Obama Care vs Republicans

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

It's just RINO, there is no H.

Yeah, I know. I just like the H for the mental image it brings up. Also, it's how it's pronounced, with a long 'i', instead of a short one.

@Griff:

The nutters were there first - by far. Republicans and conservatives work and take care of their families and don't really have time to go nutters about issues in Washington.

Until they feel threatened. Then you get the Tea Party, Sons of Liberty, etc.

Frankly, I don't believe there's a ghost of a chance of working with the likes of Nancy "food stamps are a great stimulus to the economy" Pelosi, and Harry "sonOfABitch" Reid.

Like now, the President and Reid call for negotiations - but the pre-condition is they have to have EVERYTHING they want, before the negotiations can begin.

Can you fuckin' imagine that?

Not just everything they want for Obamacare - NO. They want the debt ceiling lifted enough for the next half a year or so, as well. (not sure of the time, but it's a long time).

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

<snip>
Frankly, I don't believe there's a ghost of a chance of working with the likes
of Nancy "food stamps are a great stimulus to the economy" Pelosi, ...<snip>

I realize Pelosi drives some people nuts... maybe that's just her job
... or maybe she's the scorpion ... it's her nature, and she just cain't hep it.

In any case, Adak, you've used the epithet several times now,
so I assume you believe Pelosi's remark is not true.
But before getting too gleeful in your assumptions, there is this:

Wikipedia:

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),[1] formerly and still popularly known as
the Food Stamp program, provides financial assistance for purchasing food
to low- and no-income people living in the U.S.<snip>

According to Keynesian economic theory, like other forms of government spending,
SNAP, by putting money into people's hands, increases aggregate demand and stimulates the economy.
In congressional testimony given in July 2008, Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com,
provided estimates of the one-year fiscal multiplier effect for several fiscal policy options, and found that
a temporary increase in SNAP was the most effective, with an estimated multiplier of 1.73.[39]

In 2011, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack gave a slightly higher estimate:
"Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity."[40]

Vilsack's estimate was based on a 2002 George W. Bush-era USDA study which found that
"Ultimately, the additional $5 billion of FSP (Food Stamp Program) expenditures triggered
an increase in total economic activity (production, sales, and value of shipments)
of $9.2 billion and an increase in jobs of 82,100," or $1.84 stimulus for every dollar spent.[41]
>snip>

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I realize Pelosi drives some people nuts... maybe that's just her job
... or maybe she's the scorpion ... it's her nature, and she just cain't hep it.

In any case, Adak, you've used the epithet several times now,
so I assume you believe Pelosi's remark is not true.
But before getting too gleeful in your assumptions, there is this:

Wikipedia:

Fortunately, you know the Keynesian model of economics, has been roundly put into the trash bin, as bunk.

Wealth comes from adding something to our economy, that we didn't have before. Maybe a company builds a better surgical robot, maybe it's a more desirable "smart" phone. Maybe it's a better elevator.

The goal should be that people should find their way in our economy, so they don't need to rely on welfare. The gov't can assist in that endeavor! Relying on welfare is just riding on the backs of those who have been working.

Your numbers make it sound like we're getting some real benefit, but consider that for every dollar the private sector is taxed for welfare, only 60 cents or so, actually goes back out to welfare. The system is a bureaucracy, not a volunteer charity. All those social welfare workers, the people who make the stamps/cards, etc., all have to be paid.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Adak

<snip>
Your numbers make it sound like we're getting some real benefit,...

Adak, once again you have diverted off to talking about "wealth", "goal", "taxes" etc.
That's either a debating tactic, denial, habit, O/C, or whatever ?

We started with Pelosi's comment about food stamps being a stimulus to the economy.

It's very simple...
When $ is spent on food in a local food store, it is income to the store.
When the store has income, it spends $ on employees, supplies, advertising, maintenance, and profit to the owners.
When people don't have $ to spend in the local food store, the store goes out of business.
That is the local economy.

When the government gives low income people $ 1.00, they spend it in the food store,
and it's employees and suppliers and advertising firms and contractors
and investors, each in turn spends portions of that $1 generating the $ 1.84 in the other expenditures.
That is the stimulus to both the (local and national)economy.

So, Pelosi was right... Right ?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Adak, once again you have diverted off to talking about "wealth", "goal", "taxes" etc.
That's either a debating tactic, denial, habit, O/C, or whatever ?

We started with Pelosi's comment about food stamps being a stimulus to the economy.

It's very simple...
When $ is spent on food in a local food store, it is income to the store.
When the store has income, it spends $ on employees, supplies, advertising, maintenance, and profit to the owners.
When people don't have $ to spend in the local food store, the store goes out of business.
That is the local economy.

When the government gives low income people $ 1.00, they spend it in the food store,
and it's employees and suppliers and advertising firms and contractors
and investors, each in turn spends portions of that $1 generating the $ 1.84 in the other expenditures.
That is the stimulus to both the (local and national)economy.

So, Pelosi was right... Right ?

It would be IF the dollar being spent, was a dollar that wasn't simply printed up by the feds, out of nothing but fancy paper and inks.

Take it a step further and see where it leads: The gov't decides it's a stimulus to the economy, and we definitely need a stimulus, so they give everyone food stamps, and lots of them.

The problem is, there is no more wealth added to the economy to support it. So our dollar goes into free fall, as inflation flies through the roof.

Almost every gov't does a bit of this, because they know that normally, there IS some wealth being added to their economy, year by year. In our case, we've overdone it, causing our dollar to sink in value, year after year.

[regular.joe]

Originally Posted by Adak

Take it a step further and see where it leads: The gov't decides it's a stimulus to the economy, and we definitely need a stimulus, so they give everyone food stamps, and lots of them.

The problem is, there is no more wealth added to the economy to support it. So our dollar goes into free fall, as inflation flies through the roof.

Thank the stars that we don't take it a step further. Lets talk about reality, only the lowest end of income qualifies for food stamps. So, in reality your argument here is pretty much hot air.

[Adak]

I have not heard what the Conservative leaders are saying about Obamacare, but I've heard no less than THREE Conservative talk show hosts - which is a LOT for me (caught them on breaks between ball games this weekend), remark that Obamacare is finished because of the poor roll out, the web site failures, etc.

And I've had my nose into some coding this last week, but that strikes me as the DUMBEST idea! A national health care plan will destroy itself, because the website failed during the first few weeks?

No way.

Conservative talk show hosts, you should hang your heads in shame on this crazy idea.

The British press has published some actual enrolled numbers into Obamacare, but official numbers in total, haven't been officially released yet. Whatever the numbers are, they should easily get the 7 million people that they say they will require, to keep the ACA viable. Out of over 400 million people or so, I'm sure they can enroll 7 million.

I'm not sure the ACA is worth spending a lot more time arguing over. It is the law, and it obviously will be tried for at least the next 15 to 24 months, to see how it goes. We have more pressing issues right now, like Iran's nuclear negotiations (now going on), the war still going on in Afghanistan, and our inability to stop the Fed's from over-spending.

You tried to stop ACA, but it was ill-timed and failed. Time to move on. We have a country to run here.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Adak

Fortunately, you know the Keynesian model of economics, has been roundly put into the trash bin, as bunk.

By the particular school of economic thought which stood and stands in opposition to it and which created the phantom economics of the global crash.

There are many economists who still consider Keynesian economics to have value.

[Lamplighter]

For those who may be wondering about the question:
Why not give individuals the same delay as businesses in signing up for Obamacare ?

Washington Post
Stephen Stromberg
10/7/13

On Monday night, John Stewart interviewed Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius,
and he kept pressing her on why the Obama administration put a one-year hold
on the health-care law’s mandate that employers provide insurance to their workers
without offering a similar delay to the requirement that individual Americans have health coverage.
“I would feel like you are favoring big business because they lobbied you,”
Stewart also said, “but you’re not allowing individuals that same courtesy.”

Here is a very readable 1-page article that includes a link to that interview,
and explains differences between businesses and individuals under the ACA...

The corporate mandate is mainly in place to prevent companies
that already offer insurance from taking away that coverage.

Many health-care economists aren’t too worried about this.
That is, firstly, because employers have reasons to continue compensating
their workers with health-care coverage rather than, say, higher wages.
Firms, for example, get a [35%] tax break for offering insurance.

And, secondly, because even if they did take away coverage,
their workers would still be able to go into the marketplaces
the law set up and buy insurance on good terms and with government help.

Other than history, there’s no great reason employers are part
of the health-care system at all, and the law doesn’t need to keep them in it.<snip>