Here are conservative argument for health care reform that I think any fair-minded person can agree with regardless of your political affiliation or beliefs.
By passing comprehensive health care reform we have the opportunity for the federal government to truly affect the general welfare in a positive way for all Americans as guaranteed in the United States Constitution. How? It's simple. A healthy nation is a productive nation. Think of all the man-hours being lost today due to workers being ill, in pain, or disabled. If we were all just a little more healthy, a LOT more would get done and therefore, more money would be made and we would ALL prosper.
Also, healthier citizens are happier and that means less crime and violence as well as less division and hate. It would mean less domestic violence and less child abuse. More jobs and better salaries means less burglary and theft, less homeless, less hungry and less poverty. And, of course, it would result in more business too because happier people have a tendency to do more and spend more money. This stuff is just common sense, but it rarely is brought up in the debate for health care reform. Why are you opposing it again?
Let's say you just care about more jobs and economic growth. Great! The 'public option' being proposed by Democrats will give a competitor to the insurance industry to bring costs down. The insurance that businesses provide to their employees will be cheaper and some will even take the public option. That means more small business jobs and more profit for small businesses. The CBO reports that, despite claims by HCR opponents, private insurance companies will actually gain MORE customers due to lower costs.
Want more business arguments FOR health care reform? If 47 million people suddenly have health insurance, there is sure to be an increase in demand for medical services and pharmaceuticals, so expect the stocks for these providers to do extremely well. Those businesses will need to hire more people to meet this demand, therefore more jobs created due to health care reform. Salaries will also be positively affected. The public option is good business, good for jobs and good politics!
But what about the conservative principle of fiscal responsibility, you might ask? The answer is simple: We can't afford to keep things the way they are. Our broken health care system represents 16% of our Gross Domestic Product. Health care costs are leading individuals to bankruptcy at an alarming rate. If nothing is done, it will only get worse. That means less income in the form of taxes for all levels of government and therefore a loss of public services you've taken for granted your entire life. Without economic growth, the only way to go is down. A public option would clearly be good for business, good for American's health, productivity and overall prosperity.
We are still feeling the negative effects from eight long years of a conservative administration and 'representatives' who completely abandoned this supposed principle of fiscal responsibility by turning a surplus into record deficits. When a Republican president wanted to drop bombs, they never questioned the cost, but if Democrats want to reform a broken health care system which will directly help American citizens by protecting our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, suddenly we can't afford it?
Yes, health care reform directly affects all three of these inalienable rights set by our founders in the Declaration of Independence. The "Life" part is obvious. Healthcare is essential for life. "Liberty" involves how insurance companies currently profit by denying health care benefits as well as the lack of real competition in the industry. Currently most people get insurance from their employer. When costs come down, you can choose between companies and coverages because they will be more affordable. It is also an injustice infringing on your liberty that an insurance company decides what medical treatment you get and not a doctor. At least we can vote for whoever represents us in government. That is the power of our great democracy. Your "Pursuit of Happiness" is being infringed on when insurance companies take advantage of you, for example, by denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition or refusing to pay for your benefits solely for their own profit and greed. Obviously, healthiness contributes to happiness and lower costs will reduce financial hardships which are a detriment to an individual's well being. With all three of these inalienable rights currently in jeopardy by a broken health care system, I am shocked that more true conservatives don't come out in support of health care reform.
10 More Conservative Arguments FOR Healthcare Reform
1. Illegal immigrants are explicitly not covered.
2. Legislation does not subsidize abortion.
3. Insurers that deny lifesaving treatment, or ignore Living Wills can no longer keep these practices secret.
4. The bill promotes entrepreneurship by letting people keep their healthcare when they quit their job and start a business.
5. More Choice = More Freedom. The public option is OPTIONAL. It's another choice designed to give much-needed competition to an out-of-control insurance industry that is making record profits by denying health care benefits.
6. Emergency room care for the uninsured is guaranteed at public expense so it makes sense to bring these people into the insurance system, and to offer less expensive, long-term preventive healthcare. This will reduce costs for everybody.
7. Accountability for costs, quality, and value of providers, suppliers, and administrators is public.
8. Coverage does not discriminate by type of illness or ability to pay.
9. Both the Preamble and Article 1 Section 8 of our US Constitution guarantee that the government will promote and provide for our defense AND general welfare. If you believe that the federal government should provide a military for defense, then you should also support the idea of providing health care for all US citizens.
(BTW universal health care would require a 'single-payer' system and not the 'public option' being proposed by Obama and Democrats in congress. Liberals are compromising because a solution to this problem is THAT important.)
10. A Republican party that often cites their own moral values as an advantage should put compassionate common sense in front of ideology and partisanship.
There sure does seem to be a lot of good conservative arguments FOR health care reform. Wonder why you never hear Republicans or right-wingers talking about these positives? Unfortunately, that's because it seems to be all politics and no common sense with so-called 'conservatives' these days.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
CONFIRMED: Obamacare includes "Death Star"
As the great Sarah Palin says "In honor of the American soldier, let's stop making things up!" so I am not going to hide the truth any longer about the Democrats' motivations for attempting to reform health care for Americans.
It's official! Cleverly hidden in the legislative language of H.R. 1138 is a provision to spend at least $77 TRILLION DOLLARS on the Obamacare Death Star which is scheduled to destroy Earth on October 10th, 2010 or "O-Day." Darth Barack's true agenda is now clear: The death of each and every living organism and the destruction of our beloved home planet itself!
Some say that, since he never could produce a birth certificate, Obama is secretly an evil Sith Lord in disguise who has come to eliminate the human race under the guise of providing universal health care. His hypocrisy must be as strong as the force! It is said that his ultimate decision to destroy the Earth came while attempting to get valuable information from a female "domestic terrorist" who had been caught attempting to protest at one of Emperor Obama's Coruscant city-planet-hall meetings. Without some sort of rebellion, led by a forgotten son that is somehow able to find the one weakness (which is hopefully left open) in the Obamacare Death Star to exploit, then we are doomed.
More facts about Obamacare to worry about before our ultimate demise on O-Day:
- At the age of 65, seniors are thrown into a Sarlacc Pit.
- (Thanks to a tip from Mr. Bob A. Fett) It outlaws private bounty hunters by providing a Empire-run system making it impossible to compete.
- The disabled and handicapped are frozen in Carbonite indefinitely.
- Expect massive cuts to Mon Calamari-care.
- The Empire will have direct, real-time access to individual galactic credits standard accounts.
- Wookies are not covered under any circumstances.
- A R2 unit will perform your colonoscopy.
- Yoda is forced to speak using a linear sentences structure.
- They will issue a mandatory Imperial ID Holocron that will spy on you.
- Jar Jar Binks will be your Health Czar.
- Emperor Obama has dozens of Czars or "Darths."
- Blaster and Lightsaber wounds are considered pre-existing conditions.
- Clone-marriage is legalized.
- Tauntauns used for emergency warmth AND preventative dental care?!
- Illegal Ewoks are fully covered.
- There's not enough Imperial credits to cover the entire galaxy so expect tax increases on your Speeder Bike.
- Greedo shoots first, asks questions later.
- Public money would be used to fund a Rancor Pit under Jabba's palace.
- There will be an Empire between you and your Medical Droid.
It's official! Cleverly hidden in the legislative language of H.R. 1138 is a provision to spend at least $77 TRILLION DOLLARS on the Obamacare Death Star which is scheduled to destroy Earth on October 10th, 2010 or "O-Day." Darth Barack's true agenda is now clear: The death of each and every living organism and the destruction of our beloved home planet itself!
Some say that, since he never could produce a birth certificate, Obama is secretly an evil Sith Lord in disguise who has come to eliminate the human race under the guise of providing universal health care. His hypocrisy must be as strong as the force! It is said that his ultimate decision to destroy the Earth came while attempting to get valuable information from a female "domestic terrorist" who had been caught attempting to protest at one of Emperor Obama's Coruscant city-planet-hall meetings. Without some sort of rebellion, led by a forgotten son that is somehow able to find the one weakness (which is hopefully left open) in the Obamacare Death Star to exploit, then we are doomed.
More facts about Obamacare to worry about before our ultimate demise on O-Day:
- At the age of 65, seniors are thrown into a Sarlacc Pit.
- (Thanks to a tip from Mr. Bob A. Fett) It outlaws private bounty hunters by providing a Empire-run system making it impossible to compete.
- The disabled and handicapped are frozen in Carbonite indefinitely.
- Expect massive cuts to Mon Calamari-care.
- The Empire will have direct, real-time access to individual galactic credits standard accounts.
- Wookies are not covered under any circumstances.
- A R2 unit will perform your colonoscopy.
- Yoda is forced to speak using a linear sentences structure.
- They will issue a mandatory Imperial ID Holocron that will spy on you.
- Jar Jar Binks will be your Health Czar.
- Emperor Obama has dozens of Czars or "Darths."
- Blaster and Lightsaber wounds are considered pre-existing conditions.
- Clone-marriage is legalized.
- Tauntauns used for emergency warmth AND preventative dental care?!
- Illegal Ewoks are fully covered.
- There's not enough Imperial credits to cover the entire galaxy so expect tax increases on your Speeder Bike.
- Greedo shoots first, asks questions later.
- Public money would be used to fund a Rancor Pit under Jabba's palace.
- There will be an Empire between you and your Medical Droid.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
AL.com is Guilty of Censorship
Recently I've been taking the truth to the people in al.com's politics forums. It has been a daunting task as the vast majority of people who post there are right-wingers who promote any and every lie being told about the Obama administration and Democrats with ZERO facts to back up their delusional opinions. I have always conducted myself in an appropriate manner and followed the website's policies without deviation.
However, It didn't take long before my posts, and only my posts, were being deleted for no reason other than some moderator obviously didn't like what I had to say. Today my account was disabled. My crime? Setting the record straight on the common lie that health care reform legislation will supply free health care to illegal immigrants. I was even able to find a blatantly right-wing news source to support the fact that both the House and Senate versions of the bills actually prohibit subsidies to illegal aliens, but the al.com forum moderators can not handle the truth.
Apparently, if you're liberal you get censored and banned, but if you're a wingnut - any crazy conspiracy theory you want to write about, regardless of facts, is perfectly okay. Not only that, but the wingers frequently use childish name calling and rarely engage in anything even vaguely resembling civil discourse. It is clearly obvious that al.com does not want any dissent from the right-wing talking points, propaganda and lies that are the only opinions allowed on their forums. In their forums it is practically North Korea - not the America where our right to freedom of speech is held dear and they should be ashamed of themselves!
However, It didn't take long before my posts, and only my posts, were being deleted for no reason other than some moderator obviously didn't like what I had to say. Today my account was disabled. My crime? Setting the record straight on the common lie that health care reform legislation will supply free health care to illegal immigrants. I was even able to find a blatantly right-wing news source to support the fact that both the House and Senate versions of the bills actually prohibit subsidies to illegal aliens, but the al.com forum moderators can not handle the truth.
Apparently, if you're liberal you get censored and banned, but if you're a wingnut - any crazy conspiracy theory you want to write about, regardless of facts, is perfectly okay. Not only that, but the wingers frequently use childish name calling and rarely engage in anything even vaguely resembling civil discourse. It is clearly obvious that al.com does not want any dissent from the right-wing talking points, propaganda and lies that are the only opinions allowed on their forums. In their forums it is practically North Korea - not the America where our right to freedom of speech is held dear and they should be ashamed of themselves!
Friday, July 31, 2009
Republicans Propose $700 Billion Giveaway To The Health Insurance Industry
Republicans have just announced the "Empower Patients First Act" which is their answer for health care reform. When the details of this plan are examined, it becomes clear that this would be a disaster for ordinary Americans while also being the health insurance industry's dream come true.
First, their plan would deregulate the insurance market and dismantle state-level consumer protections by allowing insurance giants to sell their plans nationwide without fear of oversight. Republicans usually claim to care about states rights, but this would completely undermine any regulations state governments have imposed on the insurance industry to protect their citizens. For example, state regulations requiring the most basic of necessary services such as breast cancer screenings, prostate cancer screenings, pre-natal care and hospital stays for new mothers will become immaterial if you bought your policy from another state. These regulations are there for a reason - to protect consumers. Companies will charter in states with scarce regulations solely so they can make more profit. With no reforms, the for-profit healthcare system will ALWAYS find ways to take advantage of people and that's exactly what this plan would encourage.
The Republicans also want to subsidize the private health insurance industry. Yeah, sure! They're making record profits so let's give them MORE money?! The idea is to give private health insurance subsidies to lower-income individuals and families which, of course, sounds like a good thing but this is done only with tax incentives which are practically worthless to the unemployed or those who can't currently afford health care. Also, subsidies in the absence of other reforms will simply increase the cost of health insurance for everybody else, leading to another inflationary spiral in health care. No ideas to reduce costs or improve competition, no protection for those with pre-existing conditions, no ways to cover those in poverty without insurance, no real impact on 50 million uninsured Americans. This is nothing but a $700 billion giveaway to the health insurance industry.
Finally, there is no comprehensive plan to pay for this Republicans healthcare reform plan. In order to fund subsidies, the bill calls for a 1% annual cut in Federal discretionary spending each year for the next decade, yielding about $120 billion. Although this would result in major across-the-board cuts in federal spending, it still leaves nearly $600 billion unfunded. Republicans say they can find "inefficiencies" in the health care system to cover that $600 billion shortfall, including malpractice reform, but fail to offer specifics. In fact this will add an extreme amount to the federal debt. Yet another fundamental Republican belief - fiscal responsibility - is thrown away for the corporate interests that fund their political campaigns.
This plan proves that Republicans are clearly on the side of this huge corporate interest and not with the American people. The fact that they want to go back to the failed policy of deregulation and that they even want to give those making record profits more federal money with no way to pay for it all shows their true nature and who they truly represent. This kind of deregulation has already proven itself to be a horrible idea in the failed finance industry which was eventually required to be bailed out by the federal government. Perhaps that is their goal for the insurance industry as well? First remove oversight and then bail them out?! I wouldn't put it past them.
They call this the "Empower Patients First Act" when it is obvious that it should be called the "Enrich Insurance Companies First Act." But hey, at least the Republicans finally have a plan!
First, their plan would deregulate the insurance market and dismantle state-level consumer protections by allowing insurance giants to sell their plans nationwide without fear of oversight. Republicans usually claim to care about states rights, but this would completely undermine any regulations state governments have imposed on the insurance industry to protect their citizens. For example, state regulations requiring the most basic of necessary services such as breast cancer screenings, prostate cancer screenings, pre-natal care and hospital stays for new mothers will become immaterial if you bought your policy from another state. These regulations are there for a reason - to protect consumers. Companies will charter in states with scarce regulations solely so they can make more profit. With no reforms, the for-profit healthcare system will ALWAYS find ways to take advantage of people and that's exactly what this plan would encourage.
The Republicans also want to subsidize the private health insurance industry. Yeah, sure! They're making record profits so let's give them MORE money?! The idea is to give private health insurance subsidies to lower-income individuals and families which, of course, sounds like a good thing but this is done only with tax incentives which are practically worthless to the unemployed or those who can't currently afford health care. Also, subsidies in the absence of other reforms will simply increase the cost of health insurance for everybody else, leading to another inflationary spiral in health care. No ideas to reduce costs or improve competition, no protection for those with pre-existing conditions, no ways to cover those in poverty without insurance, no real impact on 50 million uninsured Americans. This is nothing but a $700 billion giveaway to the health insurance industry.
Finally, there is no comprehensive plan to pay for this Republicans healthcare reform plan. In order to fund subsidies, the bill calls for a 1% annual cut in Federal discretionary spending each year for the next decade, yielding about $120 billion. Although this would result in major across-the-board cuts in federal spending, it still leaves nearly $600 billion unfunded. Republicans say they can find "inefficiencies" in the health care system to cover that $600 billion shortfall, including malpractice reform, but fail to offer specifics. In fact this will add an extreme amount to the federal debt. Yet another fundamental Republican belief - fiscal responsibility - is thrown away for the corporate interests that fund their political campaigns.
This plan proves that Republicans are clearly on the side of this huge corporate interest and not with the American people. The fact that they want to go back to the failed policy of deregulation and that they even want to give those making record profits more federal money with no way to pay for it all shows their true nature and who they truly represent. This kind of deregulation has already proven itself to be a horrible idea in the failed finance industry which was eventually required to be bailed out by the federal government. Perhaps that is their goal for the insurance industry as well? First remove oversight and then bail them out?! I wouldn't put it past them.
They call this the "Empower Patients First Act" when it is obvious that it should be called the "Enrich Insurance Companies First Act." But hey, at least the Republicans finally have a plan!
Friday, March 27, 2009
Idiocracy
In a recent article, Reuben Navarrete 'flunked' Obama on economics. This is so biased and idiotic I don't even feel the need to respond. So I'm just including the link and if you feel so inclined, you can read the column yourself. The one thing I would like to point out is (because the more the GOPers say this, the more it pisses me off) just because you come up with an 18 page 'pamphlet' and call it a budget 2 days AFTER the President says he hasn't seen a proposal from you, that doesn't make his previous statement untrue. Now if you had released it BEFORE his comments, then you could say that wasn't true. Damn - ya'll just think you can say shit doesn't stink and people will believe you, don't you?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/27/navarrette.obama.economics/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/27/navarrette.obama.economics/index.html
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
They've gone beyond hoping to actually planning and denying
So now Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana who apparently thinks Americans have the mentality of a 5 year old, is trying to set himself up as the leading Economic Expoert in the country. In a recent interview he said the GOP needs to embrace its role as the loyal opposition to President Obama and the Democratic Party.
He, I guess, has decided he needs to become the voice of the GOP, since Limbaugh got so much flack that it backfired. He stated that that is their responsibility to herald in a new era of fiscal responsibility - before it's too late. Seriously? Again, does he not know that it was his party that's basically been in control for the past 28 years but somehow they aren't responsible for this financial cesspool we're in?
He then went on ' "Thanks primarily to the Republicans in the House of Representatives, the Republican Party has once again decided to be the conservative party in this country," Jindal said.'
When did they STOP being the conservative party of this country? Granted, they shifted their primary focus from fiscal conservatism to social conservatism but they've never stopped being conservatives.
Now as far as them being pretty much the responsible for the economic cesspool we're in, Cheney had an answer for that.
'Whether the Bush administration should have done more about the economy: “We did worry about it, to some extent. … I don’t think anybody actually foresaw something of this size and dimension occurring. It’s also global. We only control part of the world economy – a very important part.” '
So..... the world, which has based their currency on the value of the dollar, was facing an economic meltdown and they did worry about it...... TO SOME EXTENT????? He also said that the Bush administration shouldn't get much blame for the current economic situation, since they weren't paying THAT much attention to it. That's not exactly what he said but I paraphrased because that was the implication I got. That, since they spent most of their time concerning themselves with the 'War on Terror' and how to treat their prisoners instead of concerning themselves with the economy, they aren't responsible for it. Instead, he wants to gloat about 'keeping us safe' when in reality, their policies regarding their dubbed 'Axis of Terror' countries have actually made us MORE of a target and has been an excellent recruiting incentive for Al Queada.
Ah GOP, please just go away. I don't care if you go away mad, just GO AWAY!
He, I guess, has decided he needs to become the voice of the GOP, since Limbaugh got so much flack that it backfired. He stated that that is their responsibility to herald in a new era of fiscal responsibility - before it's too late. Seriously? Again, does he not know that it was his party that's basically been in control for the past 28 years but somehow they aren't responsible for this financial cesspool we're in?
He then went on ' "Thanks primarily to the Republicans in the House of Representatives, the Republican Party has once again decided to be the conservative party in this country," Jindal said.'
When did they STOP being the conservative party of this country? Granted, they shifted their primary focus from fiscal conservatism to social conservatism but they've never stopped being conservatives.
Now as far as them being pretty much the responsible for the economic cesspool we're in, Cheney had an answer for that.
'Whether the Bush administration should have done more about the economy: “We did worry about it, to some extent. … I don’t think anybody actually foresaw something of this size and dimension occurring. It’s also global. We only control part of the world economy – a very important part.” '
So..... the world, which has based their currency on the value of the dollar, was facing an economic meltdown and they did worry about it...... TO SOME EXTENT????? He also said that the Bush administration shouldn't get much blame for the current economic situation, since they weren't paying THAT much attention to it. That's not exactly what he said but I paraphrased because that was the implication I got. That, since they spent most of their time concerning themselves with the 'War on Terror' and how to treat their prisoners instead of concerning themselves with the economy, they aren't responsible for it. Instead, he wants to gloat about 'keeping us safe' when in reality, their policies regarding their dubbed 'Axis of Terror' countries have actually made us MORE of a target and has been an excellent recruiting incentive for Al Queada.
Ah GOP, please just go away. I don't care if you go away mad, just GO AWAY!
Monday, March 23, 2009
The GOP is keeping me busy today
So Geithner has a bank plan to try and save our banks thereby freeing up credit and getting the 'demand' part of our 'supply and demand' economy. Now I'm not saying that it will work or not, it is a risk. However, if it works it can get credit flowing again which will help increase spending. These are desperate times and sometimes desperate times call for desperate measures.
Of course, par for the course, the Republicans are offering to come to our rescue.
' Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House of Representatives, argued that Geithner should have instead adopted an insurance-based plan put forward by the congressional GOP last fall.
Under that plan, banks would have paid over time for any assistance required to clear their books of toxic assets. "The Republican insurance-based model institutes a system of government insurance guarantees to provide certainty to investors," Cantor said. "It would act as a containment plan to wall off toxic assets from the rest of the economy and bring liquidity back to our financial markets." '
Let's see - last fall when you had control you couldn't even get your own plan passed? Wow, it must really suck. Or maybe we should take a second look at it since things that most Republicans are against usually turn out to be a good idea.
Now I don't want the country to go another trillion dollars in debt either but if McSame had won, we would still be going into that much debt and then some because he wanted to stay in Iraq for at least 100 more years in order to stabilize the area. At least this trillion dollars is getting spent here on our companies.
Now to be fair, not all the members against the plan are Republicans.
'Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, slammed the plan, saying it treated banks better than taxpayers. The plan "involves a thousand times as much money as AIG executives received in bonuses, and it would make the American people a thousand times as angry, except for the fact that it is so technical that the American people may not fully understand it," Sherman said in a speech on the House floor. Taxpayers "are going to overpay for some, they are going to underpay for others. They are going to make money on some. They are going to lose money on others. [But] when they make money, half the profit goes to Wall Street. When they lose money, 94 percent of the loss goes to the taxpayer." '
Now if that is true - and I can't comment because I haven't looked at the proposal yet - this thing called 'work' getting in my way - then I don't agree with it. If that's a correct interpretation of it then I would say vote against it. Because it should be more equitably split between Wall Street and Taxpayers. When we make money, it should be 60/40 (Wall Street/Taxpayers) and when we lose money it should be 80/20 (Wall Street/Taxpayers). Why should taxpayers have to shoulder the burden of their losses yet again? And why shouldn't more of a share of the profits go into paying off this loan from us to Wall Street? I understand they want to make money but we don't want to die in debt to the government.
Again, I haven't heard Obama discuss this nor have I read it so until then, the jury is still out on this one. It will all depend if what the naysayers are saying is true or not or if they're just spinning it to get people against it when they don't fully understand what they're against.
Of course, par for the course, the Republicans are offering to come to our rescue.
' Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House of Representatives, argued that Geithner should have instead adopted an insurance-based plan put forward by the congressional GOP last fall.
Under that plan, banks would have paid over time for any assistance required to clear their books of toxic assets. "The Republican insurance-based model institutes a system of government insurance guarantees to provide certainty to investors," Cantor said. "It would act as a containment plan to wall off toxic assets from the rest of the economy and bring liquidity back to our financial markets." '
Let's see - last fall when you had control you couldn't even get your own plan passed? Wow, it must really suck. Or maybe we should take a second look at it since things that most Republicans are against usually turn out to be a good idea.
Now I don't want the country to go another trillion dollars in debt either but if McSame had won, we would still be going into that much debt and then some because he wanted to stay in Iraq for at least 100 more years in order to stabilize the area. At least this trillion dollars is getting spent here on our companies.
Now to be fair, not all the members against the plan are Republicans.
'Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, slammed the plan, saying it treated banks better than taxpayers. The plan "involves a thousand times as much money as AIG executives received in bonuses, and it would make the American people a thousand times as angry, except for the fact that it is so technical that the American people may not fully understand it," Sherman said in a speech on the House floor. Taxpayers "are going to overpay for some, they are going to underpay for others. They are going to make money on some. They are going to lose money on others. [But] when they make money, half the profit goes to Wall Street. When they lose money, 94 percent of the loss goes to the taxpayer." '
Now if that is true - and I can't comment because I haven't looked at the proposal yet - this thing called 'work' getting in my way - then I don't agree with it. If that's a correct interpretation of it then I would say vote against it. Because it should be more equitably split between Wall Street and Taxpayers. When we make money, it should be 60/40 (Wall Street/Taxpayers) and when we lose money it should be 80/20 (Wall Street/Taxpayers). Why should taxpayers have to shoulder the burden of their losses yet again? And why shouldn't more of a share of the profits go into paying off this loan from us to Wall Street? I understand they want to make money but we don't want to die in debt to the government.
Again, I haven't heard Obama discuss this nor have I read it so until then, the jury is still out on this one. It will all depend if what the naysayers are saying is true or not or if they're just spinning it to get people against it when they don't fully understand what they're against.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)