bill would have done more good, more quickly, for far more, than the porkulus abomination passed by the Democrat controlled Senate today.

Those do not represent "cuts for the rich" - that kind of class warfare is Democrat 101 and it has always been a sham. The DeMint bill would have ushered in significant investment dollars into this country - job creation would be initiated far more quickly, the stock market would stabalize, followed by the housing market within a year after.

Particularly the corporate rate cute and the reduction of the tax brackets to 15 and 10.

MY GOD - that would have done so much.

The thing is - WHY the Republicans did not usher in this kind of proposal themselves when they had the political power. They wilted. They were lacking leadership - and only now are finding it again when they are politically outnumbered.

BAH!!

Let me ask you something Sinatra. And give me a honest answer here.

If the poor do not pay taxes supposedly because they don't make enough, then who is going to catch a break with these tax cuts? The Rich

The poor do not own corporations. These corporations also aren't hiring in the U.S. if you've last checked. They either hire illegals or send their business overseas where it's alot cheaper. Welcome to a little thing called REALITY!

These tax cuts would of done little to nothing to help the poor; the most would of been similar to bread crumbs given by the rich to silence the poor.

But George Carlin always did sum it up best:

"Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff. "

Hmm...
Federal Budget Spending and the National Debt
The interest expense paid on the National Debt is the third largest expense in the federal budget. Only Defense and income redistribution (The Departments of Health and Human Services, HUD, and Agriculture (food stamps)) are higher. Do you have "Compassion" for the lower income earners? (You may note that social spending is the largest item in our federal budget. (Anyone complaining about the run-up of the deficit, should note that almost all of it is going to social spending).

Think about it people, view this stimulus bill in the light of this report from 60 Minutes. What will this stimulus bill do to this country?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs]YouTube - US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy[/ame]

 

[Sinatra]

Son, that DeMint bill would have done more good, more quickly, for far more, than the porkulus abomination passed by the Democrat controlled Senate today.

Those do not represent "cuts for the rich" - that kind of class warfare is Democrat 101 and it has always been a sham. The DeMint bill would have ushered in significant investment dollars into this country - job creation would be initiated far more quickly, the stock market would stabalize, followed by the housing market within a year after.

Particularly the corporate rate cute and the reduction of the tax brackets to 15 and 10.

MY GOD - that would have done so much.

The thing is - WHY the Republicans did not usher in this kind of proposal themselves when they had the political power. They wilted. They were lacking leadership - and only now are finding it again when they are politically outnumbered.

BAH!!

Let me ask you something Sinatra. And give me a honest answer here.

If the poor do not pay taxes supposedly because they don't make enough, then who is going to catch a break with these tax cuts? The Rich

The poor do not own corporations. These corporations also aren't hiring in the U.S. if you've last checked. They either hire illegals or send their business overseas where it's alot cheaper. Welcome to a little thing called REALITY!

These tax cuts would of done little to nothing to help the poor; the most would of been similar to bread crumbs given by the rich to silence the poor.

But George Carlin always did sum it up best:

"Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff. "

The vast majority of job creation for some time has been "small" business. I operate a corporation as does my wife.

We could hire more if our corporate tax rate was lower. Multiply our example by thousands across the United States and you have the potential for hundreds of thousands of new jobs. This wealth creation in turn increases the overall tax base, as well as supporting other business/industries.

If you are talking down tax breaks, you are simply showing an alarming lack of understanding regarding the needs of our economy.

Cut taxes, create growth, jobs, increased opportunity for ALL Americans.

 

[Angel Heart]

Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama’s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy.

Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.” Bloomberg.com: Opinion

Wow, that will create jobs dictating to doctors what treatments are appropriate....

Sounds like Big Brother to me.

 

[Modbert]

The vast majority of job creation for some time has been "small" business. I operate a corporation as does my wife.

We could hire more if our corporate tax rate was lower. Multiply our example by thousands across the United States and you have the potential for hundreds of thousands of new jobs. This wealth creation in turn increases the overall tax base, as well as supporting other business/industries.

If you are talking down tax breaks, you are simply showing an alarming lack of understanding regarding the needs of our economy.

Cut taxes, create growth, jobs, increased opportunity for ALL Americans.

Here's the thing, all I've heard Republicans propose and WANT is Tax cuts. So when you have only tax cuts, then YES it is a bad thing.

 

[jreeves]

The vast majority of job creation for some time has been "small" business. I operate a corporation as does my wife.

We could hire more if our corporate tax rate was lower. Multiply our example by thousands across the United States and you have the potential for hundreds of thousands of new jobs. This wealth creation in turn increases the overall tax base, as well as supporting other business/industries.

If you are talking down tax breaks, you are simply showing an alarming lack of understanding regarding the needs of our economy.

Cut taxes, create growth, jobs, increased opportunity for ALL Americans.

Here's the thing, all I've heard Republicans propose and WANT is Tax cuts. So when you have only tax cuts, then YES it is a bad thing.

This bill will have a net negative impact on the GDP.
Washington Times - CBO: 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.
CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.