Why don't you understand?
Why don't the politicians understand?
Why is this depression still going on?
OK I understand why the politicians don't change their ways. It means that they would have to STOP paying off the companies that contribute to their campaigns, and START paying their constituents.
Nut why are YOU the general population STILL believing in them, still backing them, still buying every bag of bullshit they sell you?
WHY?
They will not change the status quo, Health care....
Becomes like car insurance, can't afford it, penalty, can't afford it again, penalty, pay for it before you buy food, damn it. Because we SAID so, you MUST pay that Car insurance bill now right, before anything else, because if you do not, they will take your license, and soon it will be that way for Health care
And you rally around them, call them, support them, Why? You are not going to benefit from this unless your the CEO of Kaiser Permenente, or BCBS.
You are going to get substandard insurance, just like your car insurance, with limits and copay's that may start out all right, but will in a few years be outrageous. Why? The insurance co is not turning the proper wall street profit, they HAVE to raise this co pay, deductible, etc....
Bail out the banks, give business better credit, offer better loans to businesses, please...... more bull shit
If WE don't have jobs what difference does it make if the local shoe store is full of shoes? We can't buy them.
Send the money to us, Stop sending it to the banks and big business. Stimulate the job market by giving us money to spend. We spend they make that is how it works, not they make and them we spend. Supply Side Economics WAS A LIE REAGAN TOLD US.
Stop believing that lie. Economics is both Supply AND DEMAND. Today there is no demand, we are broke.
From Brooke in Seattle:\
But prepare to be called a "doom & gloomer" because you don't break out the pom poms and cheer.
I hope if there is no public option in this bill and mandates aren't stripped, that Democrats vote against it and, if it passes, Obama vetoes it.
It's a damn giveaway to the insurance companies at the expense of the American taxpayer and no guarantee of affordable health care.
And the jobs news? Not much better.
We need jobs that are direct-hire positions, not money filtered through middle men at contractors. Small businesses need customers, not loans. They aren't going to hire just because they can get a loan if there are no customers to buy their product or use their service.
How many of you out there are small business owners who are going to hire five or more people at higher than minimum wage based on this news? How many of you are going to wait until health care gets nailed down and you see how much extra you will have to pay in taxes?
This may help a few people get a minimum-wage job by next summer, but it's not going to employ eight to 12 million people at a living wage.
We need an industrial policy for the future and a WPA-style hiring program.
If small private businesses could have fixed the economy, it would already have happened or be well on its way.
"The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." -- Mark Twain
Great Stuff here From Chicago Lawyer:
* [new] I don't expect the recession/depression... (0+ / 0-)
to be fixed overnight. But I do expect us to focus our efforts on improving the lot of the people suffering the most during these dark days. And I severely question why policy-makers continue to focus on measures that do not have this end in mind or go about pursuing this end in a clearly inefficient, round-about way.
To illustrate, say I have $100 and would like to use that money to help a person who doesn't have a job. Here are five options:
1. I hand an unemployed person $100. She has $100, and I feel warm and fuzzy for helping her. Done.
2. I hand an unemployed person $100 in exchange for fixing my front porch (which I would have had to have fixed at some point, but not necessarily now and not necessarily for $100). She has $100, and my porch is fixed. Sweet.
3. I hand a company $100. The company may use some portion of that $100 to hire people or to buy stuff from another company that it wouldn't otherwise have bought. Or the owner may pocket most or all of it.
4. I hand a gainfully employed person $100. That person may, at a time of near-record-low capacity utilization, falling consumer spending and rising corporate bankruptcies, use the $100 to start a business and hire people. Or, more likely, the person will spend the money on herself or just stick it in the bank.
5. I hand a bank $100. The bank may lend the $100 to a company (in which case, see (3); but also consider why, all else being equal, the company would want to borrow $100 it wouldn't otherwise have borrowed). Or the bank may stick most or all of the $100 in excess reserves or give its CEO a $100 larger bonus.
Option 1 is expanding unemployment benefits; option 2 is infrastructure projects; options 3 and 4 are corporate and personal income tax cuts, respectively; and option 5 is, crudely, every combination of bank bail-outs and zero-interest-rate policy we've seen. Options 1 and 2 clearly do what we want to do efficiently and immediately. Why do we even entertain options 3, 4 and 5 as a way to get the economy going?
by Chicago Lawyer on Tue Dec 08, 2009 at 06:20:57 PM EST
by the way, Campaign Finance reform would change all of this