Stimulus spending improves Paradise

People are worried about Obama because the deficit tripled in his first year as president, he's considering spending the same $ or more in the Middle East that Bush did, and he plans to spend trillions more on health care at a time when unemployment is over 10% and state universities are denying admission for lack of revenues. Obama's answer is to the dry money well is to borrow on the backs of our descendants and to print play money.

I didn't like the way Bush over spent. But the fiscal irresponsibility here under O is exponentially more egregious. Anyone can see this.

It's a shame that one smooth road is all you can see.

It is not BUSH/Obama's fault.
It is the fault of the consumers with credit card and guns in their had to project the holy culture with a can of beer of cock.
System is rotten to the core.
Dreams.

Stimulus had failed to revive the greedy casino capitalism around the globe.

Apparently there is one individual that would rather see bridges fail, like the on on I-35 because if we continue to rebuild our infrastructure out children and grandchildren will have to proclaim that their conservative bent ancestors were WRONG.

If only I were as eloquent as Mr. O'Neill there would be one more voice up here on the Ridge exhibiting the truth to counter the 'lies heard on fox' that so many hear as 'truth'.

Clark Road is not the only improvement project in the 2nd district, so if you bothered to think about it, Wally jumped to the front of the line with his hand out; right after voting no on the stimulus package. Should we say(?) just like a conservative!

Scholar wrote:

People are worried about Obama because the deficit tripled in his first year as president, he's considering spending the same $ or more in the Middle East that Bush did, and he plans to spend trillions more on health care at a time when unemployment is over 10% and state universities are denying admission for lack of revenues. Obama's answer is to the dry money well is to borrow on the backs of our descendants and to print play money.
I didn't like the way Bush over spent. But the fiscal irresponsibility here under O is exponentially more egregious. Anyone can see this.
It's a shame that one smooth road is all you can see.

As a fiscal conservative I have been outraged for years. Clinton/Repub Congress got spending under control in the late 90's finally and then we saw it evaporate under Bush/Repub Congress who thought cutting taxes (always popular) was smart but also started spending (prescription drug benefit, Iraq, Homeland security, financial crisis bailout,etc) as if it didn't matter. And this from the party of "fiscal responsibility".

Since the govt's fiscal year starts in October, the first trillion can be tied to Bush/dem congress since they made the decision to bailout Wall Street in October 2008 legislation.

I support some form of health care reform although I would like the initial legislation to focus on cutting/controlling costs. Then we should look around the world for models that control costs, provide good service and value before we try to build a new healthcare model. The world has some great examples that we could mimic.

Unfortunately, more spending will be necessary to keep money moving as businesses sit on the sidelines watching and waiting. Stimuluses do work, afterall, what ended the Great Depression: WWII, the biggest stimulus in our history.

Ramafuchs wrote:

It is not BUSH/Obama's fault.
It is the fault of the consumers with credit card and guns in their had to project the holy culture with a can of beer of ****.
System is rotten to the core.
Dreams.
Stimulus had failed to revive the greedy casino capitalism around the globe.

Das ist schade, nicht war?

James Howard wrote:

Apparently there is one individual that would rather see bridges fail, like the on on I-35 because if we continue to rebuild our infrastructure out children and grandchildren will have to proclaim that their conservative bent ancestors were WRONG.
If only I were as eloquent as Mr. O'Neill there would be one more voice up here on the Ridge exhibiting the truth to counter the 'lies heard on fox' that so many hear as 'truth'.
Clark Road is not the only improvement project in the 2nd district, so if you bothered to think about it, Wally jumped to the front of the line with his hand out; right after voting no on the stimulus package. Should we say(?) just like a conservative!

Believe me, FOX is not the problem. It's the knotheads running the Congress.

Senior administration officials reported to the New York Times today that budget projections for the war in Afghanistan will cost U.S. taxpayers at least $1 million per soldier, per year.

The plan to add 40,000 American troops and greatly expand Afghan security forces, supported by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, is estimated to cost between $40 billion to $54 billion annually.“Even if fewer troops are sent, or their mission is modified, the rough formula used by the White House...appears almost constant,” according to the NYT.

The new estimate for the cost of war in Afghanistan will cancel out the $26 billion savings projected for a 2010 troop withdrawal in Iraq. Under this scenario, the overall military budget could rise as high as $734 billion. The highest annual military budget during the Bush era was $667 billion.

Millions for war and war profiteers.
Nothing for American's healthcare.
Pay for it your self say the Republicans.
"We have ours, never mind about you."

President Obama has rightly rejected the proposed boondoggle escalation in Afghanistan.

It was about time for us to start putting money into our infrastructure. That is what should have been happening for years. Without it the economy will suffer. This is key to an economy. An efficient way to commute to work and physical distribution of goods is going to do much more than giving credits to homeowners, bailing out the institutions that should fail anyways (making room for better companies), and rebates for destroying vehicles to help lame companies like GM. Just look at the economic cost of the failing bay bridge. Now if the money collected would actually go to actually fixing the problem instead of lining the fat pockets of administrators; we would be in much better shape.

Word.- Well written. Factual. Truthful. Well done!

My humble request to OBAMA's friends.
Enough stimulus.
Allow the people to go to the street to protest injustice .

But OBAMA
one year is over.
Take a risk and go down in the world history that you are a human who had made many rational people to think deeply.

Stop credit card.
Put the jobless person to help the community.

You have to be blind to actually think that the stimulus/porkulus bill that Obama signed in to law is actually doing anything but lining the pockets of Obama and Pelosis’ political friends and allies. Obama told us that if the stimulus bill was not passed that unemployment would reach 10 percent, glad he knows what he is talking about. All the stimulus has done is put us further in debt. Government does not create jobs, government can only create wealth for the politicians scamming the rest of us. Cash for clunkers was a complete bust, the tax payers are on the hook for upwards of $20k for each car bought under that program, more debt piled on, not to mention the harm done to the used car market.

Now the government wants to destroy our health care system as well. The health plans that congress is trying to shove down our throats are not about controlling costs or helping out the uninsured, this is a power grab pure and simple. If you take time to read over the bills or at least some of the analysis of the bills you will then realize the costs associated with this mess.

From the Politico.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/CMS_Ho...
“Democrats have promised that health reform would reduce health care costs, but legislation the House passed last week would increase costs over the next decade by $289 billion. By 2019, health costs would rise to 21.1 percent of GDP compared to 20.8 under current law, according to an actuarial report prepared by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

In other words, outside of Medicare payment cuts to hospitals, the bill doesn’t curb increasing health care costs. And even the Medicare payment cuts will be difficult to sustain.

I’m reading over the report and will update the post shortly.

Pg. 3 –“Most of the provisions of H.R. 3962 that were designed, in part, to reduce the rate of growth in health care costs would have a relatively small savings impact.” Translation: Things like wellness and prevention programs and reducing Medicare fraud don’t save much money.

Pg. 4 – Acknowledges that with so many unprecedented provisions, the report’s estimates are more uncertain than usual.

Pg. 6 – A public plan would cost 4 percent more than private plans because its utilization rules would not be as strict as the private sector.

Pg. 7 – About 3 million more people would get coverage through their employers. The report figures that about 15 million more people would gain employer coverage but 12 million would lose it because it would be cheaper for their employers to let them buy coverage through the public insurance exchange.

Pg. 7 – 18 million people will remain uninsured and choose to pay the fines for not carrying insurance rather than buy coverage.”

Notice that under this bill that health care spending will increase faster than it currently is. Also noteworthy is the fact that 18 million people will remain uninsured. If you subtract the illegal aliens that is about the same amount that are uninsured today. So I guess what this bill will do is increase medical costs while not insuring any more people than are insured today. Good plan, I can see why Frank is so enamored with this health plan.

I buy what you say, Jaime, but I am concerned about the run-up of the deficit. We can't continue to spend what we don't have.

One solution would be to fight few wars. That would hep. But so would means testing. For example, I'm on Medicare and pay little for the treatment I'm getting. But as it happens, I could afford to pay a reasonable part of my medical care. The fact that I'm old shouldn't mean that I have a free ride.

Same thing goes for Social Security. I don't mind getting the checks. But luckily for me, I could get by with a little less, and would gladly do so if it meant putting the country's economic affairs in balance. Otherwise, what will my grandkids and their kids have?

Blaming Obama for the deficit is like blaming the ambulance driver for the accident, as he's taking you to the hospital!

Das ist schade, nicht war?

It is a mild and polite expression..

Stimulus is like like a frenchfry with salt and peper.


A radical CHANGE will make the globe with less terrorism and no war in the name of terrorism.
But my views are ideal in a world where war is decent and consumption and growth without sense is ideal.

Murray Suid wrote:

I buy what you say, Jaime, but I am concerned about the run-up of the deficit. We can't continue to spend what we don't have.
One solution would be to fight few wars. That would hep. But so would means testing. For example, I'm on Medicare and pay little for the treatment I'm getting. But as it happens, I could afford to pay a reasonable part of my medical care. The fact that I'm old shouldn't mean that I have a free ride.
Same thing goes for Social Security. I don't mind getting the checks. But luckily for me, I could get by with a little less, and would gladly do so if it meant putting the country's economic affairs in balance. Otherwise, what will my grandkids and their kids have?

One of the biggest wastes of time is for seniors on Social Security is to worry about their "grandkids and their kids." They will not be "kids" when they deal with whatever problems exist in their world and hopefully they will be a lot smarter than we have been. After all, "we" are the ones who voted in George W. Bush and gave him eight years to create the problems we now don't want to pass on to next generations.

To Brad II: Your post #11 is way too long to read, but not too long for me to figure out that Obama is probably a lot smarter than you and my money is on him to straighten out the horrendous problems he inherited from the guy you seem to love so much. Or were you the one advising GWB? Sorry, cuz, you need to say something positive once in a while just to not forget how.

Dode Penrod wrote:

To Brad II: Your post #11 is way too long to read, but not too long for me to figure out that Obama is probably a lot smarter than you and my money is on him to straighten out the horrendous problems he inherited from the guy you seem to love so much. Or were you the one advising GWB? Sorry, cuz, you need to say something positive once in a while just to not forget how.

Ah cuz, if only you would realize the problems in store for you, eventually all of us, and your access to quality health care if this administration has their way with their so called health care bills. With the cuts to Medicare and Medicare Advantage that this administration wants to subject us to, if you become ill you will suffer until they decide that your health is not as valuable as someone who is younger, you will see the Medicare doctors who will decide what type of pain pill they will give to you to help you with the transition your eternal resting place.

Brad II wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah cuz, if only you would realize the problems in store for you, eventually all of us, and your access to quality health care if this administration has their way with their so called health care bills. With the cuts to Medicare and Medicare Advantage that this administration wants to subject us to, if you become ill you will suffer until they decide that your health is not as valuable as someone who is younger, you will see the Medicare doctors who will decide what type of pain pill they will give to you to help you with the transition your eternal resting place.

Now I have lost all respect for you. YOU LIE. You absolutely have no inside knowledge about government plans to kill off old people. Limbaugh owns what used to be your mind. What a sick arse you are.

Dode Penrod wrote:

<quoted text>
Now I have lost all respect for you. YOU LIE. You absolutely have no inside knowledge about government plans to kill off old people. Limbaugh owns what used to be your mind. What a sick arse you are.

Calm down cuz, I didn't say that there were plans to kill old people per se. But with all the planned cuts to Medicare access to quality health care will have to diminish, there is no getting around it, and with diminished services and quality there will be some needless suffering. You need to inform yourself cuz, read the proposed health bills or find a good analysis of the proposed legislation. The study I quoted was from Medicare themselves. With over $500 billion in Medicare cuts over the next 10 years there are definitely going to be some people going without access to health care.

From that study,” The additional demand for health services could be difficult to meet initially with existing health provider resources and could lead to price increases, cost shifting, and/or changes in providers’ willingness to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage”.

This means a decrease in our ability to obtain health care. As stated above that study was done by the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
I am very concerned about the future of our health care, if I was you cuz I would be even more concerned.

Which rock does this writer live under? I bet you didn't inhale either!