bright signs in the economy

[Guest Guest]

From today's New York Times:

"JPMorgan Chase Posts $2.7 Billion Profit"

"JPMorgan Chase reported net income of $2.7 billion in the second quarter, a 36 percent rise from a year earlier, as it reported record fees from its investment banking unit.

"The earnings, which exceeded analysts' expectations, were the latest sign that the strongest banks were finding a bright patch in the midst of economic troubles and financial crises."

It is too early to call this a recovery but this along with the more than 200-point jump in the Dow-Jones yesterday is very good news. If Obama and the Democrats pull us out of this economic catastrophe with the bottom anywhere close to where we are now, he will go down in history as a great President.

Either way, the Republicans will finally be exposed for the complete failures they are and have been. They got us into this mess and haven't lifted a finger to get us out.

[Guest Guest]

From today's New York Times:

"JPMorgan Chase Posts $2.7 Billion Profit"

"JPMorgan Chase reported net income of $2.7 billion in the second quarter, a 36 percent rise from a year earlier, as it reported record fees from its investment banking unit.

"The earnings, which exceeded analysts' expectations, were the latest sign that the strongest banks were finding a bright patch in the midst of economic troubles and financial crises."

It is too early to call this a recovery but this along with the more than 200-point jump in the Dow-Jones yesterday is very good news. If Obama and the Democrats pull us out of this economic catastrophe with the bottom anywhere close to where we are now, he will go down in history as a great President.

Either way, the Republicans will finally be exposed for the complete failures they are and have been. They got us into this mess and haven't lifted a finger to get us out.

Sorry I stopped reading after "From today's New York Times:"!!

[Guest Guest]

Sorry I stopped reading after "From today's New York Times:"!!

. . . which explains why you're so ignorant.

[WilliamK]

Sorry I stopped reading after "From today's New York Times:"!!

And you undoubtedly stopped thinking long before that.

[Guest Guest]

From the Congressional Budget Office, a non partisan oversight group whose head is appointed by leaders in the majority party:

Growth of federal government on unsustainable path. Read it for yourselves.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=328

[Guest Guest]

From the Congressional Budget Office, a non partisan oversight group whose head is appointed by leaders in the majority party:

Growth of federal government on unsustainable path. Read it for yourselves.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=328

The leftist mainsteam media is totally ignoring this report. You never want to let the truth get in the way of a good fairytale

[Guest Paul]

From the Congressional Budget Office, a non partisan oversight group whose head is appointed by leaders in the majority party:

Growth of federal government on unsustainable path. Read it for yourselves.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=328

It does say that. The main factor cited is an aging population. That is not Obama's fault, or Bush's for that matter.

The point is that the law has to be changed. I think that was Obama's point.

[Guest Guest]

Sorry I stopped reading after "From today's New York Times:"!!

Amazing. Admitting in public your with to remain ignorant. You're probably proud of it too. Which also makes you a buffoon.

[Guest Guest]

Amazing. Admitting in public your with to remain ignorant. You're probably proud of it too. Which also makes you a buffoon.

My refusal to take my marching orders from one paper with a decidedly leftist bent, is not ignorance, it is objective. Because I look to more than one source, whilst you see THE TIMES and figure that you are a learned individual.

You were wrong.

[Guest Guest]

It does say that. The main factor cited is an aging population. That is not Obama's fault, or Bush's for that matter.

The point is that the law has to be changed. I think that was Obama's point.

Paul, I have no problem with Obama setting an ambitious agenda; though I do not support the health care vision that he sees, he won the election and that is the right of the president. He can advance the agenda that he believes in, it doesn't matter if I don't like it.

But, the point of my post was to point out that an independant watchdog group, stated that we cannot AFFORD the spending that has been laid out. As in all of our households, there comes a point in time to wait for some things that we want. Our finances are always subject to prioritizing. In Washington, it seems all they care about is "our dollars and their dreams, (to coin the lottery phrase).

We just don't have the money now, and I think a more cautious approach would be more prudent. Of course that would prevent the government from creating a whole new level of dependance on government, but we can't always have everything we want.

[Guest Guest]

Amazing. Admitting in public your with to remain ignorant. You're probably proud of it too. Which also makes you a buffoon.

No, it makes him a Republican.

Well actually, it makes him both. They're very similar categories.

[Guest Paul]

Paul, I have no problem with Obama setting an ambitious agenda; though I do not support the health care vision that he sees, he won the election and that is the right of the president. He can advance the agenda that he believes in, it doesn't matter if I don't like it.

But, the point of my post was to point out that an independant watchdog group, stated that we cannot AFFORD the spending that has been laid out. As in all of our households, there comes a point in time to wait for some things that we want. Our finances are always subject to prioritizing. In Washington, it seems all they care about is "our dollars and their dreams, (to coin the lottery phrase).

We just don't have the money now, and I think a more cautious approach would be more prudent. Of course that would prevent the government from creating a whole new level of dependance on government, but we can't always have everything we want.

I respectfully disagree. We're wasting hundreds of billions of dollars now because the system is so inefficient. Countries with single-payer systems spend less than we do, and by objective measures, they deliver better health care.

Health care reform has been delayed for decades. If this doesn't get done now, the insurance lobby will make sure it gets delayed for decades more. It will cost in the short run but pay off in the long run, in my opinion.

What independent watchdog group are you referring to? The link from your last post didn't say that.

[Guest Guest]

I respectfully disagree. We're wasting hundreds of billions of dollars now because the system is so inefficient. Countries with single-payer systems spend less than we do, and by objective measures, they deliver better health care.

Health care reform has been delayed for decades. If this doesn't get done now, the insurance lobby will make sure it gets delayed for decades more. It will cost in the short run but pay off in the long run, in my opinion.

What independent watchdog group are you referring to? The link from your last post didn't say that.

The group I was citing was the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Not sure that Independant is 100% accurate, but since the head is appointed by the ranking members in the House and Senate, they're hardly carrying water for the GOP.

Having said that, I too, think the system could be more efficient. But, I don't think the government can or will run it more efficiently. The first thing politicians do when given a new toy, is to create a beauracracy to go with it. This of course provides patronage jobs for their friends or campaign contributers, and it happens regardless of party. If you think there is waste now, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

The most important decision maker in healthcare has to remain the doctor. The creation of HMO's helped lower costs, but with it added a level of administration that could negate a doctor's request for testing, this is not something I look forward to. I certainly don't want that decision being approved or disapproved from Washington.

[Guest Paul]

The group I was citing was the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Not sure that Independant is 100% accurate, but since the head is appointed by the ranking members in the House and Senate, they're hardly carrying water for the GOP.

Having said that, I too, think the system could be more efficient. But, I don't think the government can or will run it more efficiently. The first thing politicians do when given a new toy, is to create a beauracracy to go with it. This of course provides patronage jobs for their friends or campaign contributers, and it happens regardless of party. If you think there is waste now, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

The most important decision maker in healthcare has to remain the doctor. The creation of HMO's helped lower costs, but with it added a level of administration that could negate a doctor's request for testing, this is not something I look forward to. I certainly don't want that decision being approved or disapproved from Washington.

The CBO report doesn’t say what you claim it says. It says that the government is on an unsustainable path under current law, not under the health care proposals that would change the current law. The idea behind the reform is to control health care costs both in the short term and in the long term so that government and the American people are put back onto a sustainable path. These plans can’t be analyzed without considering how much people are spending for health care now, where the money is going and for what. As Obama said last evening, health care costs have risen three times as much as income for the middle class over the past decade. Of course that’s not sustainable.

The big political struggle right now is between the insurance companies, who don’t want their gravy train disrupted, and everybody else. The doctors are for reform. The AARP is for it. Even the pharmaceutical companies are for it because they recognize that the system will go bankrupt if it isn’t reformed. There is even support in the business community. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...isrc=newsletter

So where should we put the power? Should we give more power and leverage to the insurance companies? That’s what caused the problem in the first place. Insurance companies are bureaucratic. You have correctly identified the issue, in my opinion, but I disagree with your conclusion. Insurance companies grab as much of our money as they can; it’s their main goal and purpose. They are not responsive. They do not honestly pay legitimate claims as a matter of routine. Very often they deny perfectly legitimate treatments because their incentive is to collect the premium and not pay out benefits.

The only alternative is to give government more power. It’s not an ideal solution but unless someone can think of a better one, it is the best solution available. There are key differences between a manufacturing industry and the health insurance industry: (1) the health insurance industry does not produce anything and (2) insurance companies make decisions that directly affect our lives. Therefore, a greater role for government is to be expected. The trick is to devise the best system. From what I can tell, that is what Obama and some members of Congress are trying to do.

We seem to have an allergy in this country to our government, and there’s no doubt that it can be maddeningly inefficient. The question I’d like to see you address is this: if government-run health care (which isn’t even what Obama is proposing) is so dreadful, then why does every other country with a similar economic-political system have a single-payer health care system that delivers health care of equal or better quality at a lesser cost? It’s because: as bad as government can be, the insurance industry is worse. Decades of experience prove it, and a comparative analysis of health care systems across the world proves it beyond a doubt.