News-Record.com

"To saddle future generations with this monumental debt truly is irresponsible."

Mr. Warnicke, where was your voice and Mr. Jindal's voice when Pres. George Bush (43) was running up the debt that he passed to Pres. Obama? I don't believe that the former president vetoed any spending bills. Also, remember that when he came into office, Bush 43 was handed a surplus.

I recently came across a columnist and he used the term "misremember." I think that you misremember or choose to ignore Pres. Bush's fiscal irresponsibility.

There's that same weak argument again conundrum, "Bush did it too". Two wrongs don't make a right.

Didn't Obama vow to eliminate earmarks as part of the hope and change campaign? The current spending bill has $7.7 BILLION in earmarks according to an article in this morning's USA Today. Press secretary Gibbs has the lame excuse of calling it "last years business". 'Scuse me, doesn't Obama have the authority to veto last years business?

The "inherited" bit is popular, but it remains important to remember:

Congress controls the purse.

From 2001-2007 the debt increased by $3 trillion (with a "T").

(D)s won majority control in '06, and they took control in January '07. Since then our debt increased $2 trillion (with a "T").

In two years.

Or two-thirds the debt of the prior six years in one-third of the time.

And these numbers aren't something we have to guess at. Go here and enter the dates. To the penny, btw.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

The "inherited" line Obama keeps tossing around assumes people are uninformed, not particularly bright, and even less reflective.

Sadly, he's probably right.

As a conservative,(note, not as a Republican..I am not) I can't say that the Republican Response was Bobby Jindahls' finest moment, not so much in what he said but in his delivery. Face it, it was a weak showing. Not long afterwards, 60 Minutes ran a profile of Bobby Jindahl that was much more expressive of why the Republican party thinks so highly of him. I'll look forward to hearing more from him in the future.
The Republican Response lacked what I'm looking for...alternative solutions to Obama's plan. Give me something concrete, instead of just panning what the Dems are doing. I don't think what they are proposing will work either, but I want to know from the Republican leadership what they think WILL work. Not just soundbites of a plan but an honest to goodness plan, like Newt's Contract with America.

rbennet, "The "inherited" line Obama keeps tossing around assumes people are uninformed, not particularly bright, and even less reflective."

Well, at least we can find comfort in knowing the current resident in the white house will, go over that pork laden $410 billion pork package, line by line.
Thusly, cutting out all the earmaks, from democrats and republicans alike.That alone should chop it down to about $129.35.

'There's that same weak argument again conundrum, "Bush did it too". '

Seems a reasonable rejoinder to all of the "born again fiscal conservatives" that afflict the national debate.

You can't deny most of the folks crying crocodile tears in front of any camera that they can find right now were creating massive "generational theft" when they had the votes. While agreed the above statement doesn't advance us much in the debate, it does help define the debaters.

When the Reps propose a solution then perhaps we will have a debate.

but Rufus, they have proposed a solution. Instate the Fair Tax, then just sit back and watch.

"think that you misremember or choose to ignore Pres. Bush's fiscal irresponsibility."

Obama's lack of leadership and outright omission of doing anything to help restore the market is treason to the nation. Dow down another 200 today. Hope your you get along with your parents as they'll be moving in with you soon.

"You can't deny most of the folks crying crocodile tears in front of any camera that they can find right now were creating massive "generational theft" when they had the votes."

I'll agree with you there Mr Firefly. The R congress spent like drunken sailors and alienated many conservatives including myself. Maybe they will become born again fiscal conservatives, but I doubt it. However I am pleased with their almost consensus on opposing the stimulus bill. As for the current spending bill, many of the earmarks in the spending bill were inserted by Rs.

As Roger pointed out the D congress has increased the deficit much faster since '06, but that's a drop in the bucket considering what is coming up.

Both of them add to the deficit, I guess it's a matter of who does it faster. But I still don't think justifying D spending because R's did it too is a valid argument. That premise can work in reverse as well.

Obama brings up health care reform today and the Dow drops 280 points.

Is another gentlemanly wager in order?

A thousand-page healthcare bill signed into law by the end of the month, perhaps?

It's a crisis, after all. Obama as of 13 hours ago:

"The biggest threat to our nation's balance sheet is the skyrocketing cost of healthcare"

"There is always a reason not to do it and it strikes me that now is exactly the time for us to deal with this problem."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hvM6XGFb2cuJTouFge5VpJKsmDrg

Once that's out of the way all we'll need is a decent school shooting to take care of that pesky 2nd Amendment. I give us until July 4th for that one.

Someone else can call the stakes. I hear plastic helicopters are popular. Or a box set of DVDs...

You are too funny but your post likely has some truth roger. Health care reform started today. A nice meeting with lots of folks for a photo op, but Obama and Congress will do what they want to do when all is said and done. That's already been demonstrated.

Look for a health care bill around the corner, spending hundreds of billions if not trillions of money we don't have.

Because the DOW is a direct, real-time assessment of how the President is doing?

That's a ridiculous notion.

Two wrongs do not make a right, that's true. But the Republicans offer nothing whatsoever but more of the same crap that created the crisis that necessitates the spending.

I agree entirely with the assessment of pork spending, but to lay that on Obama is disingenuous. Most of the pork was added by Democratic Senators and Reps who held the bill hostage for sops to their districts -- the same thing the Republicans did when they were in power. Again, two wrongs do not make a right but point your fingers at the right people -- in this case, Congress.

I want to hear the Republican party do something besides whine and claim everything the Dems do "won't work" and demand that corporations be given control of everything. They claim government can't accomplish anything, which is true of Republican government, then say that government ought to be run like a business -- what business, a bank?

Laissez faire is dead and anyone who tries to resurrect it is a fool. Tax cuts? We are paying for them now. Do they boost the economy? No one has shown that they do anything but give it a temporary boost, then drag it down when it comes time to pay the piper.
When the Republicans offer a plan besides the ones that have been proven ineffective, foolish, incompetent and corrupt, then I will listen eagerly and if it makes sense, actively support it.

But if all the Republicans like Jindal and Limbaugh do is continue to complain, whine, oppose and interfere with people at least *trying* to correct the giant mess they made, then I say "shut up."

Roger, your notes about the debt are misdirection. During the time period in question, the Democratic Congress had to fund a war that it inherited, bail out banks trashed by Republican policies and clean up an economy wrecked by Republican incompetence and corruption.

And Dan, give me a good reason why we should not invest in health care? It's American made and 99% of the money goes right back into our economy. As opposed to Republicans who shipped jobs, industry and knowledge directly to the competition. Money well spent is good; money just handed to corporations in some sort of misguided hope that they will do anything but stick it in their pockets or buy foreign goods is a real waste.

Again, get rid of the pork, yes. But offer some plan other than those that are proven failures and I am all ears.

It's only numbers and dates, verelse. I have no need for misdirection. That's Obama's realm. It's much more complicated than simply saying "I inherited," but he and his depend on its political usefulness.

And regarding "have to"s, Congress didn't "have to" do any of the things you bring up. We can argue about political suicide and what not-funding the war would've done to Pelosi's long-term electoral... well, probably not Pelosi's, but you get the point. They still held the reigns for filibusters or other workable tactics. They chose their elected offices.

We've had the discussion before.

http://blog.news-record.com/opinion/letters/archives/2008/08/tv_ad_shows_the_weird_side_of.shtml

I don't think either party has clean hands, but I stand by what I wrote about Obama's success relying on people being uninformed.

Roger, you are arguing "personality" and "rhetoric" whereas I am arguing for action. Those that vote on personality or political allegiances are equally ill-informed. To believe one party or one person is always right is blindness. (I am not saying you do this, if I were ever to speak about you personally I would say so outright).

As for what Congress did or did not "have" to do, perhaps Congress does not have to honor the debts incurred by previous Congresses?

While semantically this may be right, logically the argument is a straw man for a reality that does not exist.

Obama is not likely to succeed in all efforts, and some I hope do not succeed. Of course, there are those that will work against him no matter what. These are the same people that called dissenters "traitors" for not blindly supporting the Republican war propaganda. (Talk about relying on people being uninformed!) These same people are willing to continue their destruction of the American economy, the Democratic form of government and our national security so they can gain power and money.

I will stand by my statements about the debt and reiterate that two wrongs do not make a right. At least half the "stimulus" bill will be wasted. 100% of TARP money has been wasted so far.

What really needs to happen is a new Resolution Trust Corporation and the breakup of all the supersized banks (Citi, BofA, Wells, JPMB, the entire top 10) into smaller banks that will never be "too big to fail." Until that is done, along with strong regulatory reform and elimination of nonsense accounting, no amount of "stimulus" will succeed for the long term.

I do think health care reform must be a priority..I ensure 28 employees. I don't want the government to assume my responsibilities, but I want out-of-control price gouging to end and a little common sense tort reform.

Focus any stimulus on developing US infrastructure, technology, military, industry and business (call it "subsidies" if you like, I do not care) that are sustainable. Rebuild our school systems to focus on science and math and not touchy-feely nonsense.

That is my suggestion as an alternative for what its worth. But I do not intend to waste my time talking about why things that don't ever work won't ever work. I want to hear suggestions and solutions from the opposition party (whichever one happens to be in that temporary position) not complaining and naysaying.

A good post and I'll write more soon when I have more time (although it will likely boil down to, if government *absolutely* has to be involved, it should be at the lowest level of city/county/state available. Most of my positions usually do).

Anyway, I just read this. Speak of the devil.

"Opening his conference on health-care, Obama complained that the soaring cost "now causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5glbNuOfBwACjypTPphjyWZlVthGwD96O1D500

A bankruptcy every 30 seconds is two per minute.
Two per minute x 60 minutes = 120 bankruptcies every hour
120 per hour x 24 = 2880 bankruptcies per day
2880 * 365 = 1,051,200 bankruptcies per year

So healthcare costs cause 1,051,200 bankruptcies every year.

Wow. Especially considering:
"In 2007, there were 819,115 such filings in the 50 states and Washington, D.C. The number rose to 1,086,130 in 2008 as the recession took hold."

http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/2008-bankruptcies-surge-1264.php

So there were only 35,000 non-healthcare bankruptcies in '08.

Reliance on the uninformed and not very bright. Dang good speaker, though.

"In 2007, there were 819,115 such filings in the 50 states and Washington, D.C. The number rose to 1,086,130 in 2008 as the recession took hold."

Read the sentence directly above and you will see that those are just Chapter 7 bankruptcies. That figure does not include *all* bankruptcies.

Besides, your figures are from 2008, and I am sure Obama was not quoting those stats. Look at 2009:

"An average of 3,960 bankruptcy petitions were filed per day nationwide last month, up 18 percent from January and up 28 percent from a year earlier, according to Automated Access to Court Electronic Records, a bankruptcy data and management company."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/business/05bankruptcy.html

That number far outpaces the 2,888 needed to be "one every thirty seconds." Of course I cannot tell how many were "caused" by health care costs, but I know two families that filed for bankruptcy this year and both were definitely caused by health care costs. In both cases the breadwinner lost income directly due to cancer and insurance leaves massive gaps in coverage intentionally.

The figure of 3,960 total bankruptcies would seem to justify Obama's remarks if one qualified them to say that health care costs "contributed directly to" the bankruptcy filings. I do not have the raw data needed to make that determination, but certainly bankruptcies are up sharply and millions of people have lost health insurance (600K per month).

Time to stop stalling and do something. I know everyone is afraid that *they* will lose something, though I doubt it would be more than a month's cable bill (not my cable bill, which is $14, but the average one, which is $95). Maybe we can ask everyone to give up one tier of precious cable tv so that the nation can solve this problem?

"Besides, your figures are from 2008, and I am sure Obama was not quoting those stats. Look at 2009:"

You're right, it wasn't those. It looks like he was using info from 2001.

Know who Elizabeth Warren is?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h-ivi1uVffLahJ8YNXnKCBEmFNdwD96OHJ784

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9447-2005Feb8.html

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Himmelstein&fulltext=Bankruptcy&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

--

He's too good of a teleprompted speaker to use "now causes" inadvertently.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19663.html

It's manipulation. He's promoting his crisis in order to get what he wants. Just like the "stimulus," the bill is probably already written. We've all had bosses like that. They have meetings just to be able to say they had a meeting on something, but the decision is already made. This is all show.

Not to make *too* light of it, but from your link:

"Some experts, for example, say bankruptcies often seem to rise in February as debts from the holiday season come due. "

Shall we put a cap on holiday spending? No more than 3% of December's per-family net?

Shall we realistically discuss credit card debt? I bet it has more to do with bankruptcies than healthcare costs. I bet the healthcare costs just tip people over the edge.

Shall the government limit that as well? Why not?
--

Via NPR:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2008/11/why_are_healthcare_costs_so_high.html

Not to put it directly on you, but you mentioned your employees and having to ensure them. Have you asked your employees to go in half? Have you asked them if they'd rather have what you spend every month to try and find their own insurance? Are they involved at all? I think a lot of folks would quit complaining if they had to foot the cost themselves. Which ties into the rest of my thoughts...

One of my solutions would be to have for-profit (retail) drugstore clinics utilized anywhere the business thinks it's a good investment.

http://www.minuteclinic.com/en/USA/NC/Greensboro/Clinics.aspx

Cash only, in and out. But that puts the responsibility for payment on the individual, and that's not what we're after.

Another solution would be to offer a policy similar to life insurance, with very low monthly rates the younger you enroll (that stay low because of your good sense and foresight and will increase with risk and procrastination), and with pretty extensive coverage but a $5000 deductible. Why such a high deductible? Because the problem seems to be the Other Peoples' Money factor. If it doesn't "cost" anything, folks splurge. Expensive doctors see people for sore throats and the common cold because it's too easy to waste money.

It will not improve with a government takeover because the spenders and the payers will be even more separated, and (like the foreclosure nonsense and the bailouts) the responsible will pay for the irresponsible. When Obama's "No insurance companies will be allowed to discriminate because of a previous bout with cancer or some other pre-existing illness" bit

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/Obama08_HealthcareFAQ.pdf

comes into play, there's no way out of tremendous costs except to cut out the treatment for everyone else. And notice the "discrimination" angle. Neat.

The village mentality scares me. It takes the place of actual relationships (church, social clubs, etc.) and replaces it with the Federal government. Remember Johnson's administration and the sense that they had to do something (sounds really familiar)? Witness the resulting poverty and illegitimacy rates of the ones they tried to help.

"Time to stop stalling and do something."

I heartily disagree, but it doesn't matter, and I bet there will be a bill signed by the end of the month. I fear the unintended consequences (see previous paragraph). I've posted before that a few years after GOVCARE&trade and price caps goes into place we'll see the best doctors move to the cash practices (plastic surgery, dermatology, etc.). The general public will be left with the low performers for actual healthcare.

Good point with the cable TV cost. Can we have audits with providers to be sure the currently uninsured don't get to simultaneously enjoy "free" coverage while watching premium channels?

Another question since the bailout was mentioned and it will eventually involve all of our money:

Too-big-to-fail-wise, when the government steps in and assumes your responsibility (because it will- like private schools, you're welcome to have your own coverage, but we'll eventually pay to cover your employees regardless), will you lower your prices? Not necessarily you, but you get the point.

Economic advice from republicans is like boating advice from the crew of the Titanic.

I'd always thought "Horn Broke, Watch For Finger" was a funny bumper sticker, but that's a pretty good one, too.

(sigh)