Everyone's a drama queen about pork

[kapkomet]

Just go out and call him a socialist so I can tell you how wrong you are.

Naw. He's marxist.

 

Although, that's probably closer then "socialist"...

 

 

 

[DukeNukeEm]

He's an awfully socialistic President if you ask me.

[Rex Kickass]

I don't get absolutist discussions about the way a lot of policy is done. Not all earmarks are pork. Some are worth having. Should there be a better way to get them through Congress? Absolutely. But you can't expect wholesale change all within 6 weeks.

 

I've been pretty quiet about what we've seen so far, because I don't want to be caught up in spin from either side. I will say that I think Obama has played to the center and his solutions have been fairly reasonable. Lots of liberals think he's too conservative. Lots of conservatives think he's too liberal. So I see this as pretty reasonable so far.

 

There are plenty of things that Obama has done that I'm not terribly comfortable with... but I think he's working hard to both make changes in the way Washington works as well as recreate the air of civility that the DC power keepers lost in the 1990s.

 

Government is a messy dirty business. It takes time to make the changes that we all want. Some steps have been taken, but its only been 6 weeks. Miracles don't happen overnight.

[kapkomet]

He's an awfully socialistic President if you ask me.

You get waaaaaaay too hung up on words and not the point. It doesn't make a damn difference on how smart I think you are, just so you know. Please don't take this one personally - I don't mean it as an "attack". I just see it a lot from you and it makes me feel like you're pretty condescending. Take it FWIW, and I'll move on.

 

 

[kapkomet]

I don't get absolutist discussions about the way a lot of policy is done. Not all earmarks are pork. Some are worth having. Should there be a better way to get them through Congress? Absolutely. But you can't expect wholesale change all within 6 weeks.

 

I've been pretty quiet about what we've seen so far, because I don't want to be caught up in spin from either side. I will say that I think Obama has played to the center and his solutions have been fairly reasonable. Lots of liberals think he's too conservative. Lots of conservatives think he's too liberal. So I see this as pretty reasonable so far.

 

There are plenty of things that Obama has done that I'm not terribly comfortable with... but I think he's working hard to both make changes in the way Washington works as well as recreate the air of civility that the DC power keepers lost in the 1990s.

 

Government is a messy dirty business. It takes time to make the changes that we all want. Some steps have been taken, but its only been 6 weeks. Miracles don't happen overnight.

Agree on some points. However, my "absolutist" attitude comes from the man's own words. Don't put the stick up your ass and then 6 weeks into it go back on your word. On the "earmarks" he clearly had choices and he chose not to take them.

 

You might not have seen it, but I do agree with his recall of the embryonic research. I gave him credit for that one, and yes, it's quite controversial.

 

Edited March 13, 2009 by kapkomet

[southsideirish71]

Heaven forbid we ever get universal healthcare. We'll be the last industrialized country to do so.

 

Odd why are my relatives purchasing supplemental insurance like crazy over in Ireland if universal health care is so grand. I have had a few relatives put on waiting lists to get procedures that we can get over here real quick. I am a diabetic, and I don't need some governmental overlord deciding that my care is not cost effective because its a chronic condition. And before you say well your company can pay for it, just like it does today. Companies will drop health care the minute the government offers it up for free. Why would they flip that cost if someone else is giving it out. I suggest people spend more time in school learning a skill or a trade, and less time worrying about government handouts.

[Rex Kickass]

Agree on some points. However, my "absolutist" attitude comes from the man's own words. Don't put the stick up your ass and then 6 weeks into it go back on your word. On the "earmarks" he clearly had choices and he chose not to take them.

 

You might not have seen it, but I do agree with his recall of the embryonic research. I gave him credit for that one, and yes, it's quite controversial.

 

To his defense, which I'm sure you don't accept, Obama did basically say he's not going to force reform through on what's essentially a budget process that should have been completed last year. His budget for 2010 will be a big enough fight that seems to already be starting and I think that's where the change comes.

 

Now the earmarks in this bill are no longer anonymous. For the most part they used to be two years ago. That's progress, no?

[kapkomet]

Odd why are my relatives purchasing supplemental insurance like crazy over in Ireland if universal health care is so grand. I have had a few relatives put on waiting lists to get procedures that we can get over here real quick. I am a diabetic, and I don't need some governmental overlord deciding that my care is not cost effective because its a chronic condition. And before you say well your company can pay for it, just like it does today. Companies will drop health care the minute the government offers it up for free. Why would they flip that cost if someone else is giving it out. I suggest people spend more time in school learning a skill or a trade, and less time worrying about government handouts.

 

I don't get into it a lot, and I probably should, but the majority of the asshats in our country just don't get it. They just hear "FREE" health care and they want it NOW. They have no idea what the hell they are asking for.

 

Obama: we need to help business curtail the rising costs of health care. Translation: we will partner with you to drop your coverages unless employees want to pay COST for supplemental insurance. Oh, by the way, nevermind the system will be too bogged down to get seen by private health insurance anyway...

 

But Obama cares about the middle class. No he doesn't. He wants the rich to pass everything they "stole" back down the pipe via a tax transfer. THAT's the liberal "trickle down" economics for you.

 

[kapkomet]

To his defense, which I'm sure you don't accept, Obama did basically say he's not going to force reform through on what's essentially a budget process that should have been completed last year. His budget for 2010 will be a big enough fight that seems to already be starting and I think that's where the change comes.

 

Now the earmarks in this bill are no longer anonymous. For the most part they used to be two years ago. That's progress, no?

Of course he's not, Rex. The Democrats delayed the vote on the bill until this year because they knew that Bush would veto it. It was set up 6 months ago that they were going to do just what they did.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Odd why are my relatives purchasing supplemental insurance like crazy over in Ireland if universal health care is so grand. I have had a few relatives put on waiting lists to get procedures that we can get over here real quick. I am a diabetic, and I don't need some governmental overlord deciding that my care is not cost effective because its a chronic condition. And before you say well your company can pay for it, just like it does today. Companies will drop health care the minute the government offers it up for free. Why would they flip that cost if someone else is giving it out. I suggest people spend more time in school learning a skill or a trade, and less time worrying about government handouts.

 

I don't think we are headed towards a UK style socialized medicine path. But I do think we are moving towards a system where there will be some basic healthcare coverage available to all Americans. For a huge chunk of the US population, that would be a godsend.

[kapkomet]

I don't think we are headed towards a UK style socialized medicine path. But I do think we are moving towards a system where there will be some basic healthcare coverage available to all Americans. For a huge chunk of the US population, that would be a godsend.

For the sake of where this is going, I hope you're right. But I don't think you are.

 

With that said, business is going to do just what SSI and I are saying. Then what? We have to move toward UK/Canada/France/Italy system. There's almost no choice.

 

Like I said, I hope you're right but I can't see how they can only do part of this.

 

[Rex Kickass]

For the sake of where this is going, I hope you're right. But I don't think you are.

 

With that said, business is going to do just what SSI and I are saying. Then what? We have to move toward UK/Canada/France/Italy system. There's almost no choice.

 

Like I said, I hope you're right but I can't see how they can only do part of this.

 

So essentially because we can't count on corporations to be good citizens, we shouldn't make a change in the way health care is provided?

[southsideirish71]

I don't think we are headed towards a UK style socialized medicine path. But I do think we are moving towards a system where there will be some basic healthcare coverage available to all Americans. For a huge chunk of the US population, that would be a godsend.

 

 

This is the slippery slope I see. Here is my worst case scenario for the basic health care. Basic Health care is given to all americans, HR and benefits managers will start to get asked by companies to compare the company HMO and PPO offerings to the basic, to see where the gap is. Then HMO and PPO companies will start to offer lower cost, hybrid policies that will bridge that gap. Companies will jump on that to save money, and then you will start with coverage issues of matching insurance, doctors, hospitals and who covers what and where. This will cause a large headache, as the private insurance and governemnt fight over what is covered and by who. The private HMO and PPOs will then start to jack their rates up to cover the new admin costs, and companies will pass that on employee, or drop it all together and require them to get private coverage. People will once again have a gap, and then the only answer is full governmental coverage.

 

Kind of a stretch, yet kind of realistic.

 

 

[kapkomet]

So essentially because we can't count on corporations to be good citizens, we shouldn't make a change in the way health care is provided?

That's not what I'm saying at all... but then again, yes, at the same time. I'll try to explain.

 

First, this comes back to health insurance being a "right". It's not. It just isn't. And please don't give me that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" crap, it has nothing to do with that. (Not you, Rex).

 

Second, the bottom line responsibility of a company is to return shareholder value. Period. Period. Period. It's not to employ us all and give us good paychecks, an insurance package, and all of that. We give a resource to the company, they pay us for that resource. I can't say it any more plainly then that.

 

Somewhere in the 1950's, it became practice for companies to give health insurance. OK, it didn't cost much. Let's then thank the unions to taking this to an extreme. THANKS, UNIONS!

 

Over the last 10 years or so, the costs have skyrocketed, for a number of reasons, which I have outlined before on here, and even just recently. There are ways to get that back in line.

 

However, what is happening is that Obama is throwing companies a bone here. They will get health care off of their books in exchange for some of the other bulls*** that's going down. IMO, that's the dirty little secret. There's a lot more going on here then can be seen or heard. It's the only way that the squaky wheels will get turned here. Quasi government takeovers on a whole hell of a lot of industry. We'll make sure you won't have to pay for health care anymore. Woot! Tax breaks for health insurance? GONE! That way, we (taxpayers) and everyone gets insurance! Bonus! How do you regulate that? By who, when, where, how, and what is seen. I can't see it any other way. There will HAVE to be limitations on it because of the sudden flood of people that they are going to get in to the system. It's supply and demand.

 

So, I guess the short answer is you're right... but at the same time, it's what the government gives and takes for businesses. They have to give that money back to shareholders so it can be reinvested. If the government takes more and more chunks of money out of the market system, it will face greater risk then it does even now.

 

 

[kapkomet]

This is the slippery slope I see. Here is my worst case scenario for the basic health care. Basic Health care is given to all americans, HR and benefits managers will start to get asked by companies to compare the company HMO and PPO offerings to the basic, to see where the gap is. Then HMO and PPO companies will start to offer lower cost, hybrid policies that will bridge that gap. Companies will jump on that to save money, and then you will start with coverage issues of matching insurance, doctors, hospitals and who covers what and where. This will cause a large headache, as the private insurance and governemnt fight over what is covered and by who. The private HMO and PPOs will then start to jack their rates up to cover the new admin costs, and companies will pass that on employee, or drop it all together and require them to get private coverage. People will once again have a gap, and then the only answer is full governmental coverage.

 

Kind of a stretch, yet kind of realistic.

Good post. I just addressed it more from the other side... shareholder value and all that.

 

Agree with you totally here. I can't seen an in between once you start this in motion.

 

[Rex Kickass]

That's not what I'm saying at all... but then again, yes, at the same time. I'll try to explain.

 

First, this comes back to health insurance being a "right". It's not. It just isn't. And please don't give me that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" crap, it has nothing to do with that. (Not you, Rex).

 

Second, the bottom line responsibility of a company is to return shareholder value. Period. Period. Period. It's not to employ us all and give us good paychecks, an insurance package, and all of that. We give a resource to the company, they pay us for that resource. I can't say it any more plainly then that.

 

Somewhere in the 1950's, it became practice for companies to give health insurance. OK, it didn't cost much. Let's then thank the unions to taking this to an extreme. THANKS, UNIONS!

 

Over the last 10 years or so, the costs have skyrocketed, for a number of reasons, which I have outlined before on here, and even just recently. There are ways to get that back in line.

 

However, what is happening is that Obama is throwing companies a bone here. They will get health care off of their books in exchange for some of the other bulls*** that's going down. IMO, that's the dirty little secret. There's a lot more going on here then can be seen or heard. It's the only way that the squaky wheels will get turned here. Quasi government takeovers on a whole hell of a lot of industry. We'll make sure you won't have to pay for health care anymore. Woot! Tax breaks for health insurance? GONE! That way, we (taxpayers) and everyone gets insurance! Bonus! How do you regulate that? By who, when, where, how, and what is seen. I can't see it any other way. There will HAVE to be limitations on it because of the sudden flood of people that they are going to get in to the system. It's supply and demand.

 

So, I guess the short answer is you're right... but at the same time, it's what the government gives and takes for businesses. They have to give that money back to shareholders so it can be reinvested. If the government takes more and more chunks of money out of the market system, it will face greater risk then it does even now.

 

 

Actually health insurance really started as a means of competitive hiring. Offer better benefits in lieu of more money.

 

Health insurance is not a right, but I think its foolish and counterproductive for a developed government to not provide at least basic health care to its citizens at low cost with the focus being on preventative care.

[kapkomet]

Actually health insurance really started as a means of competitive hiring. Offer better benefits in lieu of more money.

 

Health insurance is not a right, but I think its foolish and counterproductive for a developed government to not provide at least basic health care to its citizens at low cost with the focus being on preventative care.

Re: point #1. Yes. But then unions came in and took that to a 'hole 'nother level.

 

Re: point #2. That sounds wonderful.

 

But in reality, that is not what's going to happen. It's not. They are not going to just throw some security blanket over the "47 million" (which is a insanely huge bulls*** number but that's another discussion) that doesn't have health care and wave the wand to just those people and say "you're insured now for basic health care". :) Ahhhhh, so nice! We did it! It will not work like that. It's not (yes, repeating).

 

[bmags]

Oh jesus christ we're going to end up with a swiss model, the swiss model, that country where all the b****y companies *those 6 companies, you know, those galt companies that are so smart they left despite no real difference b/w here and america* and it will be incomplete and whatever but we will adjust. Blah blah blah blah blah.

 

Earmark reform will never happen because its a stupid platform to run on, it's a stupid (i'm going to change things) platform that will never happen because everyone benefits from it. Oh f*** Utah for getting federal funding to reduce an insect that effects their agriculture I buy! f*** them! But thank you, I will take my new highway. We deserve it. I will re-elect you, congressman and senator, at a 94 percent rate. Go McCain! YOU FOUND THE PROBLEM! It wasn't deficit spending using emergency funds for two wars or not dealing with the entitlement spending! It was the 1% of the budget going towards social projects! That would've saved the doubleing of a 10 trillion deficit in ten years!

 

YOU ARE SO GOOD AT MATH!

[kapkomet]

Oh jesus christ we're going to end up with a swiss model, the swiss model, that country where all the b****y companies *those 6 companies, you know, those galt companies that are so smart they left despite no real difference b/w here and america* and it will be incomplete and whatever but we will adjust. Blah blah blah blah blah.

 

Earmark reform will never happen because its a stupid platform to run on, it's a stupid (i'm going to change things) platform that will never happen because everyone benefits from it. Oh f*** Utah for getting federal funding to reduce an insect that effects their agriculture I buy! f*** them! But thank you, I will take my new highway. We deserve it. I will re-elect you, congressman and senator, at a 94 percent rate. Go McCain! YOU FOUND THE PROBLEM! It wasn't deficit spending using emergency funds for two wars or not dealing with the entitlement spending! It was the 1% of the budget going towards social projects! That would've saved the doubleing of a 10 trillion deficit in ten years!

 

YOU ARE SO GOOD AT MATH!

What?

 

[lostfan]

Oh jesus christ we're going to end up with a swiss model, the swiss model, that country where all the b****y companies *those 6 companies, you know, those galt companies that are so smart they left despite no real difference b/w here and america* and it will be incomplete and whatever but we will adjust. Blah blah blah blah blah.

 

Earmark reform will never happen because its a stupid platform to run on, it's a stupid (i'm going to change things) platform that will never happen because everyone benefits from it. Oh f*** Utah for getting federal funding to reduce an insect that effects their agriculture I buy! f*** them! But thank you, I will take my new highway. We deserve it. I will re-elect you, congressman and senator, at a 94 percent rate. Go McCain! YOU FOUND THE PROBLEM! It wasn't deficit spending using emergency funds for two wars or not dealing with the entitlement spending! It was the 1% of the budget going towards social projects! That would've saved the doubleing of a 10 trillion deficit in ten years!

 

YOU ARE SO GOOD AT MATH!

[StrangeSox]

Name 5 things you don't like about France's politics that Obama is trying to duplicate.

 

I like France's nuclear policy. We should duplicate that.

Edited March 13, 2009 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

What?

 

This is just a guess, but a handful of companies threatened to leave the country ala John Galt in Atlas Shrugged if the "looters" (man do I hate Rand's polemic language) enacted universal health care.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

it was mccain who cried out against earmarks and pork on the campaign trail - not obama.

 

and i'm sick of you people who think washington can be changed in a day. how many senators would have voted for this bill WITHOUT the pork? it's about getting SOMETHING done and not quibbling over the bulls***.

 

What do you mean you people?

[southsider2k5]

it was mccain who cried out against earmarks and pork on the campaign trail - not obama.

 

and i'm sick of you people who think washington can be changed in a day. how many senators would have voted for this bill WITHOUT the pork? it's about getting SOMETHING done and not quibbling over the bulls***.

 

What a great, unintentional, statement of how flawed the system really is. Its not about what is best for the country, or the district. Its about what is best for getting re-elected. It doesn't matter what the future effects of actions are, just make sure you can stand up in front of the voters and say you brought them lots of stuff. Even if the dollar amount isn't huge, it adds up over time, and we pay interest that multiplies up over time. Saying that it doesn't amount to much only justifies the waste built into the system as a necesary evil. If this stuff is really needed, make it stand up on its own merits, instead of hiding in something that either can't be voted against, or as a bribery technique to get something passed.

 

The whole idea that "transparency" will make everything OK is counterintuitive as well, as we can see how well that worked with CEO pay being published. Far from discouraging things, it only led to an explosion. Now instead of no one really knowing, each district will be able to see what their Sen/Rep is doing, and to be able to ask why they are underperforming the Sen/Rep next door, and give an opening for someone else to say I WILL BRING YOU MORE FREE STUFF. This isn't going to solve the problem, it is only going to exsaserbate it.

 

If you really want to save money and "fix" government, why does it matter what the dollar amount is? Fix the damned problems. There is nothing that saids if you go after earmarks, you can't go after waste in other sectors of government.

[Reddy]

What a great, unintentional, statement of how flawed the system really is. Its not about what is best for the country, or the district. Its about what is best for getting re-elected. It doesn't matter what the future effects of actions are, just make sure you can stand up in front of the voters and say you brought them lots of stuff. Even if the dollar amount isn't huge, it adds up over time, and we pay interest that multiplies up over time. Saying that it doesn't amount to much only justifies the waste built into the system as a necesary evil. If this stuff is really needed, make it stand up on its own merits, instead of hiding in something that either can't be voted against, or as a bribery technique to get something passed.

 

The whole idea that "transparency" will make everything OK is counterintuitive as well, as we can see how well that worked with CEO pay being published. Far from discouraging things, it only led to an explosion. Now instead of no one really knowing, each district will be able to see what their Sen/Rep is doing, and to be able to ask why they are underperforming the Sen/Rep next door, and give an opening for someone else to say I WILL BRING YOU MORE FREE STUFF. This isn't going to solve the problem, it is only going to exsaserbate it.

 

If you really want to save money and "fix" government, why does it matter what the dollar amount is? Fix the damned problems. There is nothing that saids if you go after earmarks, you can't go after waste in other sectors of government.

of course the system's flawed, because we're humans and we're not perfect. every ONE of us on this board would do the exact same things these senators do - and that is to make sure projects for OUR constituents get put into motion so that WE can get re-elected. Mind you, this is their JOB, and just like all of you, they'd like to keep it. Of COURSE that means we may end up wasting money on some things that may be "less important" from a general perspective, but it's the way it works, and some times you just gotta live with that.

 

and a point that Rex made, not all earmarks are bad. in fact, most of them probably aren't bad. And, like I said, as long as the main measure gets passed, who cares what earmarks are attached (obviously to a point, of course). Is it more important to get a budget passed, or to argue for weeks over the pork?