05-14-2010, 11:24 PM
<!--quoteo(post=362183:date=May 14 2010, 03:54 PM:name=killerpsychomask)<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE (killerpsychomask @ May 14 2010, 03:54 PM) <a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=362183\"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class=\'quotemain\'><!--quotecI am in a tight spot right now, but I think we collectively will be fine. Perhaps Health care was focused on too soon in Obama's Presidency, but it was needed. It will save money in the short and long term, and the fact is, America is way behind most of the rest of the developed world in terms of Health care. Just one recent statistic, we are the 47th country in the world in the number of people in our population that will make it to 60 years old. We are just ahead of Iran and way behind most of the rest of the western world! It is atrocious. Too many years of hard working, low paid citizens not being able to afford health care. The horrible healthcare the military has endured. The result is many don't get any preventative care, and so don't avoid major diseases and ailments, they otherwise would have, and that drains us far more than the preventative care will. The only reason we haven't done this sooner, is the giant drug companies have too much to lose, a multi trillion dollar business is at stake if we should start getting less ill! Just like oil. Shell will lose their record profits if we go electric with our cars. As for the Democrats being so awful spending money. The facts don't support that. The most over budgeted administrations in American history are all Republican, GW Bush, Reagan and Nixon. Bush being by far the worst, and he followed Clinton, who had one of the most balanced budgets ever, over his 8 years. Not to mention the stock market, [where if you are like me, a self employed artist, you likely have some investment since income does not come consistently form art work] is historically much better under a Democratic administration, see the best ever 8 year run under Clinton, and the second worst 8 years ever, under Bush. The problem now is the US economy has recovered much more quickly than Europe. Most of the bailouts have been paid nearly all back in the US, but not in Europe. We've had earnings and GDP numbers, that are 6 and 7 year highs over the last 4/5 months. This is reflected in the huge rise in the stock market over the last year. The stock market always foretells the economy, usually by about 6 months. If the Republican's would not stall reform, which they wanted when Bush started the bailouts, but now that Obama tries to do exactly what they wanted, they are stone walling, only in an effort to see him fail! I hope the transparency of their actions in not lost on voters. We were at the bottom of a deep hole 18 months ago, now we are on our way back up.<!--QuoteEnd</div><!--QuoteEEndAll good points, but I want to point out that those overbudget administrations all had to contend with a democrat-controlled congress, where the real spending is done (including Bush's second term). Clinton was dragged into budget slashing by a Republican controlled congress that gave us the biggest surplus in recent history. Besides that Obama is now up there with GW Bush as a record-holding big spender, so its not a "party" thing.Also the recent stock market gains I think are largely illusory and temporary benefits of the stimulus cash being doled out at taxpayer expense. Also some bailout TARP funds were repaid with stimulus money, as was the case with GM, leaving taxpayers on the merry-go-round of idiocy.Totally agree Republicans should stop stonewalling Wall Street reform, it is BADLY needed right now, but our current problem is not all the Republican's fault, both parties are guilty of overspending, I want to see every incumbent booted from congress the next couple of elections days.
