What do you think of Obama's health care an/or economy package(s)

I wasn't particularly gung-ho with regards to the way GM was dealt with, but their new CEO, Ed Whitaker, is the former CEO of former SBC, which he helped guide into such a position in which it was able to purchase AT&T, gain its global infrastructure, keep its name, and focus it towards its competition with Verizon and other communications companies around the world. I don't know what, exactly, but I think it's possible that Mr. Whitaker can do something with it, and although I'm not particularly optimistic or pessimistic about it, I think it will be interesting to see in the coming years.

@Vess, I was simply pointing out that your contradiction involves two approaches that cannot be mingled from a Keynesian perspective. Otherwise, you would "ease" (keep taxes low, increase spending) when times are tough (now), and "tighten" (increase taxes, lower spending) when times are good (in which to payoff deficits and create surpluses and get back on a more appropriate fiscal schedule). You might think of what Bush Senior put into motion prior to Clinton's administration, which was to halt tax cuts, reverse them, and get spending under control, in order to begin redeeming the deficit and working towards a surplus. It became politically unpopular of course, which helped contribute to his defeat when up for re-election. Nevertheless, it was his attempt (to a degree) to follow suit with a Keynesian approach. (I'm not trying to steer the discussion away from the healthcare reform, but I thought I'd point this out so you understand how I concluded that you contradicted yourself.)

We are indeed getting off track, covering general economic concepts and other non-healthcare fiscal happenings of the past several years.

To help put us back on track, healthcare should be a huge concern for those of us in our 20s or our teens. Most of the jobs I've seen advertised or have applied for, as a fresh college graduate (already working on getting my ducks in a row to attend grad school and start on an MBA degree program), do not offer any kind of healthcare benefits, not even subsidized. If healthcare reform of some sort doesn't happen in the next several years, I don't know what I personally will do if I can't find an employer willing. I also wonder what many others will do. I would certainly hope that we don't see an increase in "John Q" approaches (putting a gun to the head of medical professionals to get treatment for ourselves or our children). Of course, a story like that of John Q is highly embellished upon by Hollywood, but less-dramatic versions of such a scenario have happened in the past.

 

lol at people making comments about not being able to understand other people's point of view and thus calling them idiots. Congrats mayama, you may have deleted your post...but people still saw it.

 

Unions play a huge role. Its not just wages. They have actively lobbied in the past for tariffs on imports and have generally opposed advancement and technological growth in the manufacturing industry. When you look at just wages you could maybe argue unions are a minor factor but when you look at the big picture they have played a huge role in stagnating the american manufacturing sector.

 

I deleted it because i think its not worth it to fuel the flamewar.

But here we go:

Im life in a country with social health care and for me, looking at a
country without it, feels like looking at cavemans refusing to use fire.

 

I'd actually argue that corporate management has a far larger role in stagnating the manufacturing industry than the unions did. A union's primary effect on any industry is on wages, benefits, and work rules. While they have lobbied for tariffs/new technologies/etc, I doubt they've played a serious role in causing them since the 1950's. CEO's and corporate boards have a far greater influence on these things than unions.