The last of the IRS checks are going out to beneficiaries of the first tax stimulus package, but Democrats are talking about a second package. President Bush was hesitant about the proposal, asking Congress to allow time for the first stimulus to settle in. However, Democrats are worried about the increasing prices of oil and energy prices and the effect it's taking on the economy.

Read the full story here

It's all P.R. crap. Demos looking for brownie points to get Obama in. The money (we borrowed from China) has been thrown into the economy (to buy Chinese goods, mostly) yet the economy is worsening. Instead of stimulus, why don't they look at the real root of the problem?

Just look at the average income of a corporation CEO to get a glimpse.

The first time I heard anything about a second stimulus check was this morning when President Bush was asked about having a possible second one.

Let's see what everyone says about the pros/cons now that it's the other party proposing it.

My guess:

So was the first one.


CEOs have been making salaries that seem grotesque to the average person for decades, so I think we can rule that out as the trouble. It's the decrease in the value of the dollar that's hurting the economy. The government can't address the root of that problem because the dollar gets decreased the more we borrow from other countries and we borrow to fund the Bush Administration's asinine spending on things like, oh, that trillion dollar war.

Thank God he loves guns and hates abortion, because apparently that's all it takes to count as a "conservative" these days, no matter how liberally and irresponsibly you spend the nation's money or how large you allow government to grow.

I know what it is now! God, Guns and Gestation!

more money I don't want to buy crap I don't need.

What Hobbes said.

With that, I find the weakest part of any typical Dem platform is their handling of economics. I mean yes, it IS the economy, stupid; we understand that. But the first and most major aspect is to just stop/stymie the hemorrhaging that's happening now. Then you can think on a more intelligent solution to undoing the damage. The first stimulus joke neither fundamentally helped the economy in any meaningful way (sorry, we took it and spent it on pretty much the same crap we usually do) and all it did was cost us money. Yes, paying ourselves money cost us more money. It was effectively a bribe so the people would let the gov keep doing what it's doing.

Although, it's gonna be fun watching all of the pundits who thought that the stimulus package was supah awsum now pointing out all of the obvious logical flaws now that it's not a Republican idea.

politics =

Oh, goodie Now I can pay more debt to the a-holes who sunk us up to our necks in sh-t to begin with.

I got a stimulus package for ya. Gradual raising of the min wage to $10 and socialized medicine.

BTW if the only way to fix the Gas prices is to drill for more and that's gonna take a decade to have ANY effect, why not use that time and money to develop technology and build infrastructure to move the country to electric cars, which can already meet most people travel needs?

Why not just throw in world peace and an end to suffering the world over, while your at it?

Why is behaving like the rest of the civilized world, Paying people a living wage, and ending a destructive habit with existing technology so unreasonable?

*feels stimulated*

Not unreasonable...just not so simple.

Raising minimum wage to $10 would put some companies out of business, or perhaps worse, send those companies out of the country.

Socializing medicine in this country is a virtual impossibility without a massive philosophical shift in the population...namely the people would have to want large American corporations to be put out of business...which would cost millions of American jobs.

Not that it wouldn't be great...but lots of things would be great if they weren't so hard to achieve.

I think it's good that the focus has been more on universal health coverage than socialized medicine. I'm not inclined to believe that the government is any better than the free market at... well, anything. But no matter how you feel about that, I think we should all agree that we have a mandate to ensure that -- by whatever means it happens -- everyone in this country is able to get affordable healthcare.

OK, I should have known this would get misinterpreted being I wrote it to be so lovingly .

I realize the first stimulus package was PR as well. The Demos lobbied to tack on a bunch of extras during the first stimulus and they got chastised for it. Now, with them thinking the first one isn't working too well, they want to throw another one out there. One, to fix their perception that they don't want to help the general public. Two, to take attention away from the Reps.

Now, about my CEO quote. Looking at CEO pay, which has been inflated for years, shows one of the issues with how our corporations work. The guy on top gets paid a ridiculous sum, yet whines about how labor laws/prevailing wage/overhead is killing the company. So as it stands now, the majority of US product is assembled or manufactured overseas. This costs the people in the US jobs.

Do the American people expect too much to be employed? I dunno. US citizens get the lowest amount of holiday (vacation, personal time off, etc) of most of the developed nations. Our health care system is also pretty much shot. The problem lies that the top half of the corporations demand too much for themselves.

I'v mentioned this time and time again, but the US government needs to clamp down on all these damn corporate loopholes. Take away these tax breaks! Tariff ALL product being imported into the US, regardless of where the company headquarters is (Dell!). Of course, the first thing these whining blowholes will do is say you're killing them in operating expenses. Well, how about taking a pay cut, Mr CEO?

I realize this is just one of many problems. However, I'm just sick and tired of these corporate pigs DEMANDING handouts, bailouts and subsidies while they shaft the common worker and take all the work out of the country.

[/rant]

Not to mention that the word "socialized" is probably the most poisonous campaign word around these days...next to "Islamic," that is...

The Post Office would like to disagree with you


But it delivered to the wrong house

just a quick note: I'm not saying one is better or worse than the other... just that I don't see one way being OMG SO MUCH BETTER or anything, they both involve lots of human weakness (greed vs. apathy, take your pick)

The free market has been fantastic at profiting off of human suffering, I'm sure a government couldn't compete, unfortunately the market hasn't been so good at providing financial structure for health care.

I don't see how we can justify continuing to do stupid things, because smart things are hard. THAT sound's more un-american than "socialized" to me. Mcarthy's dead. Let's get over it.

Your CEO beef is a separate issue than the economy. It doesn't hurt the economy for them to be well paid, even offensively well paid.

It does hurt the economy when you try and tell them how much they can make or where and how they can spend their money because it makes them want to go away. Cap their salaries or remove their tax breaks and they will uproot their entire operations so they can operate in an area where there salary is uncapped and their taxes are less. How many jobs will be lost then?

It's the very essence of the free market, if we don't impose limits on someone's success they will open more locations and ship more product and produce more advertising and, in short, employ more people. You get all whiny about how much they make and they will go elsewhere and pay Canadians or Australians or Spaniards or whoever will give them their free reign to work their locations, ship their product, produce their advertising, etc.

Success is not immoral, nor should it be a crime.

I'm just saying that government-run healthcare brings its own set of issues. The biggest problem with any government organization being the previously mentioned apathy... It just depends on what you would like your problems to be.

Incidentally, this is why I believe that a combination of the free market and government regulation is probably the wisest approach. Dogmatism doesn't really work that well IRL.

On healthcare, I do agree with McCain's approach. Making healthcare insurance providers have to compete for your business instead of being tied through your job would do a lot towards making healthcare coverage more affordable and more available to the average citizen, without completely overhauling the entire system.

I'd take the problems trotted out about health care in Canada or Europe any day of the week.

No one should stand to profit from causing suffering. It's just a bad system.

The so-called "command economy" doesn't have the best track record in regard to human suffering, FWIW.



I'm not advocating the continuation of doing stupid things. Its just that the solutions for the stupid things that you've proposed are just as...let's say "unsound." A knee-jerk, kick-the-bums-out approach to changing society rarely works out without corruption and/or massive bloodshed, especially when you sprinkle in the prospect of making a wealthy person significantly less wealthy in order to achieve your goals.

That's an unfair statement, IMO. No one profits from causing suffering. Some people keep themselves from losing money by not alleviating suffering, but it's not the same thing. The distinction is important.

Unfortunately, it fails to indicate what the baseline cost would be... competition is great and all, but price fixing isn't. If the healthcare companies all decide that the cost of coverage is gonna be X amount, and the average person can't afford X amount, then you're not helping anyone.

Bull, Hobbes.

The more care an insurance company can deny the more money they get to keep. It's like the basis of the whole system.

The system is crap.

It's one of the most prescient examples of how false this "free market" notion, that indulging greed will level every thing out, is.

I just don't get it. When I was growing up I got the impression that we were supposed to be the "good guys" not the "cost effective guys".

Maybe it's just in fiction that being an American ever meant some thing.

But I'd rather die fighting for that fiction, than live in a culture where profit makes right.

But then there's no competition, either, so its a moot point.

What would be the motivation to do that in the first place? If companies do that and some people can't afford X amount, they won't pay it.Eventually one company will realize, "Damn, we could make more if we charged less because then all these uninsured people will buy insurance from us." So they lower prices, and the others have to follow suit to keep up. Then, when prices can't really get any lower, they start offer increased coverage to compete with each other. Then they start insuring people that might not have otherwise been eligible to compete with each other.

They get richer and coverage gets better. It's win/win.

I think the companies would rather make money than stand together firm in a position that keeps customers from accessing them.

agree with Hobbs. I'm glad I used our system here and health coverage for my major open heart surgery.

P-C have fun abroad when needing health care.

I think that's a bit simplistic (not to mention emotionally driven). There are a lot of people out there who support a free market economy, and not all of them are Snidely Whiplash mustache-twirlers. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't really think you represent a balanced or fully informed point of view.

Idealism is nice, but you're holding the U.S. up to the standards of your imagination, which are obviously impossible to live up to. Until some great, massive enlightnenment envelopes all of humanity, someone, somewhere in the world is gonna be getting screwed over by someone else, intentional or not.

I'll take a second stimulus check. I can't believe the democrats are pushing for it.

I don't care if it's the anitichrist party, I'll gladly accept another stimulus check.

There're plenty of IRL precedent for the situation I've described. It happens. Price fixing doesn't eliminate competition; it only ensures that companies will remain as profitable as they can get away with. To say nothing of the effect of consolidation / mergers and monopolies. I'm just saying that (IMO) what you're describing is more of a Econ class hypothetical than a reality.

Which is not causing suffering, it's denying the alleviation of suffering that already exists. It's an important distinction.

And when competition exists, less gets denied because they're fighting to offer the best service possible to get your business, so insurance plans become better, encompassing more coverage.

I want everyone to be able to afford healthcare, too, you know.

True, but I don't think the government taking over health care is a good idea at all. There has to be something better than that which won't cause a serious decline in the health care standard.

But there's still the question of people who cost a lot of money to insure... they're financial losers for healthcare companies. People with terminal illnesses, chronic health conditions, etc. The free market has no incentive to cover them, since the profit motive is gone. Which is why I do think that you need some government regulation to tell these companies "yeah you need to cover these people as well."


I agree. I'm not advocating socialized medicine. I just think that there can be a happy medium somewhere.

Exactly. A happy medium is exactly what is needed.

Buying into conspiratorial ideas like price fixing and profiting off suffering is a somewhat emotional response that does really hold up to scrutiny in a free market. Yeah, its fun to put an evil face on CompuGloboHyperMegaCom and to think that they have back-room dealings with Lucifer Holdings, Inc., regarding how best to screw every last one of us, that typically doesn't happen without consequences. Conspiracies take alot of people to pull off and rely solely on that throng of people keeping that secret. To think there wouldn't be one morally just person among the players that would have to be involved is especially grim.

I'm not saying there won't be any instances of corporate greed that get in the way of a perfect world, but the increased availability, competition, and choice will alleviate most of the problems we face today. McCain's plan isn't perfect, because there is no perfect solution, but I think it's the most solid option on the table right now.

Too bad he's for the fucking war.

There is that, isn't there.

From what I've seen, McCain's plan does seem workable. Granted I haven't seen it all and there are a ton of things about the guy that I don't like.

I'm not saying success is immoral. I am saying that the METHODS to reach their success are immoral. They want to get the tax break of being considered an American company with headquarters in America, yet they don't benefit America. If you want to be considered an American company and get the tax breaks, you should be held by that standard. Meaning your product should be designed, tested, manufactured and assembled IN America. What they do now is a cheat and an exploit of under-developed nations.

Global economy

I love that smiley.

It's my new best friend.

98% of what I (and I'm sure many others) say on this kind of topic in a forum is an over simplification of my full view.

I mean, you can't write "socialized medicine" all by it self on a piece of paper and call it a health care plan.

As I have advocated before, I think a system that was owned but not operated by the gov and who's stated purpose was the non profit financial management of universal health care might have merit.

No matter how we manage the cash the fact is we get LESS care for more cash as a nation because the motivation behind our medical establishment is profit based.

As for your "important distinction" Hobbes, morally I see no distinction at all.

So, then, remind me, do you spend all your disposable income on things that look like Optimus Prime or healthcare for strangers who can't afford what they need themselves? I know it's one of those, but I can't recall which one.

But it sounds like if it isn't strangers healthcare, you're morally responsible for causing their suffering.

Yeah, maybe if my existences stated purpose was to fund heath care. Or if I took those peoples money to buy myself Optimus Primes.

My family is insured. Between us we probably pump 500 a MONTH into our so called health care. When my daughter dislocated her elbow, they had great little reasons why they couldn't be bothered to pay her $250 bill.


HALF of what I put into other peoples health care per month.

I don't spend $500 on FOOD much less toys.

But that's not the case. If you purchase a plan that doesn't cover an expensive treatment, then no one's stated purpose was to provide it for you, even if you need it.

You're holding the insurance companies to a Good Samaritan standard that they don't lay claim to.

I understand that that's how they operate, my disconnect is why we shouldn't shut them down for it and try some thing... decent.