American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=El Queso]Are we so pathetic that we can't take our time to really work together to figure out the best way?[/QUOTE]I think that about sums up the whole issue. In fact I think that is where the US and Argentina have the most in common. Constant political bickering, lack of confidence in the government (by confidence I DO NOT mean dependency) and increasing apathy. In that sense we are definitely headed down the same path as Argentina.

Of course, how we end up will probably be a lot different. There are lot of cultural and institutional differences that you glossed over or ignored.

[QUOTE=El Queso]Or is the Democratic Party interested in pulling more money out of the money-engine (the rich) of the country in order to pursue power, pure and simple, no matter whether the money-pump starts to cough and spit because it no longer has enough to pump.[/QUOTE]What money engine was Bush milking to fund the massive war machine? Of course, the "liberal" Obama hasn't really cut down on that expense either.

You guys seem to think that Obama / Democrats are some sort of Robin Hood taking from the rich and giving to the poor. They are just funneling the money to a different set of constituents.

[QUOTE=El Queso]Do you realize that almost all small businesses here are completely family run and operated? They can't stay open all the time, they can't work on weekends and holidays. Why? Because they can't hire employees outside their family so they are restricted in what they can do. If they do, they are forced to pay for their insurance, they are forced to pay severance (a full month per year worked, starting the first year after three months of employment) no matter how poorly an employee performs (even thought here are laws, the court system almost ALWAYS sides with the "worker") they are forced to pay them a full month of salary as a bonus every year no matter what. They are forced to pay HUGE taxes on salaries to pay for the all of the "social programs" this wonderful government provides for its people.[/QUOTE]You should add that employers are also forced to pay the employee's mandatory union dues.

[QUOTE=Schmoj]What money engine was Bush milking to fund the massive war machine? Of course, the "liberal" Obama hasn't really cut down on that expense either.

You guys seem to think that Obama / Democrats are some sort of Robin Hood taking from the rich and giving to the poor. They are just funneling the money to a different set of constituents.[/QUOTE]I made allusions to this. I think both parties are sucking us dry. It's just that it's the Democrats who are in power and they tend to do it quicker and more efficiently than the Republicans.

And I never said the Democrats WERE Robin Hoods who are stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. But that is certainly how they want their constituents to believe, and anyone else they can get to believe it as well. That looks better than saying "we're power hungry thieves."

[QUOTE=Sidney]Here is what big government did to Detroit.

An interesting piece about Detroit forwarded to me by a friend. I remember when Detroit had 1.7 million people living in it and they had jobs. The auto industry was going full out and it drove the economy of the upper Midwest, as well as other portions of our country. Today the auto industry is almost finished in Detroit. Unemployment exceeds 25% , and portions of the city looks like a "war zone" or worse. I don't think it can be fixed. Can you imagine 130 acres of Detroit real estate with an 80,000 seat covered stadium selling for $4,500 an acre? The cost of building the stadium was $55.7 million and it sold last month for $583,000. My home town of Gary, Indiana followed a similar path, the "Gary Works" steel mill is still operating, downsized to about 20% of what it was back in the 60's when I worked there. Amazing what happens to good paying jobs when you mandate, regulate and tax the industries that provide the jobs out of business. The primary growth business in America today is the Federal and State Government. In fact the Federal and State Government is increasing salaries and wages. The friend who sent me the following piece said there is now a sign in downtown Detroit that says "would the last person leaving Detroit, please turn out the light" Very sad. I hope you take the time to read the article. And please forward it if you think it might help open some closed eyes.

Editor's note: One of the most controversial pieces we published this year was Porter's essay paralleling America's decline with Detroit's complete economic and political failure. We received more heated e-mails about this Digest than any in recent memory. Some called us "racists," though everything in the below essay is fact. Others agreed with our simple message. A socialist government is dangerous.[/ QUOTE]What it doesn't say is that if the American auto industry was leading the world, would Detroit's downtown be a disaster zone?

[QUOTE=El Queso]And I never said the Democrats WERE Robin Hoods who are stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. But that is certainly how they want their constituents to believe, and anyone else they can get to believe it as well. That looks better than saying "we're power hungry thieves."[/QUOTE]Good point. It's just like the Republicans dupe their constituents into thinking they are good bible-readin' Christian folk.

Doppelganger- The potential for people going uninsured until they get sick is very much on the radar, and both the government and the insurance cos. have a vested interest in minimizing this type of abuse. It's premature to say how much of an issue it will be. Let's hope the final bill has some real teeth on this, but done fairly.

El Queso- I am not 100% thrilled with the outcome either. In fact I would have preferred a single payer system but that was not going to happen. I also would have liked to see the bills address tort reform and defensive medicine. Yes- there is a Republican proposal I agree with and have stated this before. I have not read a good explanation on why it wasn't addressed. It's possible it may have introduced significant delays in the process. But I don't know- I'm stumped.

But as far as timing I don't think it was overly rushed. Perhaps they could fine tune it more with more time, but they were operating within the constraints of their party and a handful of Republicans and I suspect they had a good idea where lines were drawn and how much support various options had. There will be some more time for fine tuning as the bills are merged. And besides they need to move on, this topic cannot remain at center stage indefinately. There are other important issues that need focus going forward such as jobs and deficit reduction.

There were compromises and concessions in the bills, and possibly nobody is 100% satisfied. That doesn't automatically mean the bills don't represent significant improvements from the current system. I think the final bill WILL go a long way to achieving the original goals of the reform, and therefore be an improvement. Though I also think it will prove inferior to some of the single payer systems in other countries.

We already have a rough approximation now based on the uninsured motorists in states with mandatory insurance laws.

Please get a grip here, this is just another governmental black hole for cash from taxpayers. Now if you really want to get my attention - advocate all federal employees including Congress are covered by the same healthcare and retirement plans (Social Security) we mear mortals do!

[QUOTE=Esten]The potential for people going uninsured until they get sick is very much on the radar, and both the government and the insurance cos. Have a vested interest in minimizing this type of abuse. It's premature to say how much of an issue it will be. Let's hope the final bill has some real teeth on this, but done fairly.[/QUOTE]1. The number that goes uninsured until sickness will be much, much larger than you or the Congress is willing to admit (even to yourselves)

2. The govt has set an agenda to eliminate the private health insurance business so the insurance companies have to make whatever they can prior to disappearing or being annexed by the govt. Looks like the public will be victimized by both. Great!

3. Everyone for whom buying insurances costs more than the fine will be susceptible to this temptation, thus pulling massive amounts of funds out of the system. Why is it premature to say so? Should we jump off the bridge because it is premature to say how much of an issue the deceleration event, caused by impacting the pavement below, will be?

4. A final bill with real teeth? Like one that violates the Constitution in forcing the American public to buy something it doesn't want and treating the States differently and arbitrarily (see: Nebraska deal via Dem. Be. Nelson) BTW, look for the Nelson / Nebraska deal to get canned based on being unconstitutional (although probably after final passage) Nelson is dead either way now, the voters want him out and if he changes his vote, Reid will take a hit out on him.

[quote=]El Queso- I am not 100% thrilled with the outcome either. In fact I would have preferred a single payer system but that was not going to happen.[/QUOTE]You seem like a smart guy. If you eliminate all private insurance, what is left? Single payer.

[quote=]I also would have liked to see the bills address tort reform and defensive medicine. Yes- there is a Republican proposal I agree with and have stated this before. I have not read a good explanation on why it wasn't addressed. It's possible it may have introduced significant delays in the process. But I don't know- I'm stumped.[/quote]Stumped, but still willing to destroy one sixth of our economy, eliminate previously inalienable personal freedoms and trample on the Constitution. You say you would have liked to see something on tort reform like someone at McDonald's says after eating a Big Mac, "I would have liked it better with more special sauce." You're stumped but we are all screwed.

[quote=]But as far as timing I don't think it was overly rushed. Perhaps they could fine tune it more with more time, but they were operating within the constraints of their party and a handful of Republicans and I suspect they had a good idea where lines were drawn and how much support various options had. There will be some more time for fine tuning as the bills are merged.[/QUOTE]No, no rush here. Despite the time spent posturing in the news, Congress spent less than 10 hours actually debating this bill. I am sure that Rahm Emanuel and as few as five (count 'em) five members of Congress, and very limited staff will do a fabulous job fine tuning this mess -- behind a total blanket of privacy (something you will never have again with your doctor, by the way) If America really wants this, why do it in private? Why do they have to bribe members of their own party with hundreds of billions of pork to vote for it?

[quote=]And besides they need to move on, this topic cannot remain at center stage indefinately[sic]. There are other important issues that need focus going forward such as jobs and deficit reduction.[/QUOTE]Of course, let's just be done with it. Toss out the Constitution, there is important work to be done here.

You almost make a good point, but you don't. Why not get a few people back to work, before putting another 500k-1.0mm more out of work with health care 'reform' and cap and trade?

Deficit reduction? Come on! The first step is not spending more we don't have! Obamacare is not deficit neutral it will cost trillions that we don't have. And the recovery we were promised (max 8% unemployment, blah, blah, blah) don't hold your breath. Printing money leading to a weakened dollar, in advance of inflation, is putting the brakes on investment in the economy (something needed for a recovery)

[quote=]There were compromises and concessions in the bills, and possibly nobody is 100% satisfied. That doesn't automatically mean the bills don't represent significant improvements from the current system. I think the final bill WILL go a long way to achieving the original goals of the reform, and therefore be an improvement. Though I also think it will prove inferior to some of the single payer systems in other countries.[/QUOTE]"A long way toward achieving the original goals of the reform?" The original reason we were given was to insure the uninsured. If you use real numbers, that is at most 15 million Americans. The CBO says as many as 13 million Americans may be without health insurance under this plan (albeit probably a different 13 million than those already without insurance (I. E. 13 million that will lose their insurance) You call 2 million additional people covered by this plan at a cost of more than $1 trillion, significant improvement over the existing system? If so, I take back my above comment that you seem like a smart guy, you are a lemming.

On the whole though, great thinking, let's get something done for Obama (and Reid / Pelosi to a lesser extent)! He is much more important than the Constitution and much smarter than the founders. If Al Gore hadn't beaten him to it, I am sure Obama would have invented the internet.

[QUOTE=Esten]Doppelganger- In fact I would have preferred a single payer system but that was not going to happen. I also would have liked to see the bills address tort reform and defensive medicine. Yes- there is a Republican proposal I agree with and have stated this before. I have not read a good explanation on why it wasn't addressed. It's possible it may have introduced significant delays in the process. But I don't know- I'm stumped. [/QUOTE]This one's easy. It wasn't included because it would offend too much of the Democrats' biggest contributors -- trial lawyers. Democrats may not come out and say it, but the motivating force behind this legislation has virtually nothing to do with health care reform. That's just the latest vehicle they're using to buy votes. Tort lawyers are huge contributors. They weren't going to do anything to offend that money spigot.

If one looks at health care "reform" through the prism of well-meaning folks trying to do the right thing, and putting the draft bills through the sausage-grinder that results in legislation, then you will come to one or two conclusions as to whether what they are doing is worth the effort.

There was a time in my life, when I was in college and for a few years thereafter, when I would have looked at it that way. Now, I understand how utterly naive this perspective is.

I no longer have any illusion that this -- well-meaning legislators -- has any bearing on things. Sometimes, the cynical view is the reality. That's the case here. The cynical and realistic conclusion is that this is all about votes and creating a new dependency class. We don't really need health care reform -- at least not on anything that even approaches what they're trying to do. I've run a small business long enough to know this.

Regardless of your views on that, however, the legislators involved do not truly care about health care reform. Just like courting Spanish speaking voters with different legislation or appointments (e. g. An immigration bill; Sonja Sotomayor) this whole process is about creating a new dependency upon whom Democrats can count for votes. That's all there is to it. If it messes up the country, who cares? It will entrench Democrats in many different ways, not just in Congress. That's all this is about. It's a naked form of populism. In this case, it's disgusting. The only redeeming aspect of this legislation is that it will cause Democrats to be crushed in the mid-term elections, resulting in Congressional gridlock so this sort of thing can't happen again any time soon.

Why no tort reform?

Stan, you make good points all leading to the one single answer "POWER." Power for a political class with a certain view as to how things "should be" with absolutely no regard for the Founders or that Constitution thingy. 'Health care reform' does no such thing. It is an attempt to permanently install the democrat in power.

Yep. All politicians are whores. In fact it is an insult to working women to compare politicians to them.

[quote=]The cynical and realistic conclusion is that this is all about votes and creating a new dependency class.[/quote] Nothing cynical about the truth.

[quote=]We don't really need health care reform -- at least not on anything that even approaches what they're trying to do. [/QUOTE]Of course we don't need it. The system we have today may not be perfect but everyone in America (legally and illegally) can get quality treatment by walking into any emergency room, anywhere.

[quote=]Regardless of your views on that, however, the legislators involved do not truly care about health care reform.[/QUOTE]Of course they don't, see above insult to whores.

[quote=]this whole process is about creating a new dependency upon whom Democrats can count for votes. That's all there is to it.[/quote]Yep. Who is going to vote to cut off their life blood (welfare, "free" health care, etc)

[quote=]If it messes up the country, who cares? It will entrench Democrats in many different ways, not just in Congress. That's all this is about. It's a naked form of populism.[/quote]Who cares? Well, believer-democrats care because they think that permanently installing their party in the leadership of the country is more important than America, the American Way, the Constitution, freedom, inalienable rights and virtually everything else that makes America exceptional.

Who cares on the other side? Looks like somewhere around 60-64% of the population, nationwide. Check out the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in the People's Republic of Mass or Ben Nelson's poll numbers.

[quote=]In this case, it's disgusting. The only redeeming aspect of this legislation is that it will cause Democrats to be crushed in the mid-term elections, resulting in Congressional gridlock so this sort of thing can't happen again any time soon.[/QUOTE]Disgusting ain't strong enough. While I am not suggestion armed rebellion, these are the forces against which the Colonies and the Union fought not so long ago.

How will this play out? That depends on how many true believers are in the House and Senate. Ben Nelson will need a guaranteed multi-million dollar job post his defeat in 2012. 13 state attorney generals are looking to sue over the unconstitutionality of the Nebraska deal. If Brown wins Kennedy's former seat, that makes the democrat caucus 59 and the House will either need to swallow the Senate bill exactly "as is" or watch as their version of "health care reform" get's its rightful spot in the dustbin of history along with Stalin, Lenin, Castro (we can hope can't we) and their misguided leftist agendas.

With all due respect to my liberal friends, at the heart of this misguided attempt to permanently install the Democrat party is the destruction of freedom.

The Federal employee pension plan (which includes member of Congress) has included participation in Social Security since 1984. It has a fairly typical monthly defined benefit pension based on years of service and final salary + a 401K-like savings plan + Social Security. It works out much better for most government retirees than private retirees but that's more due to the nature of the government workers (a long career with a single employer) and the nature of the government as an employer (it pays what it promises)

The Federal employee health care plans are pretty much the same as the plans offered to white-collar employees at most large companies. There are usually more options in areas where there are large numbers of Federal workers but this also tends to be true for company plans as well.

Government benefit plans are good, but overall are similar to the plans offered by many large companies. If you own a small business or work for a small company, these government benefits look mighty tasty, but don't let anybody fool you into thinking that they are something that they are not. In particular, the health care plan is quite ordinary.

[QUOTE=Easy Go]The Federal employee pension plan (which includes member of Congress) has included participation in Social Security since 1984. It has a fairly typical monthly defined benefit pension based on years of service and final salary + a 401K-like savings plan + Social Security. It works out much better for most government retirees than private retirees but that's more due to the nature of the government workers (a long career with a single employer) and the nature of the government as an employer (it pays what it promises)[/QUOTE]Not really. The differences between "defined benefit" and "defined contribution" pension plans are huge. Big enough to help bankrupt UAL, GM, Chrysler and to make CalPERS (the California Public Employees' Retirement System) one of the biggest investors in the world (assets peaked in 2007 at $260B) which will have paid out something on the magnitude of $5.7B in pension benefits in FY2009.

The govt plan gives a "defined benefit" program where the benefit (I. E. The annual payout upon retirement) is defined. You retire, the company pays you that benefit until you die.

Regular people (those in the real world) get "defined contribution" plans whereby the contribution (I. E. what the employer will contribute to your pension) is defined. If you retire, the company stops paying and you get the income generated by your savings.

In the defined benefit model, no matter how much you contribute to the success or failure of the company, or how well the company does, it is liable to pay you that defined amount from retirement until you die (long after you stopped contributing to the company's advancement) You don't have to save anything for retirement (theoretically) because you essentially get a salary for the rest of your life, for doing absolutely nothing. Retirement age can vary from plan to plan and often you can opt to take early retirement and receive a slightly reduced defined benefit.

In the defined contribution model, when you stop working, the company stops paying. If you don't have adequate savings, you don't retire.

The former model is why you always used to hear about "underfunded" pension plans or pension liabilities (starting in in the late 70's and early 80's, particularly (although not exclusively) with regard to large unionized companies (UAL, GM, Chrysler, etc.). In the case of GM, the unfunded pension liability at the time of bankruptcy, was $13.5B (or AR$51.3B or 256 million trips to chicas at AR$200 per pop (think about that for stimulus) which could produce approximately 1 million gallons of gizz).

There are two very closely related matters herein: GM was paying out billions of dollars to people that don't work there anymore and contribute nothing to the current operations and / or success of the company and this model is unsustainable, eventually, the cost of paying retirees consumes all profits and more leading to bankruptcy. In a very simplified view of most large corporate bankruptcies: the owners (e. g. stockholders) lose all their equity invested and the assets are retitled in the name of the bondholders (e. g. debt holders) and unfunded pension liabilities could be pawned off on the government's Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp (e. g. the tax payers)

Because defined benefit plans are unsustainable in the real world, they were phased out almost everywhere except in fortified union (labor organizations not the Northern States) strongholds and the government (guess that is a little redundant."union stronghold" and government)

The federal govt plan differs from the private sector in that it is funded by the annual confiscation of real property from approximately 50% of the American citizenry. The government doesn't have to make any money at all to pay these benefits (the government doesn't make any money, unless you count printing as making)

Don't get me wrong, people that were promised something should get what they were promised (even though management and the unions knew this day would come, when they struck those deals) but this illustrates yet another ever-expanding government program / practice that could not survive in the real world but does exist in the federal government.

Soapbox is now vacated, who's next!

Defined Benefit Plans went the way of the dinosaurs when companies could no longer afford to fund them – ie more money going out in benefits than coming in as contributions or in some cases no contributions from the employee at all. (Sound a little like Social Security? But for those who do not have to live in the real world ie Government this is never a problem since they just keep going back to the taxpayer for more money to fund the plan, a plan we pay for but in which we not allowed to participate.

This is why I have railed against the separate system for Congress in both retirement and healthcare. If we forced them to live by the same standards and laws they pass for the rest of us (Congress always exempts itself from the bills it passes) perhaps the brew-ha-ha over Social Security and Healthcare would vanish and the problems would really get fixed.

While I'm on the soapbox – anybody got a raise lately? No? Well Congress just got one. Several years ago those weasels in Washington figured out it was very unpopular for them to vote for a raise for themselves (since most folks don't think they earn it any way) so they passed a bill which sets up automatic pay raises they have vote against to not receive. Pretty slick.

If the stupid terrorists would whack Washington they might just do us all a favor!

Just kidding Janet!