So with the New Health Care Reform passed through the House. Who is for or against it?? Why or why not?

I am not in favor. My opinion (whether it's right or wrong) is why should we pay for the people who are too lazy to get a job just so they can have health insurance? Now it's different if they are disabled and unable to work. But these people who won't get off their butts to get a job shouldn't get subsidized health care that we, tax payers, are paying for!

Edited November 8, 200916 yr by TN_girl21

And you ignored this, except to say that "he had to spend all that money to get us out of Bush's mess".

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures

President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his budget would cut the deficit by half by the end of his term. But as Heritage analyst Brian Riedl has pointed out, given that Obama has already helped quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package, pledging to halve it by 2013 is hardly ambitious. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama’s budget deficits in context of President Bush’s.

What’s driving Obama’s unprecedented massive deficits? Spending. Riedl details:

• President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
  
• President Bush began a string of expensive finan­cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
  
• President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle­ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern­ment health care fund.
  
• President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi­dent Obama would double it.
  
• President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in­creased this spending by 20 percent.
  
• President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.
  
• President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.
  

UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added.

CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years. ___

Pattygreen: And you ignored this, except to say that "he had to spend all that money to get us out of Bush's mess".

Because that's true. I have offered a number of charts, graphs, etc.. and facts that show that the stimulus was needed and it worked. It added to the deficit, but it was still the right thing to do. And most economists agree with me, not you.

What about the graph I posted above? Bush deficits vs. Obama's deficits. That graph clearly shows that Obama is wreckless with his spending. Oh, I know you say he "had" to spend all that, but come on!, ALL that? Really, that is very, very irresponsible. His spending sprees are breaking us!

Dont know where this is from. Clinton left office with no deficit, now we are at around 12-14 trill., Obama makes 1.75trill. which some has been paid back already. Bushs treasurey sec. was on fox yesterday(SAT), he said we needed this stimulus, the results would have been catastrophic. He said if we allowed AIG etc. to collapse we would not have recovered. Yes Bushs treasurey secretary said this.

My apologies, I confused budget deficit with national debt.But I just looked it up. When Clinton left office there was a $350bill. dollar surplus, a known conservative sight said it was somewhere around $230bill.Bush left with 1.85trill. Budget deficit. The question is how much did Bush contribute to national debt? When Clinton left it was between 4.5-5.6trill. Part of Obamas contribution is going to the 2 wars Bush started, he has no choice now!

What about the graph I posted above? Bush deficits vs. Obama's deficits. That graph clearly shows that Obama is wreckless with his spending. Oh, I know you say he "had" to spend all that, but come on!, ALL that? Really, that is very, very irresponsible. His spending sprees are breaking us!

Here's the policy and attitude under the bush administration that got us into the mess we are in today - the mess that Pres. Obama has to get us out of:

Cheney to Treasury: "Deficits don't matter"

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was told "deficits

O'Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency. O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.

That's right - the republican policies are to allow corporate greed and scandal (which we taxpayers pay for) and to ignore deficits (NOW THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART) when they happen under republican presidents, and to fire whoever tells them the truth.

I'm not impressed that the author went to Stamford. Oh wait, he didn't claim that, someone else did in her follow up post. Uh, the Hoover Institution? Doesn't that just suck?

cleo's: "...when they happen under republican presidents, and to fire whoever tells them the truth."

It's called "scape goating" and I'm pretty sure that if you look that term up in your encyclopedia, there will be a photo of Dick Cheney beside it.

Fox: The Wellpoint Rate Increase Was Bad Because it Re-energized HCR

by mcjoan from dailykos

Tue Feb 16, 2010 at 07:06:03 AM PST

How dare Anthem Blue Cross strengthen the case for reform?

Earlier today on Fox Business, WellPoint VP Brad Fluegel appeared to discuss the hikes.

Fox hosts Charles Payne and and Stu Varney lashed out at WellPoint for increasing rates just when "it was safe to get out of the healthcare debate." The hosts were

uninterested with how the increasing rates would affect customers and

struggling families in California

. Instead, the pair attacked Fluegel for re-energizing advocates for health reform. Payne groaned, asking Fluegel why he didn’t

"take Wall Street’s lead" and "wait for this to blow over and maybe a year from now try to hike rates":

PAYNE: But Brad this is like Jaws 2, just when you thought it was safe to get out of the healthcare debate, you brought everybody back into it. [...] Didn’t someone though, wasn’t there a committee that said listen, let’s take Wall Street’s lead, do the minimum we can, wait for this to blow over and maybe a year from now try to hike rates?

VARNEY: You handed the politicians red meat at a time when healthcare is being discussed. You gave it to them! [...] You couldn’t see this coming? I mean really, you couldn’t see this coming? [...]

VARNEY: You actually did make a net in that quarter in twleve weeks, you made what, $500 million net profit didn’t you? You tell that to a politician and they’re going to say, ‘you made a half billion dollars in twelve weeks and now you put the price up 25%.’

....At the end of the interview, the Fox hosts chuckled with the WellPoint VP. They apologized for being so harsh and warmly reminded Fluegel that their criticism of insurer profits was only meant to be "warm up" for Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-CA) investigation. "You did very good," cooed one of the cohosts.

Fox doesn't care that the premium increase might shut out a lot of people who would then have to go without healthcare.

No, they only care because now it brings the focus back on to healthcare (and the greed of the health insurance industry).

Edited February 16, 201016 yr by Cleo's Mom

Poverty: It ain't what it used to be

As America's economic malaise grinds on, we increasingly read and hear about how this budget reduction or that program cut would hurt "the poor." The hand-wringing has become so widespread that a Hartford Courant blogger complained the other day about the effects of snow days and school holidays on child nutrition: "In Connecticut, most students in Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven, and New London get free lunches because the districts' residents are so poor." The message? No school, no food, as if inner-city children would starve without government handouts.

But let's define poor. If these were Appalachian families in the 1950s, that'd be one thing. But this is 21st century America, where The Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector, renowned as America's leading authority on poverty, cites government data that paints a very different picture of "poor households."

Forty-six percent own their own homes, and two-thirds live in housing with at least two rooms per person. Eighty percent have air conditioning; three quarters own a car and 31 percent own two or more; 97 percent have a color TV, and more than half own at least two; 78 percent have a VCR or DVD player, and almost two thirds have cable or satellite TV service; 89 percent own microwaves; more than half have a stereo; more than a third have an automatic dishwasher; a third have cell and land-line phones. These households may be "low income," but they have a good amount of material wealth, a goodly amount purchased with or made more affordable by government largess intended to help them make ends meet. But this is what happens when the government doesn't means test its programs or monitor how taxpayers' money is abused.

But what of the nutritional concerns? "Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II," Mr. Rector wrote in 2007 in a column for the National Review. "While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have 'enough' food to eat, while only 2 percent say they 'often' do not have enough to eat."

And if poor children are so malnourished, why did President Obama form a task force to battle childhood obesity with special focus on inner-city children from low-income families?

(no name article in today's editorials)

We are soooo worried about the poor in this country. Liberals say they 'need' all these government handouts. I say the government has made them dependant. The poor today have no idea what it means to be poor. Poor, to most, is not having cable TV.

We are soooo worried about the poor in this country. Liberals say they 'need' all these government handouts. I say the government has made them dependant. The poor today have no idea what it means to be poor. Poor, to most, is not having cable TV.

But those slackers need cable tv for their big screen tv's - don't you know? :sad:

I do not work on Fridays and watched a little bit of Obama's town meeting in Nevada on CNN today.

I do not agree with some of the things he has done and agree with some too.

I know it is not just him alone and many others play a large role. I just hope they get healthcare , jobs and the state of our country figured out soon. I think it is going to take much too long for the little guy/gal to start feeling the relief.

See Patty, I told you there are probably things you and I would agree on. Once in a while I work in "projects",(low income houses). People cry to me and tell me all about their hardships,low on money, health problems. But theyre driving brand new cars, most of the time 2, Big screen tvs. People are more concerned about buying video games than they are about sewage all over their basement floors. It drives me crazy that people want and some even expect this kind of living when they cant afford it. Theyre happy to be living in HUD housing and collecting welfare. Alot of them are younger than me and appear to be capable of working. Thats where the problem would be as far as universal healthcare. People who could work but choose not to would get it but wouldnt have to pay for it. Alot of these people know how to work the system. Im not talking about all people on welfare or HUD, because there are people who probably need it. I just dont see how people choose to live this way. I believe in always trying to better yourself. Thats why I started my business. I didnt want someone telling me how much i was going to earn or how and when i was going to work, just to make someone else money. I know I complain about healthcare costs(we do need some kind of reform)but Im only 4 1/2 years into my bus. and someday Ill get to where I want to be financially because I work hard(Ive always gotten compliments about my work ethic from employers) and I see improvements every day. I guess my point is, I agree with you to a certain extent about "free handout programs". Your life is what you make of it. Youll get out of life what you put into it. But there are issues we have no control over. Healthcare, they make record profits and still raise costs. Our choice is, we either pay them or have no healthcare. Switching to another provider isnt the answer because theyre doing the same thing. Thats why " I agree with you to a certain extent." Its late, have a good night.

What we need in this country is to level the playing field if we want people to actually all have the same advantages: education, health, safety, etc. Because right now there is certainly not a level playing field! And while the rich keep getting richer, trust me, the poor keep getting poorer.

Those of you who think that it is perfectly fine for the government to subsidize huge conglomerate corporations and to give them tax breaks, and to give tax advantages to the wealthy over anyone else, like the middle class and poor, you are completely screwed up. You create a bigger and bigger segment of the population into poor people and the demand for the "public dole" becomes greater.

We shouldn't be in the business of keeping people down with free stuff. But how are you going to figure out a sensible and fair plan if all you do is go around bellyaching about not wanting to give people hand outs? And if you support giving governmental advantages primarily to the people who are wealthy, you're part of the bigger problem.

Come up with a plan. If you don't want your government helping people whom you consider to be capable and able to work, then do something about it.

I am sick to death of people being so obsessed with people "on the dole" but who are only willing to bitch about it - not actually be part of the solution.