Originally Posted by segovius
SDW, to be honest, you know as well as I do that if Obama did wield a massive axe then it would be "Obama is punishing industry", "Obama is slashing the middle classes", "Obama is a Communist...".
If he could do those kind of cuts he would... but the truth is he'll be crucified whatever he does so it's just damage limitation.
How would cutting government spending and laying off government works be "punishing industry?" Sure, some people would have a fit about laying off so many workers, but it's got to be done. Millions more would support the move. As for Obama, there is no way he would ever consider such a move. He believes in government creating prosperity. He believes in spreading the wealth. He's said so.
Originally Posted by gerald apple
My thoughts to get the economy rolling again have what President Franklin Roosevelt had in his presidency start the WPA again and put people back to work once again. Infrastructure bridges, roads, railroads,buildings etc. This will work only if Obama tried.
FDR's programs are widely recognized to have no helped (at best) and may have prolonged the depression (at worst). Government cannot create prosperity. It cannot create jobs. It can simply help create conditions that allow enterprise and citizens to thrive. Last...don't you realize that the stimulus was based (supposedly) on Keynesian theory? The whole idea was to stimulate the economy with shovel-ready infrastructure projects. Well guess what....it failed. It provided (possibly) a very modest and temporary boost, which is now ending. Yeah...let's try that again.
Originally Posted by jimmac
They've also said they arre " Managing decline ". Is that really what you want for us?
That's the kind of cheap, strawman-like argument I'd expect from you. First, "managing decline" doesn't necessarily mean the decline of a nation over time, nor does it mean one embraces and accepts such decline as permanent. Secondly, how do these 500,000 government jobs create growth? You seem to be implying that these jobs benefit the economy, which they don't on the whole.
And if this is really what you want why weren't we doing this during the Bush years when this was all brewing?
Because the fiscal situation is totally different. The deficit is 4x as high, and the national debt is accumulating at around 4x the speed. Spending is off the charts compared to the Bush years, even if one puts aside TARP which added to the FY 2009 deficit. Meanwhile, the government is growing by leaps and bounds...far faster than it did during Bush (where it grew too much). And let's not forget, I've always called for lower spending. When deficits were in the 200-400 billion range, I said that I didn't like them, but that the deficits were manageable. I still think they WERE manageable. These deficits are not.
As for things "brewing" during the Bush years, I agree with that. However, I think you'd be hard pressed to show which Bush Administration policies led to the recession. "Tax cuts for the rich" isn't the reason, nor are the wars. "Deregulation" is not the reason, either. "Being asleep at the switch" (as you've stated before) is nothing but meaningless rhetoric. The truth is that the roots of the crisis go back to the Carter admin (not a political shot there...if you prefer I can just write "go back 35 years).
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo
This is bullshit. It is not 'a disaster'. You really, truly don't know what you're talking about. The NHS is something to be proud of. British people are proud of it.
It should be a source of shame for you that it's taken you so long, as the world's wealthiest nation, to institute even the weak health care reform you've just passed.
Right wing America collectively pissed it's hysterical pants at the institution of something that amounted to administrative reform. You're fucked as a nation because half of you can't even bring yourself to have a conversation without smelling salts on hand. Your president's a bit of a wet moderate but the national discourse is so screwed that you can't even discuss a speech to schoolkids without hysteria, so there's no way you're going to be able to consider the changes that matter.
And the British NHS isn't a disaster. I'm sure you have some out there examples of specific failures or something but you can shove them up your arse, because we love it.
1. I'm not saying NHS does no good. I'm saying it's expensive, bloated, inefficient and results in many problems for citizens...even horror stories that as trump points out, are not had to find.
2. It's not, because many of us don't believe we're entitled to "government-funded" healthcare.
3. Excellent appraisal of America and Obamacare, indeed. It shows real, in-depth understanding of how the trillion dollar, 2,000 page, byzantine-in-complexity bill was rammed through Congress with no bipartisan support, using parliamentary tricks, over the objection of 60% of the nation. It shows a real attempt to understand that the consequences of said law are already being felt by business and consumers, such as health insurance plans going up nearly 50% in one year. </sarcasm>
4. I see that you speak for the British people. On behalf of the American people, I extend my greetings.
Originally Posted by Alex London
The NHS fixed my congenital heart condition in 1999 with a clever bit of open heart surgery, monitors me annually and saved the life of my sister with a kidney transplant two years ago. When a child with a nut allergy ingested some sesame seeds on our school trip this week, a paramedic arrived by motorbike within three minutes of the 999 call, followed by an ambulance five minutes later. The crew, and the staff at hospital, were great with her and her understandably concerned parents.
Oh, and my wife is a Consultant paediatrician specialising in neuro-disability, serving part of north London; she couldn't be more dedicated to her patients and the principles of the NHS.
Free at the point of use, financed by national tax. Because we're worth it.
Glad they helped you, but there many examples of failure. That's the point.