Yep, let’s stick with the analogy. I could just quit paying debt and the loansharks come after me. Or I could work overtime and cut the crack habit.
There are 3 levers: reduce spending, raise government income and grow the economy (which grows the tax base). Why the Republicans think that only one option is balancing the checkbook instead of deposit more money into checking?
My dad toldme they HAVE to raise the debt ceiling. Personally, I feel it’s only forestalling the inevitable. we WILL default, it’s not something you can hold off forever.
?Defaulting on the debt. That’s why nobody is suggesting it.
It’s not on either or. We can reduce the budget so it doesn’t require raising the debt.
Not with out increasing revenue. Veto bait.
The obvious choice is to grow the economy which leaves out raising government income through additional taxes since we’re already in a recession.
What the government could do to spur the economy on is to go back to the drawing board on health care and remove businesses entirely from the equation. It’s not a company’s function in any form. The government could also open up mineral rights for coal and oil on Federal land. There is no justification for transferring our energy needs (and the resulting tax base) to foreign countries.
I’m glad you brought this up. Perhaps we could begin by selling oil and mineral leases for more than a fraction of pennies on the dollar.
Now, why does that make sense to me? Politically speaking, I know about as much as a contraceptive sponge, and that makes a lot of sense.
I found the transcript, and I mis-remembered the numbers. The total debt at the time was $800 billion; not $8 billion. The interest on the $120 million mistake was around $6 billion; not $1.6 billion.
What I could do to treat my toothache is buy new shoes. No, wait. What?
In any case, what business is it of the government to tell companies how they may compensate their employees?
How on earth is your solution to 9% unemployment having the world’s largest employer cutting payroll? You do realize that cutting payroll will directly cause unemployment to jump? How on earth can tax increases in the top bracket be considered job killing but having the world’s largest employer cut jobs not be?
3% pay reduction. that’s how. Just like any other business in trouble.
That is exactly my point.
Because a hands-off approach to labor-management relations doesn’t work. Because corporations have no commitment to anything other than their best advantage, which puts them in direct conflict with their workers, which inevitably leads to open conflict, as in the years of labor struggle in America. Review that history if you have any questions. Grinding poverty, bloody confrontations, strike-breakers, and the rise of a revolutionary left. These are not good things.
Well that’s a lovely diatribe against the man but it has nothing to do with the logic behind government involvement linking business and health insurance. One has nothing to do with the other. It would be infinitely more useful if employees were to get the money directly in the form of wages.
Saddling businesses with a barrage of new government regulations and costs is a burden that could not come at a worse time economically.
Hardly. An employer can buy group health insurance much cheaper than the employee can purchase individual health insurance.
No they can’t. Not from a health maintenance vs health insurance standpoint.
Yes, they can.
I just went through this myself along with a number of my friends. The business spent $8000 for my insurance. I spent $2800 with a $5000 deductible. I was ahead the first year and each year that followed put $5200 in my pocket.
Apples and oranges. You assumed the risk that you would have a major medical claim that would have cost your whole deductible. You could have gone without insurance altogether, and saved $8000. Not a valid comparison.
Well lets see. I would have made $200 if I had to pay the deductible the first year. How do you figure it’s apples and oranges? I couldn’t lose if the company gave me the money.