Bush Impeachment Hearing

[Lair]

Yes, so why is giving everyone free care going to make it better except to remove incentive to get a highly skilled job and a salary/benefits package?

You're already giving free healthcare to everyone that can't afford it.

[DarkWing6]

You're already giving free healthcare to everyone that can't afford it.

and i dont want to be taxed more to get worse healthcare than i am now.

i am paying for it either way. let me choose.

please tell me you dont think it is really free.

[Lair]

*shrug*

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ihrXXebCc-1ukON23aArsxLrveNwD9256EK80

And it is creating jobs from soldiers to systems integrators / engineers. A lot more people will be able to afford college than before, if they survive.

The problem wasn't solved in the past, and it's better still IMO to have acted than continue the risk of uncertainty and potential of WMDs to be there. And look, N. Korea is playing ball now more than it was.

*shrug*

From your link:

Iraq war's total cost nearing Vietnam's price tag

By CHRISTINE SIMMONS – 2 days ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The total cost of the Iraq war is approaching the Vietnam War's expense, a congressional report estimates, while spending for military operations after 9/11 has exceeded it.
The new report by the Congressional Research Service estimates the U.S. has spent $648 billion on Iraq war operations, putting it in range with the $686 billion, in 2008 dollars, spent on the Vietnam War, the second most expensive war behind World War II. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. has doled out almost $860 billion for military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere around the world.
All estimates, adjusted for inflation, are based on the costs of military operations and don't include expenses for veterans benefits, interest on war-related debts or assistance to war allies, according to the nonpartisan CRS.
The report underscores how the price tag has been gradually rising for the war in Iraq, which began in March 2003. In late 2002, then-White House budget director Mitch Daniels estimated the Iraq war would cost $50 billion to $60 billion. A year later, L. Paul Bremer, then-chief of the U.S. occupation government in Iraq, said the war would cost $100 billion

[Lair]

and i dont want to be taxed more to get worse healthcare than i am now.

i am paying for it either way. let me choose.

please tell me you dont think it is really free.

It isn't free now, and it won't be free later.

Everything has to be paid for - including the record federal deficit.

[Lair]

I have a better one (worse one) for you. letting american citizens rot in Iran for over a year. this was an act of war perpetrated by Iran against us, and carter jerked off for a year while doing nothing. this was after helping depose the shah and giving rise to the mullahs, which is on his head also and is a big fucking reason the middle east is the way it is today.

30 years later, and you're still bitching about Carter?

I haven't seen you bitch about the human lives that Bush has wasted.

[Lair]

reagan knew enough to hire people who knew more than him to handle the economy. so did president clinton.

But you think Obama doesn't know enough to hire those people?

[nando]

It isn't free now, and it won't be free later.

Everything has to be paid for - including the record federal deficit.

then why leave it up to the government to take over? what service has the goverment ever provided that wasn't over budget, lacking in choice and less efficient than an equivalent private run service? Name one.

[nando]

But you think Obama doesn't know enough to hire those people?

exactly. I don't think he does. I think he knows how to appeal to Americans that want stuff for free by making promises he can't ever deliver.

[DarkWing6]

ok, so if they are going to provide more healthcare while only charging the same people (those of us that dont get it free now). that means they are going to be taxing me more for something i dont want. i dont really feel like taking my kids to the dmv for their check up.

as corrupt as you say the government is, why would you want them to control more of our money and more of our lives?

btw - no kids yet, but someday.

[rwh11385]

You're already giving free healthcare to everyone that can't afford it.

If that were true, why is Obama in support of more?

[uofom3]

But Obama NEEDS to BE an economist to listen to the right ones and do the country right?

If he listened to the right ones, it wouldn't be a problem. But, he won't. If you buy into global warming, not drilling for oil, bailing out the housing crunch, lowering interest rates, raising the minimum wage, and increasing taxes on the rich; you are NOT listening to the right people about how to grow the economy.

OK... so you contend that you need to know little to nothing about economics and it has nothing to do with the politics and vice versa. In reality, economics is what drives politics or political decisions end up having economic impacts. For instance:

Factual statement: Gas prices are high. We all know this.

Why?: Global increase in demand skyrocketing, futures market (to a much lesser degree, they simply price in the market information), global increase in energy needs, low refinery capacity, people previously doing an inefficient job of regulating their consumption, lack of movement to alternative energy (particularly nuke) and a lack of prospecting by one of the worlds largest users. There are more factors, but these are quick points that are generally independent of our economy directly, and more a macro view of what is going on to drive oil prices.

What can we control?: We can start building nuke/solar/wind power plants, start prospecting for our own domestic crude, and regulate the speculator market. Building the alternative power plants needs to be done regardless both for the environment and the economy. We can drill in ANWR, off shore, etc. Regulating speculators is pretty useless as in general a free market is pretty good at pricing in all known information. SImply doing the first two things will have the impact of lowering prices and will not need to have anything done with the speculative market.

So what is stopping nuke plants? Politics. What is stopping wind/water/wave power? Politics. What is stopping drilling? Politics. What is making the speculators the new targets of this? Politics. Who is opposing that?

What is the net effect of these politics? High gas prices, higher unemployment, etc. because the economy both domestically and abroad price these things into all markets (job, goods, securities, etc.)

Voting democratic is a slam-dunk guarantee that the economy will continue to dwindle compared to what it COULD do. The good news is, Americans are so driven and successful inspite of what you hear that even with someone at the helm to isn't helping anything we STILL prosper. So why not feed the economic policy of this country something useful and watch us all benefit?

What's worse, the people who get hurt the most by all of this idiocy are the same ones who vote for Demo's thinking that they are going to somehow be helped.

I could write another 10 paragraphs about why China is kicking ass economically (because they have to) because they have said F it and started doing what has to be done.

Finally, I have been told by some people that some of this gets way too deep and people start throwing around functions/words/terms that people might not always know. The problem when this happens is that people feel disenfranchised; which stands to reason. I mean who feels embraced when they don't feel like they understand the situation. The economic community/other board members/the media/my self need to be a better job communicating this out of theory and putting it into practical terms. I've meaning to go to a bookseller and find a book that would help me simplify this down to a way that makse sense without the details.

I wish people who blindly support Obama would for a minute realize that, by-in-large, if you care about the economy, your gas prices, your food prices, etc. you need to start thinking about these in the context of economics. The politics that you chose to follow or not follow would probably change directly with a result of more understanding of why things are the way they are.

Higher gas prices, higher food prices, housing problems, etc. for the economically middle to lower middle class will not get better through higher taxes, not drilling, not starting nuclear plants, and having the government socialize more of your life. What's worse is these people perpetuate their problems because they vote for people who generally hurt the lowest paying jobs. Bobby is completely right, if you are qualified for a higher level position the economy is just fine. I'm not worried about people like Bobby because he is a very smart, driven guy. It's the guy who makes $10.00/hour or less with a family that is REALLY getting hammered by this... this is the guy who really needs to think about economics force government to take action that will help their life improve and give them the most opportunity to improve their lives.

[uofom3]

If that were true, why is Obama in support of more?

Because most people don't know that's the case, PMSNBC doesn't cover that very well.

[rwh11385]

i dont really feel like taking my kids to the dmv for their check up.

as corrupt as you say the government is, why would you want them to control more of our money and more of our lives?

Our governor [former businessman and a republican] recently really improved the BMV (bureau, not department here) greatly, and earned the state a AAA+ credit rating with surpluses three years straight.

Daughters are pretty cute too ;)

But he's the exception in politics. Efficient regulation and good use of money/time is not the government's core competency, so why give them responsibility? Either outsource the job to an outside private party or bring in business veterans.

[Lair]

I hate government, and I assume that most true conservatives hate it as well. That's why I'm so surprised by the number of Bush fans in this country. Dubya has swollen our gubmint to the size of a planet, and his policies have tanked the economy and out politcal standing in the world.

Then you have this to deal with:

White House projects record deficit for

NEW: Senate budget panel chairman sharply criticizes Bush fiscal policies

Deficit in budget year 2009 expected to grow to $490 billion, official says

White House spokeswoman says increased deficit needed to spur economy

White House points to faltering economy, budget stimulus package for increase


From Brianna Keilar
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House on Monday predicted a record deficit of $490 billion for the 2009 budget year, a senior government official told CNN.


The White House blames a faltering economy and the stimulus package for the increased budget deficit.

The deficit would amount to roughly 3.5 percent of the nation's $14 trillion economy.

The official pointed to a faltering economy and the bipartisan $170 billion stimulus package that passed earlier this year for the record deficit.

The fiscal year begins October 1, 2008.

The federal deficit is the difference between what the government spends and what it takes in from taxes and other revenue sources. The government must borrow money to make up the difference.

The official spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing a lack of authorization to speak publicly ahead of an official briefing later Monday by Office of Management and Budget Director Jim Nussle.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the stimulus package was necessary, even if it increased the deficit.

"We do think the plan was the right one, and it will have an effect," Perino said. "And the best way to help reduce the deficit is to make sure you are keeping a lock on spending, but also that you can also try to help to build the economy. So we hope this will help us pull out of the economic downturn over the next few months because of the stimulus package.


"I remember that back when we were discussing the stimulus package, both parties recognized that the deficit would increase, and that would be the price that we pay in order to help improve the economy," she said.

President Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion when he took office in 2001 but has since posted a budget deficit every year.

The Bush administration has spent heavily on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and faces a large budget shortfall in tax revenue because of Bush's tax cuts and a souring economy.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/28/2009.deficit/index.html

[Lair]

If he listened to the right ones, it wouldn't be a problem. But, he won't.

Crystal ball?