Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But getting people back to work, is an immediate return dollar for dollar. The lower income someone insures that each penny is put right back into the economy. The middle income working class people do more to stimulate an economy than every tax break ever given to a corporation because the money is actually physically spent within the economy. We need jobs being created in a private sector/government backed system to not only take this country into the rest of this new millenium, but repair the old infrastructure and make us great again. FDR policy with a twist in that the private/capitalist corporations are working arm in arm with the government to get it done.
I don't necessarily think so. Americans are used to wages that are to high for what the job is worth.
If given enough time, the economy and free market will balance itself out. Wages will lower, which means more people can be hired, and unemployment can go down.
I think we should have some infrastructure development, but outside of that we don't need more government created jobs.
Don't need that link to see how the Republicans have done NOTHING to help the economy and EVERYTHING to stop Obama from doing anything....
Since he was elected there were two Republicans, one a senator, who came right out and said that their ONLY goal was bringing down Obama...they didn't give a rat's butt what happened to the US or the people in it....and plenty of repugs will be happy with that.
Washington, D.C. – Over the past five months, virtually all Medicare (Part D) plans raised their prices for the top drugs prescribed to seniors, according to a report issued today by the health consumer organization Families USA. The report, based on pricing data submitted by the plans to the federal government, contradicts the Bush Administration’s assertions that the new Medicare drug program is effectively moderating rising drug costs.
"Happily, the centrality of choice and competition in this program has led Part D to vastly outperform all budget projections, and conclusively demonstrates that it is possible simultaneously to satisfy beneficiaries and to produce substantial savings relative to any other government program.*
The competitive market that the plan's proponents promised would drive down costs has done even better than their estimates. Premiums originally projected to be $44 per month have dropped to an average of $28 in 2009. In every state except Alaska, seniors have access to at least one Part D plan that costs less than $20 per month. From 2006-2007 (the last year of complete data), drug prices in the United States increased only 1.4 percent, and drug spending growth fell to 4.8 percent—the lowest rate since 1963.*
All of this means huge reductions in costs for taxpayers. This past March, the Congressional Budget Office decreased its 10-year spending estimates for Part D by $520 billion, compared to estimates made only three years ago. This simply doesn't happen in government programs.*"
You just said that the Republican plan for medicare would be like Medicare part D.
I just showed you where Medicare part D has raised the debt, raised costs, its an all around failure, and you're going to tell someone else that their ideas are horrible.
Unbelievable.
You have shown no such thing. You showed prices went up for the top drugs. So what? You are aware there are genetics for all the medications listed right?
My bad, I knew there was something wrong with that link. It has no date and was written during the Bush administration. I am sure it was written prior to any analysis of it's effectiveness was done. I defy you to find anything current to support your non sense.
"Happily, the centrality of choice and competition in this program has led Part D to vastly outperform all budget projections, and conclusively demonstrates that it is possible simultaneously to satisfy beneficiaries and to produce substantial savings relative to any other government program.*
The competitive market that the plan's proponents promised would drive down costs has done even better than their estimates. Premiums originally projected to be $44 per month have dropped to an average of $28 in 2009. In every state except Alaska, seniors have access to at least one Part D plan that costs less than $20 per month. From 2006-2007 (the last year of complete data), drug prices in the United States increased only 1.4 percent, and drug spending growth fell to 4.8 percent—the lowest rate since 1963.*
All of this means huge reductions in costs for taxpayers. This past March, the Congressional Budget Office decreased its 10-year spending estimates for Part D by $520 billion, compared to estimates made only three years ago. This simply doesn't happen in government programs.*"
Thats an opinion piece by
Benjamin E. Sasse, Ph.D., a former U.S. assistant secretary of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush, teaches at the University of Texas and advises health investors.
Lower-Than-Expected Medicare Drug Costs Reflect Decline in Overall Drug Spending and Lower Enrollment, Not Private Plans
Evidence Shows Reliance on Private Insurers Actually Raised Medicare Costs
By Edwin Park
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, May 6, 2011
Some supporters of the House budget plan’s proposal to replace Medicare with a voucher to purchase private health insurance claim that reliance on private insurers can lower costs. They cite the fact that the costs of Medicare Part D, which took effect in 2006, have been lower than the Congressional Budget Office predicted when Congress enacted the drug benefit. They attribute this lower spending to efficiencies produced by competition among the private insurers that deliver the benefit.
This claim does not withstand scrutiny. The two primary factors driving the reduction in Medicare Part D spending were:
* The sharp decline in growth in spending for prescription drugs throughout the U.S. health care system.
* Lower-than-expected enrollment in Medicare Part D.
Moreover, there is evidence that, far from reducing costs, the use of private plans to deliver the Medicare drug benefit has increased costs. http://www.cbpp.org/files/5-6-11health.pdf
Read some real opinions, not someone who worked under the Bush administration in an opinion piece.
Its like listening to Glenn Beck for the News. He isn't a news person, he is opinion, and its wrong.
I don't necessarily think so. Americans are used to wages that are to high for what the job is worth.Simply not true
If given enough time, the economy and free market will balance itself out. Wages will lower, which means more people can be hired, and unemployment can go down.Horrific idea!!!!! Besides that, we don't have the time to wait.
I think we should have some infrastructure development, but outside of that we don't need more government created jobs.
NOT government created. Private sector created and run....with government backing & help, much like the old FHA home loans and GI blls....but the big huge building jobs of the Hoover and FDR era's that will put hundreds of thousands back to work.
Higher, decent, cost of living wages is the American Dream! Its why this country is the best on the planet, its why everyone wants to be here and be us. Nothing is wrong with high wages and a strong middle class. Obscene profiteering, salary bonus structures and stock funds by large corporations and CEO's and Wallstreet need to be reduced, by quite a bit, as they have gotten to the point of destroying the fabric of America. (Stop the water leaking from the dam at the top and the water will stay inside, plug it from the bottom and the water is wasted!) That puts more money into the pockets of the actual working person. When was the last time a blue collar worker could support his own family on one wage? 45 years ago? Wages on the working end have been stagnant for over a decade! No wonder there is no money in the economy, no one has a job, nor earns a decent wage anymore.
We can show people that Republican ideas are wrong, and bad for the economy without saying they are trying to destroy the economy and commit treason.
Republicans actually believe their ideas will work. Many times they are wrong, and thats easily seen by just minimal scrutiny. No need to accuse them of open treason.
"Senators and Congressmen will come back in September afraid to vote against the American people," DeMint predicted, adding that "this health care issue Is D-Day for freedom in America."
"If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him," he said.
It's not just with the economy they pull this crap either. Remember when we were being attacked while Clinton was President? He asked for help fighting the terrorists and the Republicans accused him of wagging the dog and were too busy impeaching him. All of Clintons anti terrorism proposals were either defeated by the Republicans or grossly watered down. The Republicans weren't interested in stopping those attacks on a Democrats watch
But then we had an attack while a Republican was in office. We saw a different reaction from the Republicans then
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You misunderstood, partially
