Full Version: Jobs, Healthcare, and Energy.
It has been suggested that President Bush should focus his domestic agenda on resolving problems in three areas: jobs, healthcare, and energy.
Questions for Debate:
(1) How can Bush "create jobs" in the economy?
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?
Edit to fix spelling error.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 4 2004, 10:52 AM)
3-A. The economy is still a sickly creator of jobs -- needs to be a focus.
* * *
3-C. Healthcare is still a major problem -- too much profit incentive. I will not expect anything from Bush on this one, but that's the problem.
3-D. Energy promises to become THE major middle and lower class economic burden, and a highly volitile (pun intended) one at that. Okay, so do something that *works*.
* * *
3-C. Healthcare is still a major problem -- too much profit incentive. I will not expect anything from Bush on this one, but that's the problem.
3-D. Energy promises to become THE major middle and lower class economic burden, and a highly volitile (pun intended) one at that. Okay, so do something that *works*.
Questions for Debate:
(1) How can Bush "create jobs" in the economy?
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?
Edit to fix spelling error.
(1) How can Bush "create jobs" in the economy?
* Institute the draft
* Invade Iran
* Further militarize space assets
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
* Reduce the number of people needing health insurance
* Encourage insurance providers to reject more and more types of procedures
* Outlaw malpractice suits
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?
* Threaten any oil nation with "severe consequences" if they raise their prices. Should it occur, either invade or arrange a regime change by other means (except for the Saudis).
* Aggressively drill and mine any energy resources available in the US.
* Institute the draft
* Invade Iran
* Further militarize space assets
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
* Reduce the number of people needing health insurance
* Encourage insurance providers to reject more and more types of procedures
* Outlaw malpractice suits
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?
* Threaten any oil nation with "severe consequences" if they raise their prices. Should it occur, either invade or arrange a regime change by other means (except for the Saudis).
* Aggressively drill and mine any energy resources available in the US.
(1) How can Bush "create jobs" in the economy?
Bush could give the military a break and temporarily expand the size of the military even if it meant cutting out some missile defense money for several years.
he could create an aggressive program to help invest in our economy to create the jobs of the future. Examples could be alternative fuels, solar energy, stem cell research and anything else that could lead to the next big economic development.
He could make it easier to employ people by taking health care responsiblities away from employers and turning that over to either the free market in a system where every one can buy individual insurance on an open market, or, my preferred solution, create a national health service modelled after a country or countries that provide better overall care and a much lower per capita or share of GNP cost that we do here.
Tax reform could include an abolishment of the payroll taxes and have that roll into a simplified or relatively flat tax system. This way employers would not have to factor in the double payroll tax costs and (above) an expensive benefits package commitment) when they added any individual job. Our overall labor cost to employers would drop significantly and we would be more competitive with the international job market.
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
See above. Let's use what is working elsewhere. But Bush doesn't seem to think it is working better elsewhere as evidenced by his dismissive comment in a debate. I do not think tort reform will save much at all in terms of medical costs.
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?
Launch the country aggressively into the next era of transportation by finding the solution to the dependence on fossil fuels. An effective effort here would be a potential exponential source of growth and prosperity for our country and we would lose our dependence on middle eastern nation that ties us to their interests presently.
Just my two cents.
Bush could give the military a break and temporarily expand the size of the military even if it meant cutting out some missile defense money for several years.
he could create an aggressive program to help invest in our economy to create the jobs of the future. Examples could be alternative fuels, solar energy, stem cell research and anything else that could lead to the next big economic development.
He could make it easier to employ people by taking health care responsiblities away from employers and turning that over to either the free market in a system where every one can buy individual insurance on an open market, or, my preferred solution, create a national health service modelled after a country or countries that provide better overall care and a much lower per capita or share of GNP cost that we do here.
Tax reform could include an abolishment of the payroll taxes and have that roll into a simplified or relatively flat tax system. This way employers would not have to factor in the double payroll tax costs and (above) an expensive benefits package commitment) when they added any individual job. Our overall labor cost to employers would drop significantly and we would be more competitive with the international job market.
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
See above. Let's use what is working elsewhere. But Bush doesn't seem to think it is working better elsewhere as evidenced by his dismissive comment in a debate. I do not think tort reform will save much at all in terms of medical costs.
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?
Launch the country aggressively into the next era of transportation by finding the solution to the dependence on fossil fuels. An effective effort here would be a potential exponential source of growth and prosperity for our country and we would lose our dependence on middle eastern nation that ties us to their interests presently.
Just my two cents.
Eeyore, good suggestions. I just have a couple questions/comments:
How would this be done? I assume you're talking about granting government subsidies to particular industries that the administration believes hold promise for future technologies. I'm very hesitant to adopt such an approach, however, because I generally believe that the free market is a better distributor of capital into promising industries. (For instance, if a particular industry is perceived to hold spectacular promise, I would expect to see private capital flowing into that industry, unless taxes destroy the incentive to do so.) At any rate, subsidies require government spending, which requires taxation, which, in the end, winds up stunting growth.
I love the former suggestion, but I'm opposed to any form of socialized health care. I'm not sure what countries you are talking about, but socialized health care in many countries, such as Canada, has lead to a shortage of readily available health care, as well as an overall decrease in the quality of health care. (Consequently, most wealthy Canadians will travel to the U.S. when they need urgent care.)
I think your former suggestion is best because, when you place responsibility to pay for routine health care service upon those who actually consume such service, you'll see a drop in demand. A drop in demand would result in a drop in prices. Under the current system, however, insurers wind up paying for all health care services, even routine check-ups, which is not the purpose of insurance.
Amen. This is worth repeating.
Again, I tend to believe that, if oil continues it's upward price trend, the free market will shift towards the development of alternative technologies. I'm very hesitant to jump on a program that's going to require unnecessary taxation to support subsidies to particular industries.
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Nov 4 2004, 03:13 PM)
(1) How can Bush "create jobs" in the economy?
* * *
he could create an aggressive program to help invest in our economy to create the jobs of the future. Examples could be alternative fuels, solar energy, stem cell research and anything else that could lead to the next big economic development.
* * *
he could create an aggressive program to help invest in our economy to create the jobs of the future. Examples could be alternative fuels, solar energy, stem cell research and anything else that could lead to the next big economic development.
How would this be done? I assume you're talking about granting government subsidies to particular industries that the administration believes hold promise for future technologies. I'm very hesitant to adopt such an approach, however, because I generally believe that the free market is a better distributor of capital into promising industries. (For instance, if a particular industry is perceived to hold spectacular promise, I would expect to see private capital flowing into that industry, unless taxes destroy the incentive to do so.) At any rate, subsidies require government spending, which requires taxation, which, in the end, winds up stunting growth.
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Nov 4 2004, 03:13 PM)
He could make it easier to employ people by taking health care responsiblities away from employers and turning that over to either the free market in a system where every one can buy individual insurance on an open market, or, my preferred solution, create a national health service modelled after a country or countries that provide better overall care and a much lower per capita or share of GNP cost that we do here.
I love the former suggestion, but I'm opposed to any form of socialized health care. I'm not sure what countries you are talking about, but socialized health care in many countries, such as Canada, has lead to a shortage of readily available health care, as well as an overall decrease in the quality of health care. (Consequently, most wealthy Canadians will travel to the U.S. when they need urgent care.)
I think your former suggestion is best because, when you place responsibility to pay for routine health care service upon those who actually consume such service, you'll see a drop in demand. A drop in demand would result in a drop in prices. Under the current system, however, insurers wind up paying for all health care services, even routine check-ups, which is not the purpose of insurance.
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Nov 4 2004, 03:13 PM)
Tax reform could include an abolishment of the payroll taxes and have that roll into a simplified or relatively flat tax system. This way employers would not have to factor in the double payroll tax costs and (above) an expensive benefits package commitment) when they added any individual job. Our overall labor cost to employers would drop significantly and we would be more competitive with the international job market.
Amen. This is worth repeating.
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Nov 4 2004, 03:13 PM)
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?
Launch the country aggressively into the next era of transportation by finding the solution to the dependence on fossil fuels. An effective effort here would be a potential exponential source of growth and prosperity for our country and we would lose our dependence on middle eastern nation that ties us to their interests presently.
Launch the country aggressively into the next era of transportation by finding the solution to the dependence on fossil fuels. An effective effort here would be a potential exponential source of growth and prosperity for our country and we would lose our dependence on middle eastern nation that ties us to their interests presently.
Again, I tend to believe that, if oil continues it's upward price trend, the free market will shift towards the development of alternative technologies. I'm very hesitant to jump on a program that's going to require unnecessary taxation to support subsidies to particular industries.
QUOTE(cwadley @ Nov 4 2004, 06:17 PM)
It has been suggested that President Bush should focus his domestic agenda on resolving problems in three areas: jobs, healthcare, and energy.
Questions for Debate:
(1) How can Bush "create jobs" in the economy?
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 4 2004, 10:52 AM)
3-A. The economy is still a sickly creator of jobs -- needs to be a focus.
* * *
3-C. Healthcare is still a major problem -- too much profit incentive. I will not expect anything from Bush on this one, but that's the problem.
3-D. Energy promises to become THE major middle and lower class economic burden, and a highly volitile (pun intended) one at that. Okay, so do something that *works*.
* * *
3-C. Healthcare is still a major problem -- too much profit incentive. I will not expect anything from Bush on this one, but that's the problem.
3-D. Energy promises to become THE major middle and lower class economic burden, and a highly volitile (pun intended) one at that. Okay, so do something that *works*.
Questions for Debate:
(1) How can Bush "create jobs" in the economy?
It is quite difficult for any President to directly create jobs in any economy, short of expanding the federal bureaucracy and directly subsidized massive work programs for the infrastructure of the country. The best a President can do is to create a climate that encourages the development and expansion of businesses.
Making his tax cuts permanent will be a greater incentive for businesses than the temporary ones in place at the moment. If businesses are guaranteed a lower rate that doesn't expire in five years, then they can take the savings and reinvest in the business thus growing it and developing jobs in that business and in the business of its suppliers.
Also, better jobs are created by a better educated workforce. Expanding and removing restrictions and raising the income level cut off point for the Federal Education Loan program will make college an easier choice for many people.
QUOTE
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
Health Insurance costs are driven by the increasing number of unnecessary procedures performed by doctors and patients, uncapped Medical Malpractice awards, lack of tax incentive for greater use of Medical Savings Accounts, and inability of companies to band together to form partnerships to purchase health insurance.
President Bush should:
1) Pursue stringent tort reform
2) Expand the MSA program
3) remove restrictions on companies forming alliances.
QUOTE
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?
As long as we are a fossil fuel based society, energy prices will continue to rise. The problem is, that even with concerted government funding, which I think limits possible development of alternative fuels, it will take a decade or more to create a reliable fuel source and distribution system that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by any significant amount.
President Bush should pursue those options and allow for tax incentives and open ended Federal grants for the study of alternative sources. Most of the change will be market driven by the consumer, but the government needs to create a climate to encourage the risk of developing the systems, infrastucture, and technology.
In the mean time, the United States needs to build more refineries. At the moment we are near capacity of our refineries. A new refinery has not been built in nearly 20 years. So every time something goes wrong, prices rocket upwards. I don't believe it is necessary to drill for more oil. We have enough in this world, we just do not have the ability to process much more of it and keep up with demand.
-Sorry forgot to include links-
US Refining Industry
US Refining Capacity 1982-2002 - Government Page
Questions for Debate:
(1) How can Bush "create jobs" in the economy?
By spending more money than the government takes in. Well, that method's pretty much maxed out. I wouldn't mind military spending being shifted from obsolete cold-war weaponry to highly mobile, and well supported infantry. By shifting taxes from things that create jobs, like income, profits, productivity; and by removing the 'income wedge' between the wages people are willing to accept (take home pay) and the wages companies are willing to pay (gross pay). An alternative to taxing income and profits would be to tax use of natural resources (from oil in the ground to radio waves). No matter what the taxes are on these things, they don't go away, or go to another country, or reduce production, or choose to be inactive. In fact, as 'natural' resources become more expensive, people and corporations become more frugal with their use, and require more men (labor) and machines (capital) to produce their products, creating jobs.
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
One of two ways: a UHC provider where the government chooses prices for care, and what care will be delivered, a 'command economy'. Hasn't really worked anywhere, even through the eyes of a somewhat liberal guy like me.
The other way, is to increase the market effect on healthcare by adopting a universal consumer-driven health insurance program like the Swiss have. Most notably, individuals have the right to shop for insurance from any carrier, rather than what their employer chooses. Insurers compete for customers who are the individual users rather than customers who are corporations. The government mandates minimum insurance standards (very good by US standards) and provides means-tested payment assistance.
Malpractice awards have very little to do with health costs.
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?
By reducing demand for energy, and increasing supply of non-volitile energy sources.
Paradoxically, by slowly and slightly increasing taxes on non-renewable carbon-based energy sources, and by collecting full market value for domestic oil & coal extraction rights. Such taxes and permit fees should be rebated to the citizenry in the form of a universal rebate, where each citizen recieves the same amount. These rebates would reward those citizens who use less than average energy amounts, while requiring more revenue from those who use more than average energy amounts. The carbon tax (or other similar taxes) is an indirect subsidy for alternative energy sources.
(1) How can Bush "create jobs" in the economy?
By spending more money than the government takes in. Well, that method's pretty much maxed out. I wouldn't mind military spending being shifted from obsolete cold-war weaponry to highly mobile, and well supported infantry. By shifting taxes from things that create jobs, like income, profits, productivity; and by removing the 'income wedge' between the wages people are willing to accept (take home pay) and the wages companies are willing to pay (gross pay). An alternative to taxing income and profits would be to tax use of natural resources (from oil in the ground to radio waves). No matter what the taxes are on these things, they don't go away, or go to another country, or reduce production, or choose to be inactive. In fact, as 'natural' resources become more expensive, people and corporations become more frugal with their use, and require more men (labor) and machines (capital) to produce their products, creating jobs.
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
One of two ways: a UHC provider where the government chooses prices for care, and what care will be delivered, a 'command economy'. Hasn't really worked anywhere, even through the eyes of a somewhat liberal guy like me.
The other way, is to increase the market effect on healthcare by adopting a universal consumer-driven health insurance program like the Swiss have. Most notably, individuals have the right to shop for insurance from any carrier, rather than what their employer chooses. Insurers compete for customers who are the individual users rather than customers who are corporations. The government mandates minimum insurance standards (very good by US standards) and provides means-tested payment assistance.
Malpractice awards have very little to do with health costs.
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?
By reducing demand for energy, and increasing supply of non-volitile energy sources.
Paradoxically, by slowly and slightly increasing taxes on non-renewable carbon-based energy sources, and by collecting full market value for domestic oil & coal extraction rights. Such taxes and permit fees should be rebated to the citizenry in the form of a universal rebate, where each citizen recieves the same amount. These rebates would reward those citizens who use less than average energy amounts, while requiring more revenue from those who use more than average energy amounts. The carbon tax (or other similar taxes) is an indirect subsidy for alternative energy sources.
(1) How can Bush "create jobs" in the economy?
- Stop providing any governmental financial assistance/tax breaks to corporations outsourcing American jobs
- Provide tax incentives to corporations that develop in this country and keep the jobs here
- take measures to equalize imports/exports
- restrict importation of goods from nations that are major polluters and practice human rights violations
- stem the migration of illegal workers into the country
- Salary caps for CEOs
- By all means, cut back on the more expensive litigation and instead pull the licenses and jail those health care providers who are guilty of gross negligence or incompetence so they don't just pay higher insurance premiums and go on their merry way
- Have a national standardized test for all healthcare workers (including doctors) to take, and if they flunk, they can't work until they pass it (Hey--it's supposed to work for the kids and teachers)
- Improve the working conditions of nurses as in more reasonable nurse:patient ratios and hire more healthcare workers so that those working aren't overstretched and prone to making mistakes and/or burning out
- Cap the salaries of CEOs
- Introduce legislation that makes it possible for any American to receive healthcare, regardless of "pre-existing" condition
- Make HMOs criminally culpable in cases of denying life-saving services to their subscribers
- By keeping his promise of encouraging investment in technologies such as hydrogen-powered cars
- by encouraging the nation's automakers not to produce, and citizens not to purchase and drive gas-guzzlers
- by not letting the energy companies sit in the "catbird seat" in administration energy policy meetings
(1) How can Bush "create jobs" in the economy?
Lobby for and implement H.R. 25 (FairTax). Taxing income reduces the incentive to generate income = fewer jobs. Taxing purchases increases the incentive to generate income = more jobs. That's pretty over-simplified but there are Oodles of fun facts on the website or just Google it.
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
Change our courts from "Legal Lottery System" to "Loser Pays". Under the current system I can sue _anyone_ for _anything_ no matter how frivolous and if I lose all I have to pay for are my legal fees. If I'm my own lawyer that's next to nothing. (20/20 did an expose on a lady that did this to her whole town a while back.) Even if I have a lawyer, if we lose all we're out is what WE spend. The person we sue, win or lose must pay their legal fees. Under a "Loser Pay" system fewer frivolous lawsuits will be filed which will result in fewer 'pre-emptive' settlements from insurance companies, which will result in more stable insurance rates. Because if I file suit against YOU for mal-practice it will no longer be cheaper for YOU - and NOT your insurance company - to settle.
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?
Free Market. If it weren't for government's meddling in the first place we'd be closer to exhausting the oil supply right now and therefore closer to the adoption of a new energy source. Imagine a glass of orange juice. At first you take big gulps. Then you realize you want to enjoy it some more so you start taking smaller sips. Then you realize you don't have any more juice in your fridge so you take even smaller sips until the glass is empty. Then you realize that the milk in your fridge tastes really good... But you never think, while your drinking the OJ, "I think I'm going to switch to the milk." And why not? Because you've already PAID for the OJ and you're going to get your money's worth.
Lobby for and implement H.R. 25 (FairTax). Taxing income reduces the incentive to generate income = fewer jobs. Taxing purchases increases the incentive to generate income = more jobs. That's pretty over-simplified but there are Oodles of fun facts on the website or just Google it.
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
Change our courts from "Legal Lottery System" to "Loser Pays". Under the current system I can sue _anyone_ for _anything_ no matter how frivolous and if I lose all I have to pay for are my legal fees. If I'm my own lawyer that's next to nothing. (20/20 did an expose on a lady that did this to her whole town a while back.) Even if I have a lawyer, if we lose all we're out is what WE spend. The person we sue, win or lose must pay their legal fees. Under a "Loser Pay" system fewer frivolous lawsuits will be filed which will result in fewer 'pre-emptive' settlements from insurance companies, which will result in more stable insurance rates. Because if I file suit against YOU for mal-practice it will no longer be cheaper for YOU - and NOT your insurance company - to settle.
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?
Free Market. If it weren't for government's meddling in the first place we'd be closer to exhausting the oil supply right now and therefore closer to the adoption of a new energy source. Imagine a glass of orange juice. At first you take big gulps. Then you realize you want to enjoy it some more so you start taking smaller sips. Then you realize you don't have any more juice in your fridge so you take even smaller sips until the glass is empty. Then you realize that the milk in your fridge tastes really good... But you never think, while your drinking the OJ, "I think I'm going to switch to the milk." And why not? Because you've already PAID for the OJ and you're going to get your money's worth.
(1) How can Bush "create jobs" in the economy?
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?
1. Mandate more efficient buildings, much the way we did with cars. Builders get incentives based on the amount of energy saved, and tax "penalties" for those buildings that fail to reduce energy use. Use the penalties to pay the incentives.
Use a similar incentive/penalty method for those who outsource to foreign companies. For every job that goes to India, Pakistan, etc. the company pays enough in taxes to hire one American at average wage. I would consider a lesser penalty for jobs going to our near neighbors, such as the Caribbean, Mexico, Canada.
2. The government should fund serious health care needs. The individual can pay the first $5,000 per year per family, after that we use tax money. Most of us can handle $5,000. Medical Insurance needs would drop to almost nothing.
3. Don't need to lower the price of energy, we need to raise it. Otherwise there is no incentive to use less of it, or find alternative forms of energy.
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?
1. Mandate more efficient buildings, much the way we did with cars. Builders get incentives based on the amount of energy saved, and tax "penalties" for those buildings that fail to reduce energy use. Use the penalties to pay the incentives.
Use a similar incentive/penalty method for those who outsource to foreign companies. For every job that goes to India, Pakistan, etc. the company pays enough in taxes to hire one American at average wage. I would consider a lesser penalty for jobs going to our near neighbors, such as the Caribbean, Mexico, Canada.
2. The government should fund serious health care needs. The individual can pay the first $5,000 per year per family, after that we use tax money. Most of us can handle $5,000. Medical Insurance needs would drop to almost nothing.
3. Don't need to lower the price of energy, we need to raise it. Otherwise there is no incentive to use less of it, or find alternative forms of energy.
1) How can Bush "create jobs" in the economy?
Well, I don't believe any President can create jobs. It really depends on the economic conditions of the economy. If we look at the situation today, the economy is creating jobs at a modest if not slower pace than in the past. On top of that the jobs being created, for the most part, aren't the same quality jobs that were created before because of the outsourcing of most white-collar and well-paid jobs. Which means we have a serious problem thats going to affect a lot of the working-class Americans.
Where does the President fit into all this?
The President can create conditions where businesses can have tax incentives if they choose to keep some of those jobs in the US. But penalize them for moving the jobs offshore. The law can be named "KEEPING AMERICA'S JOBS IN AMERICA ACT". I believe one of the keys though is resolving the healthcare costs for employees and employers which everyone is satisfied. How do we accomplished such a task? Don't know, I'm not a expert on healthcare.
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
Bush should offer a universal healthcare plan.
If this country truly believes in having "moral values"
then why not have a system where everybody is covered. People & children lives are worth the cost. Other than that, we can continue to believe as a country that people making minimum wage at Wal-mart can afford their own health plan.
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?
Well, Bush has get out of his mind that I have to help my friends first. I mean this whole drilling in Alaska thing won't solve our energy. Its all about special interest.
I don't think the President is really serious about lowering energy costs.
Overall, Bush is more about pleasing big business than helping Americans deal with all three of these issues. Unless there is real political pressure on him, nothing will get done.
Well, I don't believe any President can create jobs. It really depends on the economic conditions of the economy. If we look at the situation today, the economy is creating jobs at a modest if not slower pace than in the past. On top of that the jobs being created, for the most part, aren't the same quality jobs that were created before because of the outsourcing of most white-collar and well-paid jobs. Which means we have a serious problem thats going to affect a lot of the working-class Americans.
Where does the President fit into all this?
The President can create conditions where businesses can have tax incentives if they choose to keep some of those jobs in the US. But penalize them for moving the jobs offshore. The law can be named "KEEPING AMERICA'S JOBS IN AMERICA ACT". I believe one of the keys though is resolving the healthcare costs for employees and employers which everyone is satisfied. How do we accomplished such a task? Don't know, I'm not a expert on healthcare.
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
Bush should offer a universal healthcare plan.
If this country truly believes in having "moral values"
then why not have a system where everybody is covered. People & children lives are worth the cost. Other than that, we can continue to believe as a country that people making minimum wage at Wal-mart can afford their own health plan.
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?
Well, Bush has get out of his mind that I have to help my friends first. I mean this whole drilling in Alaska thing won't solve our energy. Its all about special interest.
I don't think the President is really serious about lowering energy costs.
Overall, Bush is more about pleasing big business than helping Americans deal with all three of these issues. Unless there is real political pressure on him, nothing will get done.
Questions for Debate:
(1) How can Bush "create jobs" in the economy?
If our government wanted Americans working, all they have to do is send illegal immigrants home, get rid of the free trade agreements, and tax the hell out of imports like they used to do. This would force American companies abroad to bring factories and plants back home, since they would be losing money on tariffs.
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
By dissolving old friendships. Healthcare costs are skyrocketing because it is being allowed to. Using COMMON SENSE, it doesn't cost more to treat anything than it did 10 years ago, technology makes it cost less. But that would cut profit margin for alot of Bush Cronies. Americans need to learn to think for themselves and do the math. It really isn't rocket science....(add Bush lacks inelligence jokes here)
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?
1st of all, this country is as dependent as the oil giants want it to be. There are all types of alternative fuels out there already, that would preserve fossil fuels and the environment, not to mention give a boom to American farmers and recyclers. If they wanted costs lowered, they could simply stop suppressing alternative technologies just so their friends can keep bleeding the American people of its money.
(1) How can Bush "create jobs" in the economy?
If our government wanted Americans working, all they have to do is send illegal immigrants home, get rid of the free trade agreements, and tax the hell out of imports like they used to do. This would force American companies abroad to bring factories and plants back home, since they would be losing money on tariffs.
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
By dissolving old friendships. Healthcare costs are skyrocketing because it is being allowed to. Using COMMON SENSE, it doesn't cost more to treat anything than it did 10 years ago, technology makes it cost less. But that would cut profit margin for alot of Bush Cronies. Americans need to learn to think for themselves and do the math. It really isn't rocket science....(add Bush lacks inelligence jokes here)
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?
1st of all, this country is as dependent as the oil giants want it to be. There are all types of alternative fuels out there already, that would preserve fossil fuels and the environment, not to mention give a boom to American farmers and recyclers. If they wanted costs lowered, they could simply stop suppressing alternative technologies just so their friends can keep bleeding the American people of its money.
QUOTE(cgorham @ Dec 1 2004, 10:25 AM)
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
Bush should offer a universal healthcare plan.
If this country truly believes in having "moral values"
then why not have a system where everybody is covered. People & children lives are worth the cost. Other than that, we can continue to believe as a country that people making minimum wage at Wal-mart can afford their own health plan.
Overall, Bush is more about pleasing big business than helping Americans deal with all three of these issues. Unless there is real political pressure on him, nothing will get done.
Bush should offer a universal healthcare plan.
If this country truly believes in having "moral values"
then why not have a system where everybody is covered. People & children lives are worth the cost. Other than that, we can continue to believe as a country that people making minimum wage at Wal-mart can afford their own health plan.
Overall, Bush is more about pleasing big business than helping Americans deal with all three of these issues. Unless there is real political pressure on him, nothing will get done.
Wow. It amazes me that people in our great nation still entertain these socialist notions. Childrens lives? Come on. Tell me that you know of some child in your community that was turned away from medical care. There are numerous gov't programs that provide for just these situations.
The reality is that our nation has the best doctors, the best technology, and many (if not most) industrialized nations send their sickest people to the states for treatment. The REASON that we attract foreign doctors and patients is due to our competency. I do believe that no children should go without adequate medical care, and we have plenty of gov't programs to do so.
However, if you believe that socialized medical care in a nation as large as ours would work, please show one example of how a large nation has done so in an efficient manner. I'll discuss the opposite (oh, and while you're at it... leave the partisan bashing of Bush out of this, our nation has never had socialized medical care and has been run by democrats on more than one occasion). The Soviets had socialized medical care as close to the notion of Universal care as the liberals can portray. They had one of the worst survival rates of major diseases, one of the worst standards of living, and few resources for technology or drugs. Want a recent example? What about Canada? Why do Canadian doctors flee to the states? Why do thousands of Canadian cancer patients come to US hospitals, etc? They have cheaper drugs, and that's a different discussion all together... but as far as medical care is concerned, their system is far from perfect as well. (long lines, patient to physican ratios that are awful, poor technology, etc)
(1) How can Bush "create jobs" in the economy?
1) Modify all the FTA's to include "must have comparable wages and environmental laws". If we don't, we're going to see not only jobs leave but the standard wage approach will minimum wage.
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
1) Get pharma and Insurance companies out of DC. Is it not ironic that these companies have prospered under Bush, a time when health care costs have soared? Shouldn't they be suffering too, if it's all a matter of "law suits"? Why are they doing so well? Reason: they're the ones causing the problems.
2) I don't think there's a need for tort reform. LIke the poster said above, get the lousy practitioners OUTTA HERE! I read a stat some where that a very small minority of doctors are responsible for the huge insurance rates......GET RID OF THEM THEN!
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?
1) I'm all for alternative fuels. If it's a pipe dream, then we need to address our consumption issues. The only problem with consuming less is that the big monster in Asia (Red China) is hungry enough to consume the rest.
I'm not sure if there is an answer, it's a limited resource. The only solution IMHO is to pour tons of money into finding renewable resources and Bush should be taking a leadership role in moving the country away from this foreign limited resource.
I think we're pretty much screwed. Bush is in the pockets of all the companies that are anti-progress. Companies that outsource jobs, monopolize drug markets, push for increased insurance rates with little responsibility, and love the high demand for oil and military products.
1) Modify all the FTA's to include "must have comparable wages and environmental laws". If we don't, we're going to see not only jobs leave but the standard wage approach will minimum wage.
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
1) Get pharma and Insurance companies out of DC. Is it not ironic that these companies have prospered under Bush, a time when health care costs have soared? Shouldn't they be suffering too, if it's all a matter of "law suits"? Why are they doing so well? Reason: they're the ones causing the problems.
2) I don't think there's a need for tort reform. LIke the poster said above, get the lousy practitioners OUTTA HERE! I read a stat some where that a very small minority of doctors are responsible for the huge insurance rates......GET RID OF THEM THEN!
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?
1) I'm all for alternative fuels. If it's a pipe dream, then we need to address our consumption issues. The only problem with consuming less is that the big monster in Asia (Red China) is hungry enough to consume the rest.
I'm not sure if there is an answer, it's a limited resource. The only solution IMHO is to pour tons of money into finding renewable resources and Bush should be taking a leadership role in moving the country away from this foreign limited resource.
I think we're pretty much screwed. Bush is in the pockets of all the companies that are anti-progress. Companies that outsource jobs, monopolize drug markets, push for increased insurance rates with little responsibility, and love the high demand for oil and military products.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Jan 13 2005, 05:12 PM)
Wow. It amazes me that people in our great nation still entertain these socialist notions.
45 million people without health care, and it amazes you? Wow indeed.QUOTE(aevans176 @ Jan 13 2005, 05:12 PM)
The reality is that our nation has the best doctors, the best technology, and many (if not most) industrialized nations send their sickest people to the states for treatment. The REASON that we attract foreign doctors and patients is due to our competency. I do believe that no children should go without adequate medical care, and we have plenty of gov't programs to do so.
The reality is that medical costs are beyond your average person without health insurance. We may have the best doctors, but if you're 16% of the population, you'll never see them and god knows the system has a ton of incompetent charlatons as well.
There are a lot of problems with our health system. We're not all that, believe me.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Jan 13 2005, 05:12 PM)
The REASON that we attract foreign doctors and patients is due to our competency.
And much greater salaries doesn't hurt either. Does it bother anyone that doctors, like mechanics, get paid per procedure? There is a long history of deception from the physician community to soak patients for worthless procedures.
QUOTE
The Soviets had socialized medical care as close to the notion of Universal care as the liberals can portray.
The Soviets? Why not bring up Ethieopia? I.e. bad example.
There are plenty of countries with socialized medicine that have much better health statistics per capita than America.
QUOTE(cwadley @ Nov 4 2004, 01:17 PM)
Questions for Debate:
(1) How can Bush "create jobs" in the economy?]
I don't think Bush or any president can "create" jobs in the economy per say. I think that the best a president can do is encourage policies that will not impede economic growth and that improve our overall competitive position. Of course, federal spending can impact "jobs" in certain sectors, but those policies have a downside as well (i.e., the federal deficit). I believe that Bush's economic policy of reducing taxes, reducing frivolous lawsuits against companies, and reducing regulation when it makes sense will increase jobs by making American companies more profitable. We're at an economic crossroads today. The incorporation of China and the former USSR into the "world economy" has been felt severely in some sectors as over 5 billion new workers, who are willing to work for wages far less than the US average, were added to the global labor pool in the late 1990's. Those jobs were not "lost to China by Bush". The wheels were in motion for that shift many years before Bush even decided to run for president. It was a concerted effort by the previous Clinton administration, in the early 1990's, to bring China and the USSR out of isolation and into economic trade with the rest of the world. This strategy was arguably wise. However, many high wage countries including much of the EU and the USA have taken a hit in their manufacturing sectors. However, and politicians don't talk about this a lot, we've managed to insource millions of jobs from other countries at the same time. Policies that make hiring American workers to serve the American marketplace must be encourgaged.
A focus on education (as Bush has been focusing) is also positive. The workforce of the next decade will depend more on intellectual skill than physical labor. In order to compete, we need skilled workers.
QUOTE
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
He's moving in the right direction. Allow small business to pool their buying power to reduce the price. Attack the extra cost built into the system in reaction to predatory litigation. Artificially setting drug prices, for example, just won't work. I'm glad Bush isn't following that misguided direction. One area that we need a bit more leadership on is the entire area of prevention. We're the most obese country on the face of the earth and that is going to result in an explosion of weight related health problems.
QUOTE
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?
Increase the supply of oil for one, from our OWN borders. Drill in ANWR. Explore ways of extracting oil from our coast lines in an environmentally friendly way. Continue to develop fuel cell and hydrogen power technology. Continue to push developments in power saving devices such as LED illumination.
The problem with energy policy isn't Bush. It's the environmentalist lobby that has blocked the president's energy plan for 4 years.
QUOTE
Wow. It amazes me that people in our great nation still entertain these socialist notions. Childrens lives? Come on. Tell me that you know of some child in your community that was turned away from medical care. There are numerous gov't programs that provide for just these situations.
The reality is that our nation has the best doctors, the best technology, and many (if not most) industrialized nations send their sickest people to the states for treatment. The REASON that we attract foreign doctors and patients is due to our competency. I do believe that no children should go without adequate medical care, and we have plenty of gov't programs to do so.
However, if you believe that socialized medical care in a nation as large as ours would work, please show one example of how a large nation has done so in an efficient manner. I'll discuss the opposite (oh, and while you're at it... leave the partisan bashing of Bush out of this, our nation has never had socialized medical care and has been run by democrats on more than one occasion). The Soviets had socialized medical care as close to the notion of Universal care as the liberals can portray. They had one of the worst survival rates of major diseases, one of the worst standards of living, and few resources for technology or drugs. Want a recent example? What about Canada? Why do Canadian doctors flee to the states? Why do thousands of Canadian cancer patients come to US hospitals, etc? They have cheaper drugs, and that's a different discussion all together... but as far as medical care is concerned, their system is far from perfect as well. (long lines, patient to physican ratios that are awful, poor technology, etc)
The reality is that our nation has the best doctors, the best technology, and many (if not most) industrialized nations send their sickest people to the states for treatment. The REASON that we attract foreign doctors and patients is due to our competency. I do believe that no children should go without adequate medical care, and we have plenty of gov't programs to do so.
However, if you believe that socialized medical care in a nation as large as ours would work, please show one example of how a large nation has done so in an efficient manner. I'll discuss the opposite (oh, and while you're at it... leave the partisan bashing of Bush out of this, our nation has never had socialized medical care and has been run by democrats on more than one occasion). The Soviets had socialized medical care as close to the notion of Universal care as the liberals can portray. They had one of the worst survival rates of major diseases, one of the worst standards of living, and few resources for technology or drugs. Want a recent example? What about Canada? Why do Canadian doctors flee to the states? Why do thousands of Canadian cancer patients come to US hospitals, etc? They have cheaper drugs, and that's a different discussion all together... but as far as medical care is concerned, their system is far from perfect as well. (long lines, patient to physican ratios that are awful, poor technology, etc)
I think you are missing the point about healthcare. The issue is "affordability" not who has the best doctors and technology. Let's me first start with Bush and the Republican party and why they are unable to do ANYTHING about soaring healthcare cost. They are too focused on CORPORATE PROFITS. When conservatives understand that their own party has sold their soul to corporate America in the name of PROFITS. We can at least start an honest debate. But as long as they deny reality, that Bush is only about pleasing big businesses (just look at whose funding his inauguration), Americans will continue to struggle to pay the bills.
Now, to answer the three questions I can sum it up like this, there is NOTHING Bush can do about jobs, healthcare or about energy cost. Why?? easy answer,
ITS ALL ABOUT THE BENJAMINS!!! When your focus is on pleasing your campaign donors and not real problems its impossible to debate on solutions.
My solution:
Get rid of the greed for pleasing corporate American first in your own party, then we can talk solutions, otherwise nothing will get accomplished.
[quote=lordhelmet,Jan 13 2005, 08:29 PM]
[quote=cwadley,Nov 4 2004, 01:17 PM]
Questions for Debate:
(1) How can Bush "create jobs" in the economy?][/quote]
I don't think Bush or any president can "create" jobs in the economy per say. I think that the best a president can do is encourage policies that will not impede economic growth and that improve our overall competitive position. Of course, federal spending can impact "jobs" in certain sectors, but those policies have a downside as well (i.e., the federal deficit). I believe that Bush's economic policy of reducing taxes, reducing frivolous lawsuits against companies, and reducing regulation when it makes sense will increase jobs by making American companies more profitable.
Do You honestly believe the jobs left because of taxes, lawsuits, and regulations.
All of that stuff was in play before the jobs left. Lets be real about this and think for a minute. What has changed in the last 6 years that has caused the jobs to relocate to other countries. The Obvious Answer is FREE TRADE. It is very easy for Corporations to move their jobs to extremely low income countries since they no longer have to pay to import their products back into America. Inflation and the devalued dollar even allows the companies to charge even more for a product that now costs 60 to 75 percent less to produce. They also no longer have to provide healthcare and pay nearly as much taxes on their foreign employees. Do the math....the country is jobless because Corporate America has bribed our pro-business politicians into allowing them to move jobs out of America with no penalty. Then Corporate America bribed our Pro-Business Politicians into allowing illegals to work here in America (obviously at sharply reduced wages and health costs) instead of shipping them back home. Politicians and Corporate heads ae getting fatter while working class is drowning and treading water. If we just be honest with ourselves and stop thinking that America it too righteous to do this to itself, then we can address this problem. But as long as we have crooks diguising themselves as clergy, we are doomed!
We're at an economic crossroads today. The incorporation of China and the former USSR into the "world economy" has been felt severely in some sectors as over 5 billion new workers, who are willing to work for wages far less than the US average, were added to the global labor pool in the late 1990's. Those jobs were not "lost to China by Bush". The wheels were in motion for that shift many years before Bush even decided to run for president. It was a concerted effort by the previous Clinton administration, in the early 1990's, to bring China and the USSR out of isolation and into economic trade with the rest of the world.
There is alot of truth in this statement, but China and especially not the USSR is not the problem. The problem is Canada, Mexico, Taiwan, India, Pakistan and a host of developing countries where free trade policy has popped up and jobs have relocated (supposedly in an effort to build up those nations) to these places. But since when has this country taken a financial interest in other countries unless it had something to gain out of it?
The answer is never and it never will. This country won't even care for its own, so why would it help someone else?
Lets cut the humanitarian bullcrap and quit snowing ourselves.
This strategy was arguably wise. However, many high wage countries including much of the EU and the USA have taken a hit in their manufacturing sectors. However, and politicians don't talk about this a lot, we've managed to insource millions of jobs from other countries at the same time. Policies that make hiring American workers to serve the American marketplace must be encourgaged.
I could not have said it better myself. We must return to policies that work. Its just like a car. If you tune up a car and it runs great your happy for a while. You install a supercharger and the car starts running like crap. What do You do? You remove the supercharger and re-tune to the specs that had it running good. The same concept will work with this economy.
A focus on education (as Bush has been focusing) is also positive. The workforce of the next decade will depend more on intellectual skill than physical labor. In order to compete, we need skilled workers.
Americans have tons of skilled workers out of work, so that is a government fabrication. I know plenty of people with degrees and certifications collecting dust and their working low wage jobs now. The real reason America does not further educate its young and its workers is to keep them in the dark. The smarter a peson is, themore enlihtened he will become, and it is alot more difficult to brainwash a peson of higher knowledge than a bumbling idiot.
[quote]
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
[/quote]
He's moving in the right direction. Allow small business to pool their buying power to reduce the price. Attack the extra cost built into the system in reaction to predatory litigation. Artificially setting drug prices, for example, just won't work. I'm glad Bush isn't following that misguided direction. One area that we need a bit more leadership on is the entire area of prevention. We're the most obese country on the face of the earth and that is going to result in an explosion of weight related health problems.
Again, Corporate America and Government collaberation is the problem. Look here at your leisure: http://www.well-informed-sources.com/
[quote]
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?[/quote]
Increase the supply of oil for one, from our OWN borders. Drill in ANWR. Explore ways of extracting oil from our coast lines in an environmentally friendly way. Continue to develop fuel cell and hydrogen power technology. Continue to push developments in power saving devices such as LED illumination.
The problem with energy policy isn't Bush. It's the environmentalist lobby that has blocked the president's energy plan for 4 years.
Its amazing to me how uninformed Americans really are. Alcohol based fuels are less than 40% oil based, they burn cleaner, they are cheaper, and it would give a huge boost to the farming industry. There have been carburators developed that would boost gas mileage on cars and trucks well into the 70-80 mpg range, but the government and big business supresses these advancements.
This countries wounds are self inflicted, but its citizens have been lulled to sleep and brainwashed.
[quote=cwadley,Nov 4 2004, 01:17 PM]
Questions for Debate:
(1) How can Bush "create jobs" in the economy?][/quote]
I don't think Bush or any president can "create" jobs in the economy per say. I think that the best a president can do is encourage policies that will not impede economic growth and that improve our overall competitive position. Of course, federal spending can impact "jobs" in certain sectors, but those policies have a downside as well (i.e., the federal deficit). I believe that Bush's economic policy of reducing taxes, reducing frivolous lawsuits against companies, and reducing regulation when it makes sense will increase jobs by making American companies more profitable.
Do You honestly believe the jobs left because of taxes, lawsuits, and regulations.
All of that stuff was in play before the jobs left. Lets be real about this and think for a minute. What has changed in the last 6 years that has caused the jobs to relocate to other countries. The Obvious Answer is FREE TRADE. It is very easy for Corporations to move their jobs to extremely low income countries since they no longer have to pay to import their products back into America. Inflation and the devalued dollar even allows the companies to charge even more for a product that now costs 60 to 75 percent less to produce. They also no longer have to provide healthcare and pay nearly as much taxes on their foreign employees. Do the math....the country is jobless because Corporate America has bribed our pro-business politicians into allowing them to move jobs out of America with no penalty. Then Corporate America bribed our Pro-Business Politicians into allowing illegals to work here in America (obviously at sharply reduced wages and health costs) instead of shipping them back home. Politicians and Corporate heads ae getting fatter while working class is drowning and treading water. If we just be honest with ourselves and stop thinking that America it too righteous to do this to itself, then we can address this problem. But as long as we have crooks diguising themselves as clergy, we are doomed!
We're at an economic crossroads today. The incorporation of China and the former USSR into the "world economy" has been felt severely in some sectors as over 5 billion new workers, who are willing to work for wages far less than the US average, were added to the global labor pool in the late 1990's. Those jobs were not "lost to China by Bush". The wheels were in motion for that shift many years before Bush even decided to run for president. It was a concerted effort by the previous Clinton administration, in the early 1990's, to bring China and the USSR out of isolation and into economic trade with the rest of the world.
There is alot of truth in this statement, but China and especially not the USSR is not the problem. The problem is Canada, Mexico, Taiwan, India, Pakistan and a host of developing countries where free trade policy has popped up and jobs have relocated (supposedly in an effort to build up those nations) to these places. But since when has this country taken a financial interest in other countries unless it had something to gain out of it?
The answer is never and it never will. This country won't even care for its own, so why would it help someone else?
Lets cut the humanitarian bullcrap and quit snowing ourselves.
This strategy was arguably wise. However, many high wage countries including much of the EU and the USA have taken a hit in their manufacturing sectors. However, and politicians don't talk about this a lot, we've managed to insource millions of jobs from other countries at the same time. Policies that make hiring American workers to serve the American marketplace must be encourgaged.
I could not have said it better myself. We must return to policies that work. Its just like a car. If you tune up a car and it runs great your happy for a while. You install a supercharger and the car starts running like crap. What do You do? You remove the supercharger and re-tune to the specs that had it running good. The same concept will work with this economy.
A focus on education (as Bush has been focusing) is also positive. The workforce of the next decade will depend more on intellectual skill than physical labor. In order to compete, we need skilled workers.
Americans have tons of skilled workers out of work, so that is a government fabrication. I know plenty of people with degrees and certifications collecting dust and their working low wage jobs now. The real reason America does not further educate its young and its workers is to keep them in the dark. The smarter a peson is, themore enlihtened he will become, and it is alot more difficult to brainwash a peson of higher knowledge than a bumbling idiot.
[quote]
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
[/quote]
He's moving in the right direction. Allow small business to pool their buying power to reduce the price. Attack the extra cost built into the system in reaction to predatory litigation. Artificially setting drug prices, for example, just won't work. I'm glad Bush isn't following that misguided direction. One area that we need a bit more leadership on is the entire area of prevention. We're the most obese country on the face of the earth and that is going to result in an explosion of weight related health problems.
Again, Corporate America and Government collaberation is the problem. Look here at your leisure: http://www.well-informed-sources.com/
[quote]
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?[/quote]
Increase the supply of oil for one, from our OWN borders. Drill in ANWR. Explore ways of extracting oil from our coast lines in an environmentally friendly way. Continue to develop fuel cell and hydrogen power technology. Continue to push developments in power saving devices such as LED illumination.
The problem with energy policy isn't Bush. It's the environmentalist lobby that has blocked the president's energy plan for 4 years.
Its amazing to me how uninformed Americans really are. Alcohol based fuels are less than 40% oil based, they burn cleaner, they are cheaper, and it would give a huge boost to the farming industry. There have been carburators developed that would boost gas mileage on cars and trucks well into the 70-80 mpg range, but the government and big business supresses these advancements.
This countries wounds are self inflicted, but its citizens have been lulled to sleep and brainwashed.
[quote=Ben Judah,Jan 14 2005, 09:17 AM]
[quote=lordhelmet,Jan 13 2005, 08:29 PM]
Questions for Debate:
[quote][b]
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?[/quote]
[b]Increase the supply of oil for one, from our OWN borders. Drill in ANWR. Explore ways of extracting oil from our coast lines in an environmentally friendly way. Continue to develop fuel cell and hydrogen power technology. Continue to push developments in power saving devices such as LED illumination.
[/quote]
Right now 60% of our oil supply comes from foreign countries(Top 4 in order: Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela). Something like 50 Million barrels a DAY. This is a huge problem for America. #1) It's a national security issue - how can we rely on foreign bodies to supply such a critical economic need. #2) Everyone is so concerned with outsourcing and the trade deficit, over 7% of the trade deficit is due solely to OIL. #3) Pollution. I've never met anyone who would rather breathe dirty air than clean. Enough said.
So can drilling in Alaska fix this problem? Nope. Not by itself anyway. First of all, it's not enough oil to cover even 15% of the deficit, and secondly it will just encourage more consumption by lowering the price. The only real effective energy solution that I can see is a gas tax. A one cent per gallon increase in tax on foreign oil would provide over $600 million a year. Why not do that and use the money for public transportation, better roads to reduce traffic, and increased tax incentives for buying low fuel consumption vehicles?
Henry David Thoreau wrote that man needs 4 basic things: food, clothing, shelter, and FUEL. America seems to have a handle on the first three, but fuel - a basic human need, is something that Presidents have been afraid to take the needed measures to conserve for 20 years.
[quote=lordhelmet,Jan 13 2005, 08:29 PM]
Questions for Debate:
[quote][b]
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?[/quote]
[b]Increase the supply of oil for one, from our OWN borders. Drill in ANWR. Explore ways of extracting oil from our coast lines in an environmentally friendly way. Continue to develop fuel cell and hydrogen power technology. Continue to push developments in power saving devices such as LED illumination.
[/quote]
Right now 60% of our oil supply comes from foreign countries(Top 4 in order: Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela). Something like 50 Million barrels a DAY. This is a huge problem for America. #1) It's a national security issue - how can we rely on foreign bodies to supply such a critical economic need. #2) Everyone is so concerned with outsourcing and the trade deficit, over 7% of the trade deficit is due solely to OIL. #3) Pollution. I've never met anyone who would rather breathe dirty air than clean. Enough said. So can drilling in Alaska fix this problem? Nope. Not by itself anyway. First of all, it's not enough oil to cover even 15% of the deficit, and secondly it will just encourage more consumption by lowering the price. The only real effective energy solution that I can see is a gas tax. A one cent per gallon increase in tax on foreign oil would provide over $600 million a year. Why not do that and use the money for public transportation, better roads to reduce traffic, and increased tax incentives for buying low fuel consumption vehicles?
Henry David Thoreau wrote that man needs 4 basic things: food, clothing, shelter, and FUEL. America seems to have a handle on the first three, but fuel - a basic human need, is something that Presidents have been afraid to take the needed measures to conserve for 20 years.
One of the biggest political problems we face in this country is mis-direction from pertinent POLITICAL ISSUES. For example, one of the most popular threads on this forum is the GAY MARRAIGE thread. How could America spend so much thought and debate on such a trivial topic that really affects noone, and only have 18 replies on a topic such as this, that really affects everyone and our future generations. We have been so side-tracked with non-issues that we overlook real ones. While our current administration is bombarding us with Saddam Hussein, and the fantasy of democracy in the Middle East, Americans are falling victim to domestic terrorism in the form of OUTSOURCING.
Outsourcing converts domestic supplied goods and services into imports. It divorces Americans from the incomes and careers associated with the production of the goods and services that Americans consume.
That divorce is highly detrimental for Americans. As foreign labor is substituted for US labor in the production of tradable goods and services, the displaced US work force seeks employment in domestic services that cannot be outsourced. This increases the supply of labor, thus depressing wages, in those labor markets already impacted by the entry of high rates of legal and illegal immigration.
By turning domestic production into imports, outsourcing increases the trade deficit. America pays the import bill by turning over the ownership of her wealth, and the income streams that wealth produces, to foreigners. Thus, Americans not only lose jobs and careers but also the ownership of their companies, real estate, corporate and government bonds. The incomes from these lost assets pass from Americans to foreigners.
Today America's consumption and the government's budget deficits are financed by foreigners, principally Asians. There are now so many dollars in foreign hands that the willingness of foreigners to hold more is declining. For the past three years foreign central banks have been diversifying their reserve holdings away from dollars into other currencies.
The result has been to drive the value of the dollar down sharply against many other currencies. As prices adjust to the changed currency values, Americans become poorer.
When economists preach that America benefits from outsourcing, they deny all the hard facts, just as do Republicans when they proclaim "success" in Iraq. How does America benefit from a process that destroys jobs, lowers incomes, and reduces the exchange value of the dollar?
What outsourcing is doing for America is destroying entire sectors of US manufacturing, entire high tech occupations, the value of a college education, . the design and innovative capabilities of the US economy, and the dollar as reserve currency. This is a lot of destruction. It goes far beyond what terrorists can inflict.
So far in the 21st century, the US has experienced a net loss of jobs. Fewer Americans are employed today than when President Bush was first inaugurated. This has not happened since the Great Depression in the 1930s.
When economists claim that the US is made better off by outsourcing, they ignore the evidence of job loss, stagnant incomes, and a collapsing dollar.
A perfect example is a recent "study" by three economists reported in the March 21 issue of Barron's. The economists used economic models to calculate the benefits to Americans of outsourcing. An economic model is comprised of assumptions about relationships. Many relationships are historical and reflect America's post-World War II economic dominance, which is no longer the reality.
The economists concluded that the benefits to Americans from outsourcing ranged from $7,100 to $12,900 per household.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wages of private, nonfarm, nonsupervisory production workers produced an annual income of $33,072 as of February 2005.
Only economists completely detached from reality could believe that American households owe such a large percentage of income to outsourcing, which is threatening them with a depreciating currency and the loss of their jobs and careers.
One of the dumbest defenses of outsourcing is the claim that history shows that America benefits from free trade. First of all, there has been precious little free trade. Economists mean that America has benefitted from trade during the decades following World War II when the rest of the world was recovering from war or smothered in socialism. It is easy to benefit from trade when you are the only economy.
Second, outsourcing is not trade; it is labor arbitrage. Outsourcing is a new phenomena birthed by the collapse of world socialism and the rise of the high speed internet. It reflects the operation not of "comparative advantage" but of "absolute advantage" --the flow of capital and technology across borders to the cheapest labor. Outsourcing is the substitution of foreign labor for domestic labor. It reduces the demand for domestic labor and drives down incomes.
Outsourcing converts domestic supplied goods and services into imports. It divorces Americans from the incomes and careers associated with the production of the goods and services that Americans consume.
That divorce is highly detrimental for Americans. As foreign labor is substituted for US labor in the production of tradable goods and services, the displaced US work force seeks employment in domestic services that cannot be outsourced. This increases the supply of labor, thus depressing wages, in those labor markets already impacted by the entry of high rates of legal and illegal immigration.
By turning domestic production into imports, outsourcing increases the trade deficit. America pays the import bill by turning over the ownership of her wealth, and the income streams that wealth produces, to foreigners. Thus, Americans not only lose jobs and careers but also the ownership of their companies, real estate, corporate and government bonds. The incomes from these lost assets pass from Americans to foreigners.
Today America's consumption and the government's budget deficits are financed by foreigners, principally Asians. There are now so many dollars in foreign hands that the willingness of foreigners to hold more is declining. For the past three years foreign central banks have been diversifying their reserve holdings away from dollars into other currencies.
The result has been to drive the value of the dollar down sharply against many other currencies. As prices adjust to the changed currency values, Americans become poorer.
When economists preach that America benefits from outsourcing, they deny all the hard facts, just as do Republicans when they proclaim "success" in Iraq. How does America benefit from a process that destroys jobs, lowers incomes, and reduces the exchange value of the dollar?
What outsourcing is doing for America is destroying entire sectors of US manufacturing, entire high tech occupations, the value of a college education, . the design and innovative capabilities of the US economy, and the dollar as reserve currency. This is a lot of destruction. It goes far beyond what terrorists can inflict.
So far in the 21st century, the US has experienced a net loss of jobs. Fewer Americans are employed today than when President Bush was first inaugurated. This has not happened since the Great Depression in the 1930s.
When economists claim that the US is made better off by outsourcing, they ignore the evidence of job loss, stagnant incomes, and a collapsing dollar.
A perfect example is a recent "study" by three economists reported in the March 21 issue of Barron's. The economists used economic models to calculate the benefits to Americans of outsourcing. An economic model is comprised of assumptions about relationships. Many relationships are historical and reflect America's post-World War II economic dominance, which is no longer the reality.
The economists concluded that the benefits to Americans from outsourcing ranged from $7,100 to $12,900 per household.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average hourly wages of private, nonfarm, nonsupervisory production workers produced an annual income of $33,072 as of February 2005.
Only economists completely detached from reality could believe that American households owe such a large percentage of income to outsourcing, which is threatening them with a depreciating currency and the loss of their jobs and careers.
One of the dumbest defenses of outsourcing is the claim that history shows that America benefits from free trade. First of all, there has been precious little free trade. Economists mean that America has benefitted from trade during the decades following World War II when the rest of the world was recovering from war or smothered in socialism. It is easy to benefit from trade when you are the only economy.
Second, outsourcing is not trade; it is labor arbitrage. Outsourcing is a new phenomena birthed by the collapse of world socialism and the rise of the high speed internet. It reflects the operation not of "comparative advantage" but of "absolute advantage" --the flow of capital and technology across borders to the cheapest labor. Outsourcing is the substitution of foreign labor for domestic labor. It reduces the demand for domestic labor and drives down incomes.
QUOTE
1) How can Bush "create jobs" in the economy?
To a point, I agree with Paladin Elspeth here...Up until the CEO salary cap, that's a little bit ridiculous in my opinion. But we need to stop giving companies money for moving somewhere else, we need restrict trade with countries like China, or at the very least put tariffs on the products of countries who are essentially dictatorships. And last, and most importantly, we need to deport all illegal immigrants.
QUOTE
(2) How can Bush reduce healthcare costs and/or increase the affordability of health insurance?
There should be a basic universal health care...Basic, the bare minimum...Just basic.QUOTE
(3) How can Bush lower the price and volatility of energy costs?
Well, we need to start coming up with alternative energy sources. Alaska isn't going to factor in for a while, and OPEC is killing us with the oil pricing. We need alternative energy.CP
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.