President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[RossValoryRocks]

What you're referring to is what Obama initially proposed, before the Republicans in Congress and the House forced him to water it down. No-one would be complaining if the acual proposed legislation had been signed into law.

I'm hugely dissatisfied with a lot of the provisions of the overhaul, and try as I might, I still can't wrap my mind around the concept of forcing people to get coverage, although from what I've read, the government will give those who cannot afford it a stipend to cover those costs.

However, we had to start SOMEWHERE. This is far better than the alternative. Stu, costs have been escalating at an AVERAGE of 21% per year for the past decade on employer-based plans. That was going to happen regardless.

The republicans didn't force ANYTHING, other than to make the democrats own this thing...they had unassailable majorities in both houses, including very moderate Republicans to help in the Senate. They could, and did, pass anything the wanted. Sorry dude, can't pin this on the Republicans.

As for health care going up

I don't know about anyone elses coverage, but mine went up almost 40% this year, after not moving more than a few buck the previous 5...and while my coverage is good, it's not a cadillac plan.

What I was getting at is that it is going to get WORSE...much worse...there are better ways to make healthcare more affordable. I bet if we here from MR forums sat down over beers we could think of dozens.

[Angel]

What you're referring to is what Obama initially proposed, before the Republicans in Congress and the House forced him to water it down. No-one would be complaining if the acual proposed legislation had been signed into law.

I'm hugely dissatisfied with a lot of the provisions of the overhaul, and try as I might, I still can't wrap my mind around the concept of forcing people to get coverage, although from what I've read, the government will give those who cannot afford it a stipend to cover those costs.

However, we had to start SOMEWHERE. This is far better than the alternative. Stu, costs have been escalating at an AVERAGE of 21% per year for the past decade on employer-based plans. That was going to happen regardless.

The republicans didn't force ANYTHING, other than to make the democrats own this thing...they had unassailable majorities in both houses, including very moderate Republicans to help in the Senate. They could, and did, pass anything the wanted. Sorry dude, can't pin this on the Republicans.

As for health care going up

I don't know about anyone elses coverage, but mine went up almost 40% this year, after not moving more than a few buck the previous 5...and while my coverage is good, it's not a cadillac plan.

What I was getting at is that it is going to get WORSE...much worse...there are better ways to make healthcare more affordable. I bet if we here from MR forums sat down over beers we could think of dozens.

My insurance premiums went up significantly as well, and so did my deductible and my coverage went down...

I don't drink beer but I'll sit down over a lemonade with y'all and brainstorm on world peace!

[Monker]

My argument is like this- if you have a car, and you stay current on the upkeep, ie, changing oil, fluids, tires, etc, it will be a healthier automobile, versus a car that never undergoes maintenance. It's obviuos that a car that is not cared for will not run nearly as good, and it won't last nearly as long. It's a pretty simple conclusion to arrive at. And the thing is, we aren't talking cars...we are talking human beings for Christs sake.

Staying with your automobile analogy. Why do oil changes only cost $14.95? Why does a radiator or transmission flush and fill only cost $49.95. Why do a set of goodyears only cost $350. Gasoline is cheap in relation to other parts of the world.

These things are this affordable because you have alot of companys competing for your business. We have the freedom to shop around for these things.

Now imagine if Obama made all these things covered under your auto-insurance policy. Pull into whatever business and get "free" tires, oil, gas...etc.

You wouldn't even see prices for these items posted. They could charge whatever they wanted.
Just swipe your Obamamobile card and drive on your way. Insurance premiums would skyrocket, wouldn't it?

People who don't pay out of pocket have no idea what a physical costs. I know that I don't. Your way and Obama's way leads to skyrocketing costs. Ted Kennedy's HMO invention has led to skyrocketing costs.

Here's another example. Over the past 15 years, why has the cost of LASIK eye surgery dropped from $4000 an eye, to $499 an eye. Here's why. Because it's NOT covered by insurance.

I wonder what would happen to auto services if service stations were required to treat your car in the emergency room, even if you couldn't afford to pay for it. I wonder how fast costs would rise for those who can. I wonder how long it would take the rest of us to complain that most of these emergency car issues would not be emergencies if those cars would just have yearly maintenance. I wonder how long it would take most idiots to realize allowing a simple yearly checkup is a lot cheaper then waiting for the car to be falling apart in the emergency room.

LASIK surgery and the like has also been around for decades and has become much simplified from what it was in the early days. There are also alternatives, such as lens implants. there are even different types of LASER's and the machines that do the procedure. So, there is a lot of competing technologies...and, IMO, LASIK is not at the forefront any longer and hasn't been for years. And, finally, I'm sure you can find a quack to remove your kidney for a extremely small fee...but it doesn't mean that some assembly line surgery team is the best place to go...sometimes you get what you pay for.

[gr8dane]

My argument is like this- if you have a car, and you stay current on the upkeep, ie, changing oil, fluids, tires, etc, it will be a healthier automobile, versus a car that never undergoes maintenance. It's obviuos that a car that is not cared for will not run nearly as good, and it won't last nearly as long. It's a pretty simple conclusion to arrive at. And the thing is, we aren't talking cars...we are talking human beings for Christs sake.

Staying with your automobile analogy. Why do oil changes only cost $14.95? Why does a radiator or transmission flush and fill only cost $49.95. Why do a set of goodyears only cost $350. Gasoline is cheap in relation to other parts of the world.

These things are this affordable because you have alot of companys competing for your business. We have the freedom to shop around for these things.

Now imagine if Obama made all these things covered under your auto-insurance policy. Pull into whatever business and get "free" tires, oil, gas...etc.

You wouldn't even see prices for these items posted. They could charge whatever they wanted.
Just swipe your Obamamobile card and drive on your way. Insurance premiums would skyrocket, wouldn't it?

People who don't pay out of pocket have no idea what a physical costs. I know that I don't. Your way and Obama's way leads to skyrocketing costs. Ted Kennedy's HMO invention has led to skyrocketing costs.

Here's another example. Over the past 15 years, why has the cost of LASIK eye surgery dropped from $4000 an eye, to $499 an eye. Here's why. Because it's NOT covered by insurance.

I wonder what would happen to auto services if service stations were required to treat your car in the emergency room, even if you couldn't afford to pay for it. I wonder how fast costs would rise for those who can. I wonder how long it would take the rest of us to complain that most of these emergency car issues would not be emergencies if those cars would just have yearly maintenance. I wonder how long it would take most idiots to realize allowing a simple yearly checkup is a lot cheaper then waiting for the car to be falling apart in the emergency room.

LASIK surgery and the like has also been around for decades and has become much simplified from what it was in the early days. There are also alternatives, such as lens implants. there are even different types of LASER's and the machines that do the procedure. So, there is a lot of competing technologies...and, IMO, LASIK is not at the forefront any longer and hasn't been for years. And, finally, I'm sure you can find a quack to remove your kidney for a extremely small fee...but it doesn't mean that some assembly line surgery team is the best place to go...sometimes you get what you pay for.

Nice one.

[RedWingFan]

Staying with your automobile analogy. Why do oil changes only cost $14.95? Why does a radiator or transmission flush and fill only cost $49.95. Why do a set of goodyears only cost $350. Gasoline is cheap in relation to other parts of the world.

These things are this affordable because you have alot of companys competing for your business. We have the freedom to shop around for these things.

Now imagine if Obama made all these things covered under your auto-insurance policy. Pull into whatever business and get "free" tires, oil, gas...etc.

You wouldn't even see prices for these items posted. They could charge whatever they wanted.
Just swipe your Obamamobile card and drive on your way. Insurance premiums would skyrocket, wouldn't it?

People who don't pay out of pocket have no idea what a physical costs. I know that I don't. Your way and Obama's way leads to skyrocketing costs. Ted Kennedy's HMO invention has led to skyrocketing costs.

Here's another example. Over the past 15 years, why has the cost of LASIK eye surgery dropped from $4000 an eye, to $499 an eye. Here's why. Because it's NOT covered by insurance.

I wonder what would happen to auto services if service stations were required to treat your car in the emergency room, even if you couldn't afford to pay for it. I wonder how fast costs would rise for those who can. I wonder how long it would take the rest of us to complain that most of these emergency car issues would not be emergencies if those cars would just have yearly maintenance. I wonder how long it would take most idiots to realize allowing a simple yearly checkup is a lot cheaper then waiting for the car to be falling apart in the emergency room.

That's my point Monker. The way that insurance and HMO's are tied to employer based payments (which I believe was implemented by the government). Nobody has to shop for anything. Dr's can charge whatever they want. Just show your card and maybe pay your co-pay. What liberals want to do is take what's broken and have the government magnify it and putting themselves in control.

The real reform that has to take place is for the government to free the market and allow buying across state lines.

Stossel had a great show on it documenting all the money Dr's and hospitals spend on red tape with insurance companies. All passed on to the consumers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WnS96NVlMI

[RedWingFan]

Stossel on Canadian and British Health Care for Deano.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9u2UU6- ... re=related

[Melissa]

Removing the barriers to interstate competition and tort reform would be good steps...

Exactly, would be huge good steps.

[Seven Wishes2]

They had unassailable majorities in both houses, including very moderate Republicans to help in the Senate. They could, and did, pass anything the wanted. Sorry dude, can't pin this on the Republicans.

As for health care going up

I don't know about anyone elses coverage, but mine went up almost 40% this year, after not moving more than a few buck the previous 5...and while my coverage is good, it's not a cadillac plan.

What I was getting at is that it is going to get WORSE...much worse...there are better ways to make healthcare more affordable. I bet if we here from MR forums sat down over beers we could think of dozens.

Come on, Stu. Let's not shit each other here, OK? The GOP was hell-bent on standing firm against ANYTHING Obama proposed the past two years. Never in history was there a more resolute and uncompromising minority in the House or Senate. There were perhaps five moderate Republicans for the Dems to work with - and they were ABSOLUTELY the ones who insisted upon no single-payor system and not immediately implementing the no pre-existing condition clause.

[Seven Wishes2]

The real reform that has to take place is for the government to free the market and allow buying across state lines.

Stossel had a great show on it documenting all the money Dr's and hospitals spend on red tape with insurance companies. All passed on to the consumers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WnS96NVlMI

That simply doesn't work and it would actually drive premiums up, not down.

[url]
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories ... lines.aspx[/url]Ron Pollack, founding executive director of Families USA, a consumer health care advocacy group...expressed concern about efforts to de-regulate the market. "The real underlying issue is that Republicans and others who created this do not want to create adequate standards for the sale of health care." That would result in policies that "perpetuate the practices that have harmed consumers," he said.

If insurers can sell beyond state lines, the concern is that consumers would be attracted to the least comprehensive policies because they would be cheapest - some call it "a race to the bottom." For example, someone could buy a policy in a state that doesn't mandate coverage of diabetic supplies and then the consumer could be stuck with higher bills.

In addition, insurers selling across state lines might market policies to younger, healthier individuals. That could leave the insurance pool with older and sicker individuals, who would face ever-rising rates -- or face being turned down -- because their insurers would have fewer healthy people to spread risk.

That would "undermine insurance regulation in states doing serious regulation," said Linda Blumberg, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute's Health Policy Center. "It would be destructive to those state efforts."

There are also fears that consumers dealing with out-of-state companies would have difficulties resolving disputes. And, since health costs vary geographically, insurance purchased in one state might not cover as much of the cost of care in a more expensive state.

[Seven Wishes2]

Is it just me, or do I detect a slightly more conciliatory timbre to the forum the past couple of days? See? We can all get along.

[Angel]

Is it just me, or do I detect a slightly more conciliatory timbre to the forum the past couple of days? See? We can all get along.

I'm not sure what about six of those words are, but of course we can all get along....deep down we all love each other!!!





ps, I'm only kidding, I DO in fact, know what all those words mean, just messin' with ya...

[StevePerryHair]

Is it just me, or do I detect a slightly more conciliatory timbre to the forum the past couple of days? See? We can all get along.

Hey... let's not get crazy

[hoagiepete]

Is it just me, or do I detect a slightly more conciliatory timbre to the forum the past couple of days? See? We can all get along.

Oh, f#*k off!

[hoagiepete]

The real reform that has to take place is for the government to free the market and allow buying across state lines.

Stossel had a great show on it documenting all the money Dr's and hospitals spend on red tape with insurance companies. All passed on to the consumers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WnS96NVlMI

That simply doesn't work and it would actually drive premiums up, not down.

[url]
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories ... lines.aspx[/url]Ron Pollack, founding executive director of Families USA, a consumer health care advocacy group...expressed concern about efforts to de-regulate the market. "The real underlying issue is that Republicans and others who created this do not want to create adequate standards for the sale of health care." That would result in policies that "perpetuate the practices that have harmed consumers," he said.

If insurers can sell beyond state lines, the concern is that consumers would be attracted to the least comprehensive policies because they would be cheapest - some call it "a race to the bottom." For example, someone could buy a policy in a state that doesn't mandate coverage of diabetic supplies and then the consumer could be stuck with higher bills.

In addition, insurers selling across state lines might market policies to younger, healthier individuals. That could leave the insurance pool with older and sicker individuals, who would face ever-rising rates -- or face being turned down -- because their insurers would have fewer healthy people to spread risk.

That would "undermine insurance regulation in states doing serious regulation," said Linda Blumberg, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute's Health Policy Center. "It would be destructive to those state efforts."

There are also fears that consumers dealing with out-of-state companies would have difficulties resolving disputes. And, since health costs vary geographically, insurance purchased in one state might not cover as much of the cost of care in a more expensive state.

I don't understand this. Competition should naturally drive costs down. Currently there are virtual monopolies in many states.

Some of the arguments above don't make sense. Other lines of insurance sell across state lines (work comp, GL, auto, etc.). They are still regulated by the individual states where they are doing business, not just their state of domicile. Why not allow the competition? They would still have to abide by the insurance reg's of the state where they are doing business.

Thinking through this, I guess the current monopolies are able to negotiate deep discounts with docs and hospitals that may not occur if there was even competition, thus driving up costs. Not sure how that would play out.

Someone help me here.

[Seven Wishes2]

The two biggest issues are the standard of care and the diminishing risk pools.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Stossel on Canadian and British Health Care for Deano.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9u2UU6- ... re=related

Stossel has also started coming out against traffic lights as "too much burdensome regulatioon." He used to be interesting, now he's a libertarian dreamer, no different than the naive peaceniks on the left. The dude is not serious. Speaking of him, ever seet this clip of him getting bitch-slapped? Mr. "Tort Reform" himself would later clog our legal system with a wasteful personal injury lawsuit against the WWF. Typical right wing fraud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWB6hGIA9sw

[The_Noble_Cause]

Keynseian (liberal) economists believe the answer to "too much debt and too much spending" is "more debt and more spending"... think about that...

Ok, that's a stretch. Keynesians believe in government intervention in the economy to boost demand when the private sector and monetary policy/low interest rates fail to be up to the task - like now. Lib economists have no problem with paying down debt in good economic times.

[slucero]

Keynseian (liberal) economists believe the answer to "too much debt and too much spending" is "more debt and more spending"... think about that...

Ok, that's a stretch. Keynesians believe in government intervention in the economy to boost demand when the private sector and monetary policy/low interest rates fail to be up to the task - like now. Lib economists have no problem with paying down debt in good economic times.

now look who' "stretching"... and I don't think most folks consider balancing the budget, or just reducing the deficit to = "paying down the debt"



Ths shows the Reagan rise and the Clinton dip.


Every growth cycle has ended with debt growth.. because the government can't constrain themselves in anticipation of a downturn. They spend as the growth occurs, then miss the downturn and have to borrow to make up the difference...

So it bears repeating... looking at both graphs in nominal and inflation adjusted dollars, and regardless of the party in power... that the problem of "too much debt and too much spending", has not been solved with "more debt and more spending"...

[The_Noble_Cause]

I’m all for network standards and practices, but this is a bum deal. Public and private citizens should be allowed to make private donations to whoever they choose.
Remind me, what was the fallout over Fox News donating $1 million dollars to the Republican Governors Association? Still waiting on that, aren't we? For that matter, how about their news anchors actively promoting the Tea Parties and directing their viewers to make political donations? Leave it to you, FF, to brainlessly gloat corporate censorship.

[The_Noble_Cause]

now look who' "stretching"... and I don't think most folks consider balancing the budget, or just reducing the deficit to = "paying down the debt".....So it bears repeating... looking at both graphs in nominal and inflation adjusted dollars, and regardless of the party in power... that the problem of "too much debt and too much spending", has not been solved with "more debt and more spending"...

But Keynesian economists don't propose deficit spending to bring down debt. They do it to boost consumer confidence to bring down unemployment, which, in turn, helps the economy grow. We've always had debt. Until it threatens interest rates, it is not necessarily a bad thing. You sound like the GOP. As soon as Obama took power, all I heard was a constant drumbeat of "deficits, debt, deficits, debt, government spending, yada yada yada." The priority right now is to put people back to work.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Never said any such thing...I said they IMO are looking for a way out of his mega contract because he's such a loOOser. They can't just fire him with that contract and the Disabilities Acts forbids them for apparent reasons, so now they've found this avenue. With Comcast taking over NBC look for Maddow and possibly Matthews to be next.

No basis in reality. MSNBC just relaunched the network with a new multi-million dollar advertising campaign. Olbermann's not going anywhere. If early reports are to be believed, Comcast wants MSNBC to go even harder left. If I were you, I'd be more worried about your boy Beck on Fox, who keeps inspiring mass murderers. Watch for real journalists like Shep Smith to walk off in disgust.

MSNBC needs a new Russert or Williams.

Russert was branded as a leftist and got little-to-nil respect from you guys until he died. Currently, many neutral journalists exist on the NBC payroll and have to put up with your crap. Brian Williams is also always being called a liberal stooge etc. You guys won't be satisfied until every local news department in America is run by Rupert Murdoch.

[RossValoryRocks]

I’m all for network standards and practices, but this is a bum deal. Public and private citizens should be allowed to make private donations to whoever they choose.
Remind me, what was the fallout over Fox News donating $1 million dollars to the Republican Governors Association? Still waiting on that, aren't we? For that matter, how about their news anchors actively promoting the Tea Parties and directing their viewers to make political donations? Leave it to you, FF, to brainlessly gloat corporate censorship.

If he signed the contract and voluntarily gave up his right to contribute, then no one is to blame but himself.

He didn't have to sign the contract. He didn't have to take that job.

It happens ALL the time in corporate settings. Your rights are curtailed, but ONLY because you agree to them as a condition of employment. A real simple on is this, your employer makes you sign an agreement that you will not consume alcohol while working, ANY alcohol. So even though you are of legal age, you cannot have a beer at lunch, or you will be fired.

Fox evidently doesn't have that stipulation in their contracts. I am not saying that it is right or wrong, just that KO was KO'd because he violated the conditions of his employment knowingly.

[RossValoryRocks]

You guys won't be satisfied until every local news department in America is run by Rupert Murdoch.

That would work!

Actually I think you need the balance, but since the big 3 are consistently slanted left in thier outlook...having Fox is probably a balance...and Fox news, the NEWS portion of it, is as about right down the middle as they come. Their opinion shows are obviously slanted right.

[The_Noble_Cause]

If he signed the contract and voluntarily gave up his right to contribute, then no one is to blame but himself.

He didn't have to sign the contract. He didn't have to take that job.

It happens ALL the time in corporate settings. Your rights are curtailed, but ONLY because you agree to them as a condition of employment. A real simple on is this, your employer makes you sign an agreement that you will not consume alcohol while working, ANY alcohol. So even though you are of legal age, you cannot have a beer at lunch, or you will be fired.

Fox evidently doesn't have that stipulation in their contracts. I am not saying that it is right or wrong, just that KO was KO'd because he violated the conditions of his employment knowingly.

I'm not denying this. It still seems arbitrary, as many cable news hosts give money to candidates all the time. A real ethical violation would be if Olbermann directed his audience to donate cash, like Dick Morris does nightly on Hannity.

[slucero]

now look who' "stretching"... and I don't think most folks consider balancing the budget, or just reducing the deficit to = "paying down the debt".....So it bears repeating... looking at both graphs in nominal and inflation adjusted dollars, and regardless of the party in power... that the problem of "too much debt and too much spending", has not been solved with "more debt and more spending"...

But Keynesian economists don't propose deficit spending to bring down debt. They do it to boost consumer confidence to bring down unemployment, which, in turn, helps the economy grow. We've always had debt. Until it threatens interest rates, it is not necessarily a bad thing. You sound like the GOP. As soon as Obama took power, all I heard was a constant drumbeat of "deficits, debt, deficits, debt, government spending, yada yada yada." The priority right now is to put people back to work.

Bernanke said the following this week:

"Easier financial conditions will promote economic growth. For example, lower mortgage rates will make housing more affordable and allow more homeowners to refinance. Lower corporate bond rates will encourage investment. And higher stock prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can also spur spending. Increased spending will lead to higher incomes and profits that, in a virtuous circle, will further support economic expansion."

This does nothing but create a completely artificial illusion of "wealth" for shareholders, and bankers. It puts no one back to work... Capital investment does.. yet there's 1.8 TRILLION dollars sitting in banks right now.. and the banks are not lending it.. why??... because its cheaper and more profitable for them to borrow from the government at 0% then buy play the stock market... because the FinReg Act of 2010 does not prohibit them from doing so (unlike the repealed Glass-Steagall Act)... bottom line.. there's no risk for them to make money in the markets... and huge risk by lending into the stalled US economy... and until the government gets out of the way... the banks will not engage...


Paul Krugman is considered one of the leading economists in the US... he's Keynesian and a liberal.. hence my reference to "Keynesian(liberal)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugm ... omic_views

Krugman identifies as a Keynesian[120] and a saltwater economist,[1] and he has criticized the freshwater school on macroeconomics.[2][121]
In the wake of the 2007-2009 financial crisis he has remarked that he is "gravitating towards a Keynes-Fisher-Minsky view of macroeconomics."[122] Post-Keynesian observers cite commonalities between Krugman's views and those of the Post-Keynesian school.[123][124] [125]

.. and is pretty staunchly in the "the problem of "too much debt and too much spending", can be solved with "more debt and more spending" camp.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/opini ... ugman.html

The economic moral is clear: when the economy is deeply depressed, the usual rules don’t apply. Austerity is self-defeating: when everyone tries to pay down debt at the same time, the result is depression and deflation, and debt problems grow even worse. And conversely, it is possible — indeed, necessary — for the nation as a whole to spend its way out of debt: a temporary surge of deficit spending, on a sufficient scale, can cure problems brought on by past excesses.

There's a reason that Germany is solvent today.. they embraced austerity and defied current Treasury Secretary Geithner and outgoing Director of the White House National Economic Council Larry Summers calls for more stimulus.

German Chancellor Merkel even said the following...

"The fault, ultimately lies with misguided efforts in the US, both by the government and the Federal Reserve, to re-start artificially the economy after September 11 by pumping ever-cheaper money into the financial system. “We must look at the causes of this crisis. It happened because we were living beyond our means. After the Asian crisis [of 1997] and after 9/11, governments encouraged risk-taking in order to boost growth. We cannot repeat this mistake. We must anchor growth on firmer ground.”

[RossValoryRocks]

If he signed the contract and voluntarily gave up his right to contribute, then no one is to blame but himself.

He didn't have to sign the contract. He didn't have to take that job.

It happens ALL the time in corporate settings. Your rights are curtailed, but ONLY because you agree to them as a condition of employment. A real simple on is this, your employer makes you sign an agreement that you will not consume alcohol while working, ANY alcohol. So even though you are of legal age, you cannot have a beer at lunch, or you will be fired.

Fox evidently doesn't have that stipulation in their contracts. I am not saying that it is right or wrong, just that KO was KO'd because he violated the conditions of his employment knowingly.

I'm not denying this. It's still seems arbitrary, as many cable news hosts give money to candidates all the time. A real ethical violation would be if Olbermann directed his audience to donate cash, like Dick Morris does nightly on Hannity.

Is Morris being paid in that role is the question...and before you answer...have proof. If he is being paid then ok, I see the ethics problem (and please initiate a lawsuit with the FCC and FEC about it), if not he can say what he chooses on Hannity or anywhere else.

I know companies that don't care if an employee has a beer, A beer, as in ONE with lunch, just don't come to work drunk, does that mean that the company with the tighter rule is being arbitrary?

KO made a personal decision to violate his terms of employment and got caught. End of story...move along...nothing to see here.

[RossValoryRocks]

Stossel on Canadian and British Health Care for Deano.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9u2UU6- ... re=related

Stossel has also started coming out against traffic lights as "too much burdensome regulatioon." He used to be interesting, now he's a libertarian dreamer, no different than the naive peaceniks on the left. The dude is not serious. Speaking of him, ever seet this clip of him getting bitch-slapped? Mr. "Tort Reform" himself would later clog our legal system with a wasteful personal injury lawsuit against the WWF. Typical right wing fraud.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWB6hGIA9sw

How is that a wasteful personal injury lawsuit? Are you telling me you wouldn't sue in case like that??? He got his ass handed to him, and those slaps didn't look like they were fake (It was funny to watch though). I hope he got millions.

The difference is people sue doctors for not being God. "The doctor operated and my husband still died, even though he said he only had a 2% chance of surviving the surgery, so I sued for $25 million dollars and won" that is a frivolous lawsuit versus, "The doctor left a medical instrument in my husbands body, and he died."

BIG difference that you are glossing over here. WILLFUL negligence, and assault versus trying to pull off a medical miracle, and still getting sued, and a medical mistake.

You do see the differences don't you?

[Rockindeano]

Olberman is great. Biased? Sure. Smarter than anyone of Fixed Noise? Absolutely.

Fuck you Cons.

[The_Noble_Cause]

...[Krugman] is pretty staunchly in the "the problem of "too much debt and too much spending", can be solved with "more debt and more spending" camp.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/opini ... ugman.html

The economic moral is clear: when the economy is deeply depressed, the usual rules don’t apply. Austerity is self-defeating: when everyone tries to pay down debt at the same time, the result is depression and deflation, and debt problems grow even worse. And conversely, it is possible — indeed, necessary — for the nation as a whole to spend its way out of debt: a temporary surge of deficit spending, on a sufficient scale, can cure problems brought on by past excesses.

You obviously don't read alot of Krugman. More spending is the prescription right now because we are up against what he calls the "zero bound." In other words, with short-term interest rates already low, conventional monetary policy is insufficient. In your own quote, Krugman emphasizes that: "the usual rules don't apply." Krugman has never said deficit spending is the solution to EVERY situation.

There's a reason that Germany is solvent today.. they embraced austerity and defied current Treasury Secretary Geithner and outgoing Director of the White House National Economic Council Larry Summers calls for more stimulus... i.e... "Keynesian"

German Chancellor Merkel even said the following...

"The fault, ultimately lies with misguided efforts in the US, both by the government and the Federal Reserve, to re-start artificially the economy after September 11 by pumping ever-cheaper money into the financial system. “We must look at the causes of this crisis. It happened because we were living beyond our means. After the Asian crisis [of 1997] and after 9/11, governments encouraged risk-taking in order to boost growth. We cannot repeat this mistake. We must anchor growth on firmer ground.”

Wow. This couldn’t be more wrong. Germany is doing ok because 1) they did not have a housing bubble 2) they actually still have a thriving export economy and 3) most importantly, they embraced socialist policies of work sharing, where the government picks up the tab for the unemployed. Larry Summer is not a liberal economist; he is an anti-regulation Wall Street titan who explicitly said that the stimulus was only to be an insurance policy against the risk of rising unemployment. Real Keynesians were proposing a stimulus big enough to plug a two trillion dollar output gap. We didn't get anything close to that.

[The_Noble_Cause]

How is that a wasteful personal injury lawsuit? Are you telling me you wouldn't sue in case like that??? He got his ass handed to him, and those slaps didn't look like they were fake (It was funny to watch though). I hope he got millions.

The difference is people sue doctors for not being God. "The doctor operated and my husband still died, even though he said he only had a 2% chance of surviving the surgery, so I sued for $25 million dollars and won" that is a frivolous lawsuit versus, "The doctor left a medical instrument in my husbands body, and he died."

BIG difference that you are glossing over here. WILLFUL negligence, and assault versus trying to pull off a medical miracle, and still getting sued, and a medical mistake.

You do see the differences don't you?

Seemed like a light slap to me. I would have decked the guy back and I most certainly would NOT have sued.