Are you sure anyone polled has any idea what's going on? When did Obama say he wouldn't talk about the budget at any time over the past 6 months?
Lang, although I expect that some companies don't operate that way, I'm sure than many do, including many around here. A friend of mine owns a local sawmill. He's provided health insurance for his employees (about 12, I think), for a long time, although I've heard a lot of complaints as the price continued to go up over the past decade or more. And it didn't matter if employees were part time or not. Sometimes quite a few needed to be part time part of the year when fewer trees were being cut, or the demand for lumber went down. But the health insurance was still there for those who needed it.
"estimated $6000 per household costs"
Don't you - and I - wish. I've been paying more than $22,000 a year, through HPQ for the past couple of years. Even double your $6K "estimate" would cut my annual costs almost in half!. (I've also got an additional $200 or $300 a month in copays of various sorts.)
SS: "There is no approved budget."
Well, duh! Maybe you missed the reason for the federal government shutting down on the first day of FY 2014.
Hmmm. this is the FY2014 budget of the United States of America. More than 250 pages of budget have been proposed by the White House, and I think that Obama has been wiling to discuss any of it over the past 6 months or more since it was presented to Congress. How many in Congress have even read it and know what is there to discuss, and to vote on? They should have been going over it with fine-toothed comb months ago, and discussing the details then. (And, if you haven't read it yet, it's filled with lots of compromises that no Democrat (or most Republicans) would have even considered 10 years ago.)
Yes, and some of those polls are an interesting reflection on partse of America. Many seem to strongly oppose Obamacare, but they also want the Affordable Care Act to continue!
SS, where did this stopping and cancelling stuff come from?? I was talking about organizing and scheduling the implementation. Otherwise, you are simply repeating what I said, with very slightly different words.
I think that's the way it's worked for the past 200+ years. Congress says they want a battleship with certain dimensions and features (number of masts and sails, ability to launch nuclear missiles, whatever..) . Then the executive branch (DoD, in this case) puts the requirements out to bid, picks a builder, or builders, and sets a schedule for completion. Most every other bill/law is done in about the same way. The executive branch has had control over the implementation, and enforcement of every law, since the Constitution was written and adopted.
Rah, it looks like the Republican's big problem right now is that the right hand doesn't know what the extreme right hand is doing, so they are often at odds with themselves.
VP, i don't think it works that way. The law tells what it should look like when it's fully implemented, but may only give a few hints about how it should be phased in. Most new laws, including the ACA leave much of the implementation and phasing in to the executive branch, so the president and the executive branch probably have every right to phase it in as they see fit. The whole law wont be completely phased in until about 2018, anyway. and it all started 3 years ago. I don;t know for sure about the ACA, but if it's like most other laws, the implementation, including scheduling, details, is up to the executive branch.
SS, here are the actual numbers on debt ceiling increases, since1980.
Under Reagan: 17 increases (Congress: Split: 14; D: 3)
Under Bush I: 4 increases (Congress: D: 4)
Under Clinton: 4 increases (Congress: Split:1; D: 2; R: 1)
Under Bush II: 7 increases (Congress: Split: 2; D: 3; R: 2)
Under Obama: 3 increase (Congress: D: 3)
Total number of increases: 35
Under Democrat leadership in WH: 7 (20%)
Under Republican leadership in the WH: 28 (80%)
Under split Congressional leadership: 17 (49%)
Under D congressional leadership: 15 (43%)
Under R Congressional leadership: 3 (6%)
As the president proposes a budget, and oversees nearly all government spending, and because the Congress passes the budget and the taxes to cover it, I would hold both equally responsible for the current debt level.
An even more interesting calculation would be to see under which presidents and Congresses the budget increases the most over the years, but I don't have the time for that now. But, i suspect I know what that answer is, simply became the Republicans have been in charge of the federal budget for the majority of the past 42 years.
Poltava, when, exactly has he not shown strict and strong support for the 1st, 2nfd, and every other amendment? Every relevant post that I've seen from him has show a very strict and strong support of both amendments, exactly as they were written more than 200 years ago.
Don't members of the House and Senate take a similar oath? And wouldn't willingly doing anything that would needlessly put the United States of America in a debt default be a violation and breach of that same oath that they swore to keep?
Yes, almost as broke as we were in 1948.
Now our federal debt is about 100% of the annual GDP. In '48 the national debt was about 125% of the annual GDP. The big difference between 1948 and now is that now few Americans are willing to do anything to protect their nation, or to help defend the country. In the war just prior to 1948, nearly all Americans were either in the armed services, building war materials, or rationing their use of food and gasoline, to assure the soldiers had enough. Now, less than 1 in 100 Americans are in the armed services, or building military equipment, and no one is rationing their use of anything. In 1948 Americans chose to tax themselves at a top marginal rate of 92% in order pay down the debt that has accrued. Now Americans complain loudly about a top marginal tax rate that is less than 40%, and are completely unwilling to pay anything to support the recent and current war to protect the country. Instead they have simply borrowed everything spent to defend the country against terrorists, unwilling to use any of their more than $200 trillion in wealth to defend the country, or to shrink the debt.
Yes, strange conservative notions of liberty and choice:
- Everyone should have equal access to health care.
- Everyone should carry their own weight in the insurance pool.
- Everyone should have a choice of different health care plans from different insurance vendors.
- Those who truly don't want technical health care, such as Christian Scientist should be free to simply handle their own health care through their prayer.
Yes, there will be and are some bugs. I hope that Congress gets right to it to pass a bill that fixes the few technical and legal problems that exist and make it harder for these things to happen. What do you think the chances of this happening any time soon is?
SS, it is NEVER " advantageous for employers to provide HC benefits". Having to to provide healthcare takes away form the money companies need to grow the business and for their profits. American businesses have been complaining for decades that having to provide healthcare for their employees in America makes them uncompetitive with companies in every other country in the world. No other country in the world requires companies to provide health care for their employees. It's an expense that only American companies "enjoy".
If I can believe any of the recent posts here about the expected costs of Obamacare insurance for a family of 4, or for individuals, than I certainly have nothing to fear. The costs posted here recently for that family of 4 and expected individual monthly payments clearly tell me that my costs will be cut in half, based on what I am currently sending to HP each month right now for my family of 4. If that's what it's going to cost me, bring it on!
That efficiency is the percent of the total energy in the visible sunlight hitting the cell that gets converted to electricity. Most current solar panels have an efficiency in the 20% - 25% range. Over the past few years, this record cell energy efficiency number has been moving up, with new records set every few months. If a solar panel could be built with these new chips at the same cost as current panels, then the price of photo-voltaic electricity would fall to about the same cost as natural gas and wind, and a price cheaper than coal.
Sure, change the question, and add in allied casualties, and Bush's total goes up north of 5,500; add in the injuries, and Bush still has a count that is more than double what Obama has seen. - and in both cases way too much for gain we've seen.