paul. both good reads. my in-laws hooked me up with 1-yr subscription to the economist. i enjoyed both of these articles earlier this week.
i am still shocked by the 0! votes from the GOP on the stimulus bill. the GOP leadership can take credit. but take credit for what, looking like a bunch of out of touch hacks that propose a two-bit last-second-supposed "alternative" bill with bogus numbers loosely based on a made up CBO report just to quell the image of looking too much like obstructionist. i heard someone try to pitch the idea that the GOP will become the party of proposition, not opposition. nice, you can rhyme. that's about where their talents come to a close.
the GOP has poorly read the electorate (as witnessed in the whooping they took in nov) and will continue to do so in 2009 and beyond by the looks of things.
(sorry to threadjack right of the bat with my ramblings...)
i'm sorry that stephen hasn't received his suscription yet as jonny and i gave it to him...but the purchase of the thing was lost in the details...jonny?
regardless, i'm not sure the stimulus comes out smelling all like roses. here and here are problematic elements to the stimulus.
i don't feel that the medicaid and medicare plans as they currently sit are financially viable. it makes me nervous to give bumbling bureaucrats the reigns as my employers. however, the current private system has serious shortcomings. the bush administration made an 8 year mess of dealing with health care. this is the backlash we get from them not making sensible and market based solutions to the problem.
this is certainly an area where i'm worried the congress won't tread lightly enough and where romney would have been better suited to be at the helm of a stimulus package.
the stimulus needed to pass. the democrats need to listen to the GOP.
$850 billion is a lot of money 'number one' and the devil is in a lot of the details. would i have preferred the original plan that allowed for more small business tax breaks? yes. would i have preferred a more tax-cut heavy plan (say 50-60% tax cuts rather than 24-30%)? yes. do i think paul krugman is a tool? probably.
anyway. the GOP opposition is overstated. there is pork in this bill and it was going to pass anyway. showing opposition through a nay vote because democratic concessions were few and far between is fair. this was not obstructionist to the point of derailing the bill. no this bruhaha is more about the democrats wanting cover for a bill they largely crafted on their own...
as mentioned here, perhaps the bigger news is that 11 democrats and all republicans voted against the stimulus.
it's not that republicans in the house balked, it's that democrats balked as well. this doesn't bode well for the obama style if he's allowing pelosi to dictate to him instead of pragmatically taking ideas from both sides of the aisle.
i'm hoping he allowed that first round to end quickly and in the senate and final negotiations, a far more bipartisan and balanced bill will come to the table...
Paul, I think you’re seeing the issues around the “stimulus bill” pretty clearly. Without knowing all of the details, I got the feeling that Obama’s original proposal was leaner and cleaner before the House Democrats got a hold of it. I’ll give the president credit for at least bargaining to get rid of the line items giving hundreds of millions for contraceptives and extra upgrades to the National Mall. Granted, those were small in the grand scheme of the bill. More worrisome, like you pointed out, is the huge chunk going to Medicaid. It almost seems like a back door way of moving further towards a government run universal health care system. I do work for the government. I hope you as a doctor never have to.
By the way, did you catch Polosi’s comments to George Stephanopolis when she was asked to defend spending a couple hundred million on contraceptives? She explained that it was economic stimulus because it prevents the births of a large number of kids who would further burden the federal and state budgets for social programs, so it really saves the government a lot of money in the long run. I’d love your opinion on this, but her statement suggested to me that the government-run social programs are not working to help people out of poverty and distressed situations and Polosi knows it. If I’m not mistaken, countries who have socially engineered their populations toward static or negative growth rates have suffered severe economic problems.
In a separate topic, have you and Amy found a place to live yet? And when are you actually moving back. Big congratulations on landing your job. I’m proud of you guys and I’m happy for your success.
chris: welcome back. i'm glad you're not of the mind (as stevie is?) that it's unpatriotic not to vote for the democratic legislature's initial stimulus plan...
agreed that obama's original plan was less fluff and included closer to 50% tax cuts. pelosi and her minions quickly threw a little tantrum and put him in his place.
i think the contraceptive line item is humorous. racism cloaked as welfare, the argument is goes that these poor people who 'can't afford' their own birth control should be given it so they stop procreating and perpetuating the problems they're creating.
from a populational, anthropological, economic, and evolutionary standpoint--the argument makes sense. i'm not completely opposed to this particular idea of pelosi's. it's a hard sell to evangelicals who believe any form of birth-control is of the devil and kills babies...that is the ultimate sticking point.
and true, one article aptly named this stimulus plan 'stealth care'...
we are looking for places to live and are very excited about it.
and there's nothing wrong with working for the government. there are a lot of positives to it. all government employees are not bumbling bureaucrats and i didn't mean to imply that..:)
No, really, I'm strongly considering moving out of the public sector. Serving the public has it's rewards, but a couple of my friends and I are putting together plans to start a business because we think we'll be able to help people more effectively in the private sector. We all still want to be involved in government in various ways, but we don't want to have to slowly move through all the red tape to get things done.
The democrats are ramming much of their social agenda through on the 'patriotism' of the stimulus bill. Those things should be separately discussed and debated and never rushed through as 'add-ons' to a very expensive borrowing proposition.
why i'm loving obama and happy to see bush go...
8 comments:
paul.
both good reads. my in-laws hooked me up with 1-yr subscription to the economist. i enjoyed both of these articles earlier this week.
i am still shocked by the 0! votes from the GOP on the stimulus bill. the GOP leadership can take credit. but take credit for what, looking like a bunch of out of touch hacks that propose a two-bit last-second-supposed "alternative" bill with bogus numbers loosely based on a made up CBO report just to quell the image of looking too much like obstructionist. i heard someone try to pitch the idea that the GOP will become the party of proposition, not opposition. nice, you can rhyme. that's about where their talents come to a close.
the GOP has poorly read the electorate (as witnessed in the whooping they took in nov) and will continue to do so in 2009 and beyond by the looks of things.
(sorry to threadjack right of the bat with my ramblings...)
i'm sorry that stephen hasn't received his suscription yet as jonny and i gave it to him...but the purchase of the thing was lost in the details...jonny?
regardless, i'm not sure the stimulus comes out smelling all like roses. here and here are problematic elements to the stimulus.
i don't feel that the medicaid and medicare plans as they currently sit are financially viable. it makes me nervous to give bumbling bureaucrats the reigns as my employers. however, the current private system has serious shortcomings. the bush administration made an 8 year mess of dealing with health care. this is the backlash we get from them not making sensible and market based solutions to the problem.
this is certainly an area where i'm worried the congress won't tread lightly enough and where romney would have been better suited to be at the helm of a stimulus package.
the stimulus needed to pass. the democrats need to listen to the GOP.
$850 billion is a lot of money 'number one' and the devil is in a lot of the details. would i have preferred the original plan that allowed for more small business tax breaks? yes. would i have preferred a more tax-cut heavy plan (say 50-60% tax cuts rather than 24-30%)? yes. do i think paul krugman is a tool? probably.
anyway. the GOP opposition is overstated. there is pork in this bill and it was going to pass anyway. showing opposition through a nay vote because democratic concessions were few and far between is fair. this was not obstructionist to the point of derailing the bill. no this bruhaha is more about the democrats wanting cover for a bill they largely crafted on their own...
how's that for rambling..?
as mentioned here, perhaps the bigger news is that 11 democrats and all republicans voted against the stimulus.
it's not that republicans in the house balked, it's that democrats balked as well. this doesn't bode well for the obama style if he's allowing pelosi to dictate to him instead of pragmatically taking ideas from both sides of the aisle.
i'm hoping he allowed that first round to end quickly and in the senate and final negotiations, a far more bipartisan and balanced bill will come to the table...
Paul, I think you’re seeing the issues around the “stimulus bill” pretty clearly. Without knowing all of the details, I got the feeling that Obama’s original proposal was leaner and cleaner before the House Democrats got a hold of it. I’ll give the president credit for at least bargaining to get rid of the line items giving hundreds of millions for contraceptives and extra upgrades to the National Mall. Granted, those were small in the grand scheme of the bill. More worrisome, like you pointed out, is the huge chunk going to Medicaid. It almost seems like a back door way of moving further towards a government run universal health care system. I do work for the government. I hope you as a doctor never have to.
By the way, did you catch Polosi’s comments to George Stephanopolis when she was asked to defend spending a couple hundred million on contraceptives? She explained that it was economic stimulus because it prevents the births of a large number of kids who would further burden the federal and state budgets for social programs, so it really saves the government a lot of money in the long run. I’d love your opinion on this, but her statement suggested to me that the government-run social programs are not working to help people out of poverty and distressed situations and Polosi knows it. If I’m not mistaken, countries who have socially engineered their populations toward static or negative growth rates have suffered severe economic problems.
In a separate topic, have you and Amy found a place to live yet? And when are you actually moving back. Big congratulations on landing your job. I’m proud of you guys and I’m happy for your success.
chris: welcome back. i'm glad you're not of the mind (as stevie is?) that it's unpatriotic not to vote for the democratic legislature's initial stimulus plan...
agreed that obama's original plan was less fluff and included closer to 50% tax cuts. pelosi and her minions quickly threw a little tantrum and put him in his place.
i think the contraceptive line item is humorous. racism cloaked as welfare, the argument is goes that these poor people who 'can't afford' their own birth control should be given it so they stop procreating and perpetuating the problems they're creating.
from a populational, anthropological, economic, and evolutionary standpoint--the argument makes sense. i'm not completely opposed to this particular idea of pelosi's. it's a hard sell to evangelicals who believe any form of birth-control is of the devil and kills babies...that is the ultimate sticking point.
and true, one article aptly named this stimulus plan 'stealth care'...
we are looking for places to live and are very excited about it.
and there's nothing wrong with working for the government. there are a lot of positives to it. all government employees are not bumbling bureaucrats and i didn't mean to imply that..:)
No, really, I'm strongly considering moving out of the public sector. Serving the public has it's rewards, but a couple of my friends and I are putting together plans to start a business because we think we'll be able to help people more effectively in the private sector. We all still want to be involved in government in various ways, but we don't want to have to slowly move through all the red tape to get things done.
sounds like fun!
The democrats are ramming much of their social agenda through on the 'patriotism' of the stimulus bill. Those things should be separately discussed and debated and never rushed through as 'add-ons' to a very expensive borrowing proposition.
Post a Comment