Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Where are the %&@*!# jobs?


BrownIndian

Recommended Posts

As long as somebody is willing to purchase our debt. And some believe 'National Security' issue is about stopping terrorists.

 

I am not blaming Obama on this, Heck, but I do know that a x% improvemenet off of a XXXXXX% decline isn't much to smile about. Green shoots don't do it for me and I blame both Democrats and Republicans.

 

Some of us think this is a one way street and that only one side of the aisle is responsible.

 

Well, let me ask you this: what do you think is the best possible scenario that the Obama administration, entering office on January 20th of this year, would have been able to accomplish with the economy come the end of October?

 

Where do you think they're underperforming? What did you expect?

 

I'm not smiling either. There's too much work ahead for that. But what I'm suggesting is that we've done a good job stabilizing what was about to be a complete mess, and the purists who think we should have let the banks fail are arguing for an economy that would be far worse, unemployment far higher, and a longer, more painful recovery - and not just in this country, but worldwide. They're arguing for a depression instead of a recession and a long, mostly jobless recovery. I'll take the latter, thank you very much.

 

You want to blame everyone because things are bad. I'm suggesting that things would be a lot worse had we not taken the steps we did, and some people - including those in the Bush administration - deserve some credit for making sure that didn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Well, let me ask you this: what do you think is the best possible scenario that the Obama administration, entering office on January 20th of this year, would have been able to accomplish with the economy come the end of October?

 

Where do you think they're underperforming? What did you expect?

 

I'm not smiling either. There's too much work ahead for that. But what I'm suggesting is that we've done a good job stabilizing what was about to be a complete mess, and the purists who think we should have let the banks fail are arguing for an economy that would be far worse, unemployment far higher, and a longer, more painful recovery - and not just in this country, but worldwide. They're arguing for a depression instead of a recession and a long, mostly jobless recovery. I'll take the latter, thank you very much.

 

You want to blame everyone because things are bad. I'm suggesting that things would be a lot worse had we not taken the steps we did, and some people - including those in the Bush administration - deserve some credit for making sure that didn't happen.

 

 

I don't know, Heck, I see things like GS taking TARP money, quickly paying it off and earmarking an average bonus of $700K for each of its 32k employees (I am not suggesting that it will be evenly split).

 

The problem is, the economy will recover. With or without that type of intervention.

 

I said that I am not simply blaming Obama on this. Bush spent like John Edwards in a Beauty Parlor too. It was for guns, though, not butter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, let me ask you this: what do you think is the best possible scenario that the Obama administration, entering office on January 20th of this year, would have been able to accomplish with the economy come the end of October?

 

So let's be clear.

You're saying the direction of the presidents economic team has been optimal and you could not imagine any change whatsoever.

Fair enough.

 

What then would you expect the Bush or McCain administration to have done differently had they been in office through 2010?

 

WSS

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, Heck, I see things like GS taking TARP money, quickly paying it off and earmarking an average bonus of $700K for each of its 32k employees (I am not suggesting that it will be evenly split).

 

The problem is, the economy will recover. With or without that type of intervention.

 

I said that I am not simply blaming Obama on this. Bush spent like John Edwards in a Beauty Parlor too. It was for guns, though, not butter.

 

Two things: of course the economy would eventually recover. But would you rather it took 3 years or 10? Would you rather that 10% of America is out of work or 22%? Would you rather the stock market largely recover in nine months, or wipe away an additional few trillion dollars worth of wealth and bounce around 6000 for years? I don't think you're asking the right questions, or presenting the right choices.

 

And Bush blew the money on tax cuts more than anything else, not wars.

 

PS - Goldman had to take the TARP money. Everyone did. That was part of the program. They also repaid their chunk with interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We agree more on this than we disagree, Heck.

 

You even gave credit to Bush, although you said 'some people in his administration'. I guess that was enough pain for one day. :)

 

 

PS I will never understand how tax cuts get called government investments. How can we invest in our own money. Congress oftentimes refers to spending tax money or increasing tax money to invest or not invest in a particular area. You can invest money in areas but you cannot invest money by giving it back to the rightful owner.

 

Any way, that is another long winded, philosophical discussion for another day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let's be clear.

You're saying the direction of the presidents economic team has been optimal and you could not imagine any change whatsoever.

Fair enough.

WSS

 

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. We're basically arguing whether or not the bailouts were a good idea. We're way back there. The particulars aren't something I think are going to be debated in here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea was that if you only made some banks take it - i.e. the banks who needed it - you'd instantly expose those banks to flight, and then ruin. That's why they made everyone take the money. It didn't matter if you could show that you didn't need it.

 

The bonuses aren't evil in and of themselves, and I don't think Goldman is the worst offender here. They're just everyone's whipping boy.

 

I happen to think the Obama effort to strip the bonuses is completed misguided and driven by political pressure, not common sense.

 

But what do I know - I'm just a guy who agrees with everything Obama does, right?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We agree more on this than we disagree, Heck.

 

You even gave credit to Bush, although you said 'some people in his administration'. I guess that was enough pain for one day. :)

 

Oh, I wouldn't give Bush credit for anything other than realizing he had no clue what was going on and getting out of the way. He's even admitted so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What then would you expect the Bush or McCain administration to have done differently had they been in office through 2010?

 

WSS

 

To answer your question, a worse response to the crisis post-bailout. I would imagine the post-Bush bailouts would have looked similar, and he would have kept Bernanke on, so the Fed policy would stay the same. And Geithner has been very friendly to Wall Street, so I don't know how much different McCain's Treasury would have been.

 

I think the stimulus would have been more tax cut heavy. Which isn't to say that the Obama stimulus was perfectly designed. But I think Obama is guilty of doing too little, not too much. I'd think McCain's 2010 deficit would probably be about the same as Obama's is, possibly worse.

 

McCain would have tried a more ideologically pure response, rather than focusing on what works and what doesn't. But it would have also had to go through a Democratic Congress. No way to know.

 

As for whether or not he would have bailout out Detroit, that I don't know. I suspect that he would have too when push came to shove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I happen to think the Obama effort to strip the bonuses is completed misguided and driven by political pressure, not common sense. Heck

**********************

Things are lookin up in the intellectually honest dept ! Congrats. I stand corrected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I happen to think the Obama effort to strip the bonuses is completed misguided and driven by political pressure, not common sense. Heck

**********************

Things are lookin up in the intellectually honest dept ! Congrats. I stand corrected.

 

 

Earth to Cal, all POLITICIAN'S decisions are made from political pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea was that if you only made some banks take it - i.e. the banks who needed it - you'd instantly expose those banks to flight, and then ruin. That's why they made everyone take the money. It didn't matter if you could show that you didn't need it.

 

 

That is one of the parts I disagree with. He painted all of them with the same brush even though some actually took care of their business. Kind of like 'punishing' the good to protect the bad.

 

Any way, I can always find fault in anything (If I want).

 

PS Glad to see that CT has at least one semi-sane US Senator. Glad I voted for Joe rather than Ned Lamont.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have more respect for Joe if he knew what he was talking about. Most of his public statements in recent days have been exactly wrong. He also claims that he's worried about costs, then opposes measures that would lower them and is for measures that would increase them.

 

I don't think he deserves particular credit for that, especially when it seems that he's going to bat for the plethora of insurance companies in his state rather than his constituents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as anything, this is my problem with a public option.

 

It is a great fallacy that we - the working people and capital contributors - will be able to keep their current health insurance if they choose. I don't know but I wonder if this was an assumption of the recent report.

 

I happen to work for a large insurance company, albeit one that does not offer health insurance.

 

Because we are at the time of the year when we choose benefits for 2010, I have received a lot of materials lately. For example, this company spent roughly $150 Million for health care benefits last year. (Disclaimer: me and my family are covered under my wife's policy, not from my company).

 

We took some TARP money and have instituted cost containment efforts designed to save millions and millions within the next year or two. This includes 2,800 FTE cuts.

 

What makes anybody believe that this company won't decide to withdraw its healthcare benefits if employees have another option, i.e. Public Option?

 

My prediction is that people will not be able to maintain current and desired coverage and will, instead, need to take a less attractive program with higher premiums and out-of- pocket expenses for less and less broad-based coverage.

 

Another study needs to be conducted assuming that x% of workers with company provided benefits lose these benefits and are forced to adopt the government run option - if this was not part of the plan in the first place.

 

 

FWIW, my company employes 30,000+ people, about half in CT and half across the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes anybody believe that this company won't decide to withdraw its healthcare benefits if employees have another option, i.e. Public Option?

 

Because the employees of your company are not eligible to participate in the exchange. Not everyone can take advantage of the public option, despite what many people think.

 

And your company, being far larger than the 50 employee cutoff, would be required to provide coverage to their employees or face penalties.

 

So in short, they won't withdraw their coverage because they can't.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in short, they won't withdraw their coverage because they can't.

 

 

So........................a company like mine must offer healthcare benefits. Doesn't mean that they can't dramatically change what they offer, does it.

 

If my company decides to cut the $#&^ out of healthcare benefits and workers are not eligible for the Public Option, what is your take?

 

 

FWIW, thanks for your helpful feedback.

 

 

PS We know that Ned Lamont was a 'one trick pony' and that the wars are not even a front-burner issue now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the employees of your company are not eligible to participate in the exchange. Not everyone can take advantage of the public option, despite what many people think.

 

And your company, being far larger than the 50 employee cutoff, would be required to provide coverage to their employees or face penalties.

 

So in short, they won't withdraw their coverage because they can't.

 

It's a little odd to hear what will or won't be in the bill discussed with little or no idea what that may be.

By all of us.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So........................a company like mine must offer healthcare benefits. Doesn't mean that they can't dramatically change what they offer, does it.

 

If my company decides to cut the $#&^ out of healthcare benefits and workers are not eligible for the Public Option, what is your take?

 

 

FWIW, thanks for your helpful feedback.

 

 

PS We know that Ned Lamont was a 'one trick pony' and that the wars are not even a front-burner issue now.

 

Agree on Ned Lamont.

 

But John, you seem to be arguing for more government intervention in health care markets, not less. As for your question, there are already regulations in place that keep your employer from gutting your coverage, and the reforms offer more of those, like no discrimination for pre-existing conditions. Those are the control on your company and their insurance plan.

 

The other control is that if they gut your benefits too much, they could lose employees to companies with better providers.

 

But that would assume that there's a vibrantly competitive market for health care insurance, which there really isn't. One usually has a very small number of choices.

 

But yes, until that company lays you off and you've been out of work for a period of time (I think it's six months) you aren't eligible for the public option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, you guys know more than I do about this health insurance thing. I read the

 

"bill" til I was blue in the face with confusion.

 

I have two questions:

 

1. With the alleged idea to provide health insurance to all, and lower costs,

 

why ignore the inability to buy insurance across state lines?

 

 

2. We have certain liberals on youtube determining that anyway they HAVE to go,

to get single payer..

 

that's what they'll do, because THAT is what they want.

 

Which means, the end of private insurers. Which, they deny. I don't get this either.

 

This idea to provide health care reform, so all have access to it... why does this have to involve

all the controversy of single payer? Because of government control. Like Barney Frank said -

they are pushing for as much complete government control in every area of America possible.

I answered the last question, so it doesn't count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet if they opted for the fine and dropped coverage you would.

In the fantasy bill.

Right?

WSS

 

It would depend on what the fine is; if it's prohibitive or not. Right now they're talking about going without an employer mandate, but having a fine that's fairly prohibitive. So it's a mandate of sorts without an actual mandate.

 

But yes, I would think that if your employer drops you and elects to pay the a fine you would be eligible for the public plan after a certain time period. That's the whole point - to make it available to those who don't have insurance. But you wouldn't necessarily choose public insurance. You could also buy private insurance, much like you have now, except it would be through a publicly-regulated exchange to make it more affordable to individuals, with subsidies for the poor.

 

But like you say, we don't know what the final bill is going to say yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would depend on what the fine is; if it's prohibitive or not. Right now they're talking about going without an employer mandate, but having a fine that's fairly prohibitive. So it's a mandate of sorts without an actual mandate.

 

But yes, I would think that if your employer drops you and elects to pay the a fine you would be eligible for the public plan after a certain time period. That's the whole point - to make it available to those who don't have insurance. But you wouldn't necessarily choose public insurance. You could also buy private insurance, much like you have now, except it would be through a publicly-regulated exchange to make it more affordable to individuals, with subsidies for the poor.

 

But like you say, we don't know what the final bill is going to say yet.

 

You're right.

 

So far the numbers being floated don't add up to individuals buying a policy.

A few hundred dollar fine VS a (for example) a thousand buck a year policy?

Then it's just a tax and yes Heck I'm a cynic.

And I support a limited public option as well as a public mandate.

 

I also understand that selling across state lines has in no way been addressed.

That would require a federal licensing system which I'd expect would piss off the states who like to hole the hammer.

 

And meaningful torte reform was never even near the table.

 

And I'll bet dollars to dogturds that the waste in Medicare never gets a glove laid on it.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right.

 

So far the numbers being floated don't add up to individuals buying a policy.

A few hundred dollar fine VS a (for example) a thousand buck a year policy?

Then it's just a tax and yes Heck I'm a cynic.

And I support a limited public option as well as a public mandate.

 

I also understand that selling across state lines has in no way been addressed.

That would require a federal licensing system which I'd expect would piss off the states who like to hole the hammer.

 

And meaningful torte reform was never even near the table.

 

And I'll bet dollars to dogturds that the waste in Medicare never gets a glove laid on it.

WSS

 

The numbers on the fine being thrown around the other day seemed large. It wasn't just a few hundred dollars. It was $750 per employee that needed subsidized insurance, multiplied by the number of employees you had. Or something like that. I'd have to go back and look.

 

And I'd take that bet on Medicare waste. They can't make this work without that money. They need it. There will be a whole team of new people dedicated to it.

 

Tupa used to do that, actually. I wouldn't be surprised if he ended up doing it again. Apparently he was really good at it.

 

I was just in DC. I almost wish I could take you with me some time, Steve. I think you'd be surprised how seriously some people take this stuff. This is what they do.

 

Still plenty of room for cynicism. But I think what you'd find is that, especially on the staff level, there are some really dedicated people who know these issues inside and out.

 

One thing the Chief of Staff of a Senator once told me that stuck - people assume that politicians (the good ones anyway) are experts on a variety of topics. They're not. They've got 3 or 4 or 5 things that they're really passionate about and know really well. But there are 25 issues they've got to deal with, so they depend on their staff, and outside experts, to fill in the rest.

 

That was one of the smart things Obama did early on, actually. He talked Tom Daschle's former COS out of retirement and had him run his Senate office. Just like in everything else, you want those experienced all-stars on your team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I can't tell if you were talking about the fines for employers who drop coverage, or the fines for individuals who don't get it. I was talking about employers. Re-reading it, I think you might be talking about individuals.

 

Yes I was but I understand your point about employers.

A good plan might cost 300 a month for an average company.

$750 would be a bargain to a business OR individual.

 

Also how much do you expect the public option to cost?

Even a guess?

If COBRA is 300 bucks how coulld the public option match the coverage for less?

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...