Where's the stimulus?

[Shooter]

Our brilliant financial leader Barack Hussein Obama sure knows what he's doing, judging by this article. Thanks for the enormous spending, Mr. President--it's paying off in spades!

July 2 (Bloomberg) -- Employers in the U.S. cut 467,000 jobs in June, the unemployment rate rose and hourly earnings stagnated, offering little evidence the Obama administration’s stimulus package is shoring up the labor market.

The payroll decline was more than forecast and followed a 322,000 drop in May, according to Labor Department figures released today in Washington. The jobless rate jumped to 9.5 percent, the highest since August 1983, from 9.4 percent.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ahfK709b4uds

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

Green Energy! We're going to stimulate the economy by being less efficient and spend more on energy costs! freedom from oil!

 

[Idog1976]

Our brilliant financial leader Barack Hussein Obama sure knows what he's doing, judging by this article. Thanks for the enormous spending, Mr. President--it's paying off in spades!



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ahfK709b4uds

I'm just curious did you criticize Bush's spending record? I certainly am angry about Obama's I'm also consistent and am upset about the Trillions we will have spent on Iraq and Afghanistan when all is said and done all the while we never got the guy we were supposedly after. Don't forget creating the Department of Homeland security the biggest government creation since the end of World War II. Thank god Bush didn't increase spending or the size of government oh wait...

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

homeland security was a vehicle to merge several agencies into one body.

 

[Idog1976]

homeland security was a vehicle to merge several agencies into one body.

One body with little oversight (did you see all the stuff about missing laptops and $35,000 dinners?) they are free from FOIA requests. Even the CIA has to respond to FOIA requests and will redact sensitive security matters. Why is this uber agency free from that?

Any time you put a few agencies under one umbrella you are going to get a colossal fuck up. Homeland Security is a monstrosity of government waste and does not really achieve the supposed goal of a safer country, rather its more bureaucracy and more waste. We already have a vast defense and intelligence apparatus with 16 intelligence agencies before Homeland Security was created.

Under Bush we also increased the number of private contracts from the government to a degree that we are now contracting about 50% of government work out to private agencies. This would be fine if the agencies were purely private but as they are on the government dole it will lead to more waste not less. The only thing worse then government is private - public partnerships where you are guaranteed to get worse service because there is incentive to cut corners and pad bills (See Bechtel in Iraq). We also passed Tarp I on Bush's watch which up to that point was I think the biggest bill ever (Way to go Obama you beat Bush on waste you're #1!).

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

Yes, its much better to compartmentalize everything so its a bitch to share data and information.

 

[Idog1976]

Yes, its much better to compartmentalize everything so its a bitch to share data and information.

We already had plenty of means to do this pre-9/11 we've merely EXPANDED the bureaucracy. 9/11 didn't happen because there wasn't enough government. Look at Katrina and tell me DHS does a better job. What a joke!

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm just curious did you criticize Bush's spending record? I certainly am angry about Obama's I'm also consistent and am upset about the Trillions we will have spent on Iraq and Afghanistan when all is said and done all the while we never got the guy we were supposedly after. Don't forget creating the Department of Homeland security the biggest government creation since the end of World War II. Thank god Bush didn't increase spending or the size of government oh wait...

We spent $600B on Iraq so far, not $trillions.

And yeah, I was outraged at the spending of the Republicans and Bush. But they spent pennies compared to what Democrats are spending these days.

 

[Colonel Ronan]

In my pants.

 

[Idog1976]

Well just as Bush set a new tone (PS 600 Billion is an EXTREME low ball figure I've seen up to 2 trillion with veteran's benefits etc.) so goes Obama. Hopefully, the next president REGARDLESS of political affiliation won't follow the lead of the three greatest spending presidents of all time Reagan, Bush and Obama.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Had Obama not stepped to protect the UAW, take control of GM to perpetuate the UAW retirement plan... there could have been added to the rolls of unemployed tens of thousands more.

 

[Denny Crane]

Had Obama not stepped to protect the UAW, take control of GM to perpetuate the UAW retirement plan... there could have been added to the rolls of unemployed tens of thousands more.

$10B in bailout money / 10,000 employed workers = $1,000,000 for each worker. It'd be cheaper to give them all $100K.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well just as Bush set a new tone (PS 600 Billion is an EXTREME low ball figure I've seen up to 2 trillion with veteran's benefits etc.) so goes Obama. Hopefully, the next president REGARDLESS of political affiliation won't follow the lead of the three greatest spending presidents of all time Reagan, Bush and Obama.

The $600B is publicly available - you can add up the sum of the supplemental spending bills.

The cost per vet for the VA is $2500/year.

The entire military is on the order of 1.5M men and women.

There are 26M or so vets paid for by the VA, a fraction served in Iraq. (maybe a million individuals served)

 

[mobes23]

In my pants.

Amazing, I was about to type those exact same words. You beat me to it, evil twin.

 

[Idog1976]

$10B in bailout money / 10,000 employed workers = $1,000,000 for each worker. It'd be cheaper to give them all $100K.

Yes, interesting how both Bush and Obama used the bailouts to help the big banking institutions and manage political crises. Why DIDN'T Obama and Bush just send the bailouts to every American citizen instead of the banks? If we aren't going free market (Banks given handouts, GM being nationalized etc. done under BOTH parties) lets at least shower the plebs with gold coins.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

$10B in bailout money / 10,000 employed workers = $1,000,000 for each worker. It'd be cheaper to give them all $100K.

Denny, it's the UAW- $100K simply wouldn't be enough.

 

[Minstrel]

Yes, interesting how both Bush and Obama used the bailouts to help the big banking institutions and manage political crises. Why DIDN'T Obama and Bush just send the bailouts to every American citizen instead of the banks? If we aren't going free market (Banks given handouts, GM being nationalized etc. done under BOTH parties) lets at least shower the plebs with gold coins.

Or wipe out consumer debt with that money. It puts money in banks, which they can loan, and it leaves people in a better situation financially, and thus more willing to buy.

 

[Shooter]

I'm just curious did you criticize Bush's spending record? . . . I'm also consistent and am upset about the Trillions we will have spent on Iraq and Afghanistan . . .

Yes, I was upset about Bush's growth of the federal government, and I said so more than once. But do you realize that we are now spending every 2 months what we have already spent on the entire Iraq War???

Let me repeat that: Every 2 months, under Obama's enormous "stimulus" package, we are spending an amount equal to the entire cost of the Iraq War.

Just think about that for a minute.

 

[Shooter]

Had Obama not stepped to protect the UAW, take control of GM to perpetuate the UAW retirement plan... there could have been added to the rolls of unemployed tens of thousands more.

Uh, huh. And if Obama nationalizes health care, it will put thousands of Americans out of work who are presently employed by private health insurance companies. Will you be upset by that?

 

[Denny Crane]

Or wipe out consumer debt with that money. It puts money in banks, which they can loan, and it leaves people in a better situation financially, and thus more willing to buy.

I've been saying this for a long time. The downside is the banks' revenue goes south as there's lesser interest payments they can collect.

On the other hand, why shouldn't the suffering be spread around?

 

[barfo]

Uh, huh. And if Obama nationalizes health care, it will put thousands of Americans out of work who are presently employed by private health insurance companies. Will you be upset by that?

Why would anyone be upset by that? Surely you don't think the government would hire fewer people to do the same job, do you? That would make the government more efficient than private enterprise, and of course we know that can't be true. So nationalizing health care will create jobs.

barfo

 

[Shooter]

Why would anyone be upset by that? Surely you don't think the government would hire fewer people to do the same job, do you? That would make the government more efficient than private enterprise, and of course we know that can't be true. So nationalizing health care will create jobs.

Barfo, Barfo, Barfo . . .

The government is not a money-making operation; it creates nothing, it produces nothing. Anybody working for the government will be getting their pay from our tax dollars, not from the revenues produced by a private health insurance company.

Second, if the government can't hire fewer people to manage a centralized health care system than the thousands of people who presently work for all the private health insurers who compete against each other, something is seriously wrong.

 

[Idog1976]

Yes, I was upset about Bush's growth of the federal government, and I said so more than once. But do you realize that we are now spending every 2 months what we have already spent on the entire Iraq War???

Let me repeat that: Every 2 months, under Obama's enormous "stimulus" package, we are spending an amount equal to the entire cost of the Iraq War.

Just think about that for a minute.

Oh no I've thought about it and I'm extremely worried by Obama's behavior. Obama is as reckless fiscally as Bush was with foreign policy and civil rights. Both of these behaviors destroy our country it's just the one two punch of Republican and Democratic pandering to their elite friends.

 

[Idog1976]

Or wipe out consumer debt with that money. It puts money in banks, which they can loan, and it leaves people in a better situation financially, and thus more willing to buy.

That's a wonderful idea. They sort of are doing that for those people who have fixed debt. The coming wave of Hyperinflation, which will follow the next round of "Quantitative Easing" as surely as spring follows winter, will wipe out all fixed debts. Now adjustable debts...thats a different story.

Strange times and stranger to come!

 

[julius]

Where is the stimulus? Google Image Search, with the safe search set to "off". That's where.

 

[barfo]

Second, if the government can't hire fewer people to manage a centralized health care system than the thousands of people who presently work for all the private health insurers who compete against each other, something is seriously wrong.

So, you agree the current system is inefficient, and could be run more efficiently by the government. Good, that's progress.

The government is not a money-making operation; it creates nothing, it produces nothing. Anybody working for the government will be getting their pay from our tax dollars, not from the revenues produced by a private health insurance company.

What is it that the private health insurance companies create? What do they produce?

barfo

 

[Shooter]

So, you agree the current system is inefficient, and could be run more efficiently by the government. Good, that's progress.

No, the current system is highly efficient. At present you can shop around for health insurance at many different places, and pick the one with the best rates and coverages. NOTHING is ever run "more efficiently" by the government, even you should know that.

What is it that the private health insurance companies create? What do they produce?

A private health insurance company is a business like any other. It has to make money or it fails. This means that it must run itself efficiently in order to compete in the marketplace. So . . . what it produces is health insurance that is competitive, and a product that people want to buy.

The government, on the other hand, won't have to compete with anybody if it controls the whole system. This will lead to huge inefficiencies and waste, as every government program always does.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Uh, huh. And if Obama nationalizes health care, it will put thousands of Americans out of work who are presently employed by private health insurance companies. Will you be upset by that?

No it wouldn't. It'd place tens, maybe hundreds of thousands out of work. In fact, it might cause this recession to fall into a full blown depression. Heck, at our parent company (health care insurer) we have well over 3,000 employees and we're probably the 100th smallest health insurer in the country.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

So, you agree the current system is inefficient, and could be run more efficiently by the government. Good, that's progress.



What is it that the private health insurance companies create? What do they produce?

barfo

The private health care companies contribute over 80% of all monies to research & development. We have, as a small example, mamogram machines, MRI's... all due to monies provided by health insurance companies. The Canadian system produces zero dollars for R & D. In fact, the health care company I work for provides over $3,000,000 in free dental care for children and $10,000,000 in free medical care for chi9ldren per year and over $40,000,000 to various other charities thru both employee giving as well as corporate giving. And we're about the 100th largest health care company in the USA. We are non profit (as are most health care companies) and although I work for a small subsiderary, we take truns continually volunteering for various free health care programs. And this is just us.

If we go to a national health care system, this all goes down to zero. There's something Obama can be proud of.

 

[barfo]

The private health care companies contribute over 80% of all monies to research & development.

80% of all what monies? 80% of their revenue? profits? 80% of the money spent on R&D? I'm not following here. Contribute in what sense?

We have, as a small example, mamogram machines, MRI's... all due to monies provided by health insurance companies.

I'm a little unclear on this too. Are you saying that insurance companies funded the research the led to these machines? Or that insurance payouts allowed hospitals to buy the machines?

The Canadian system produces zero dollars for R & D. In fact, the health care company I work for provides over $3,000,000 in free dental care for children and $10,000,000 in free medical care for chi9ldren per year and over $40,000,000 to various other charities thru both employee giving as well as corporate giving. And we're about the 100th largest health care company in the USA. We are non profit (as are most health care companies) and although I work for a small subsiderary, we take truns continually volunteering for various free health care programs. And this is just us.

If we go to a national health care system, this all goes down to zero. There's something Obama can be proud of.

So if you worked for the government, you wouldn't be willing to volunteer your time anymore? Why is that?

barfo