Obama's Job Bill -Why is this Controversial?

I've never tried to convince anyone to leave their country, and it's good that you are happy there. I feel the same about the US here. Can't really think of another place I'd consider going to live, apart from a vacation home or something like that, but then I'd have to win the lottery to afford that! I just don't want to see socialism get any further entrenched here. Only the people who don't work really want it for obvious reasons. Don't get me wrong, I am all for taking care of those who can't take care of themselves and providing for them. But those who choose not to work and sit on their @$$'s, demanding "their fair share" without lifting a finger for it can starve for all I care. Or they can go someplace else, it doesn't really matter to me.

 

If the Canadian health care is as good as you say, then why did Danny Williams come to the US for heart surgery in what was considered to be a routine operation?

I'm not making a comment, one way or the other, but, as with most subjects, the proponents only give you the good stories and the opponents only give you the bad stories, whereas the truth lies somewhere in between.

 

The American health care system is the best in the world, if you can afford it. It is money only which is the drawback for most and while we have the "best" in the world in the measure of quality, we are somewhere below 12th in the world when it comes to overall health care for our own population. And that doesn't mean only the insured get great care, 65% of our bankruptcies are due to medical bills, and over 80% of bankruptcies due to those medical bills in that group are claimed by families and individuals who actually had health care insurance when their medical emergency put them into financial straits.

Our private insurance is so lousy, and/or restrictive that even if you are lucky enough to have it many times it either has limits on the total (benefit cap), or is denied by some "clause" or other which leaves the insured out in the cold.

 

True, but in those areas, at least in the US, the unions have been mostly replaced by the US government. Guaranteed wage - US Department of Labor has jurisdiction over the "minimum wage". Work Hours? Again, it is the US Department of Labor. Safety regulations? Go to Occupational Safety and Health Administration(OSHA).

So, while the unions may have been the driving force behind getting those for the workers(and for that I thank them), they are long gone from union control.

Nowadays, the unions have become counter-productive in what they seek to achieve. In their quest for higher wages and better benefits, the unions have driven up the cost of production. Hence, manufacturing companies have abandoned the US in droves. It is cheaper to manufacture a product in, say, Indonesia or China, and ship it to the US, then it is to produce said product in the US. Thus, to cut costs, the company moves it's manufacturing overseas(if they don't abandon it all together and just focus on R&D as many have done), thereby costing all those high paid workers their jobs.


Speaking specifically to my anti-union sentiments, I'll relate this episode: We had to shut down our line after we had run out of some supplies, they were small, light weight pieces, but necessary to continue production. So, to get the line up and running, I said that I'd go get a cart full and that I'd be right back. So, I went out the hall, walked to the storage area, and loaded up a cart. This took all of about 5 minutes. As I was turning around to head back in, a union rep was standing right behind me. "What are you doing?", he exclaimed. "Getting the supplies we need to get the line back up.", I replied. To which he responded "THAT IS NOT YOUR JOB! The material handler takes care of that." I was floored that this guy was giving me grief for try to keep up production. So, I responded, "Well, where is he then?" "I don't know?" was the answer I got. I continued, "Don't you think you should be finding him and giving him hell for not doing his job, instead of standing here yelling at me for doing someone else's job?" With that, I pushed the cart past him and took the material back to the line.

That was my introduction to the lunacy of the "union."

Then, after my job went overseas, I had to continually hound the union for proof that my job went overseas. That took a good six months of playing phone tag and I had to wait a term to enter since producing the proof came shortly after the new term began. But, that is a different episode.

So, while the unions were necessary in the past, and possibly in some of the more hazardous jobs of today, in the greatly changed modern labor landscape, they, in many of the jobs that have them, are an unnecessary evil.

 

Very interesting comments, anecdotes and insights, gentlemen. (Thank you for sharing.)

On the subject of healthcare, speaking from the real life experiences involving myself and members of my immediate family, I have to say honestly that I thank god every day for Tommy Douglas, for the CCF and the NDP, and for socialized medicine in Canada. (If I had been paying out-of-pocket for the medical expenses that my mother and wife have acrued in the last four or five years, I would be destitute today....I literally would not be able to afford an internet connection to post these comments on this forum.)

Please re-read Clint's detailed, and specific comments on the limitations of the U.S. healthcare system, and then ask yourself which is superior, capitalist, "free market" healthcare, or single-payer, government provided services that are FREE to all citizens?

George Patton is of course correct in saying that not all Canadians are dyed-in-the-wool socialists like myself. But having said that, most of us identify our national healthcare system as something that we are proud of, and grateful for. And as I said elsewhere here, Canadians voted Tommy Douglas -the first elected socialist politician in North America, and the father of Canadian socialized medicine- as "The Greatest Canadian" in a well-known CBC survey about a decade ago.

It's certainly true that Canadians with deep pockets can -and do- jump the cue by travelling to the U.S. to receive medical treatment. But, as always, the bottom line here is that, in the United States, money=access to services. (It doesn't make a damn bit of difference what excellent, innovative research is being conducted at the Mayo Clinic to over 40 million Americans who have no healthcare coverage of any kind.)

There have always been right-wingers in Canada who complain about waiting lines and lack of immediate access to certain services. MacLean's magazine ran a ridiculous piece about a year and a half ago that received a mountain of criticism, when it insisted that race horses and pet dogs had quicker access to hip replacement surgery in Canada than their human owners....What the article overlooked entirely -until it was pointed out by hundreds of readers- was that the owners of the race horses where paying veterinary surgeons more than $75,000.00 out-of-pocket to repair the horse's hip joint!

As far as immigrants coming to the U.S. goes, there was an interesting article a few months back, I think it was in either the New York Times or the Washington Post, that explained that, for the first time in more than two hundred years, foreign immigration to the United States has begun to slow to a trickle. (No doubt in response to the devastated economic prospects of the U.S. in the last couple of years.)

I could also tell you stories about Americans who desperately want to marry Canadians so they can move here and benefit from government programs like our socialized medicine. (I'd be willing to bet my hat that some of you reading this thread have heard stories along those lines....I talked to several fellow Canadians who had experienced this personally, back in the day when I used to live in Windsor, Ontario, right across from Detroit, Michigan.)

Finally, to Takeo, I want to say that I am very sorry that you lost that union job. However, I honestly believe that the current situation you are talking about re: job loss in the U.S. is the result of globalization, NAFTA, and the greed of the multi-national corporations and their stockholders, and is not the fault of organized labour.

What would you have instead of union wages and union working conditions? A "race to the bottom" where Americans get to keep their manufacturing jobs, but they have to work under the same conditons, and for the same wages, as are being offered in sweatshops in Mexico and China? (That's not the answer, my friend...although I imagine it would bring a smile to the faces of the billionaires and millionaries who would benefit from taking workers' rights and working conditions back to the time of Andrew Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick.)


Best of luck to all of you, in these difficult times.

 

I should have added that although the actual quality is good, there are unbelievably long wait times unless you are on the verge of death. Read this link to see what I mean: Wait times for surgery, medical treatments at all-time high: report - Health - CBC News

I am 90% sure that he came to the US so he wouldn't have to deal with this problem. Don't get me wrong, I am not glamorizing the Canadian system. In my opinion, the bottom line is that it is free, and you "get what you pay for".

 

I wouldn't say that most Canadians look on our health care system with pride. Maybe in your area, but certainly not in mine. Its better than nothing, but a far cry from being a good overall system. As for Douglas being voted the "greatest Canadian" I would not agree with that. The CBC has been under attack more and more for having a strong Liberal bias (just look up the criticism on their "Vote Compass" gadget they made during the election). Also, to my knowledge, CBC never released the number of votes that Douglas received. The only thing I could find was a vague statement saying that overall the "Greatest Canadian" contest received "over 1 million votes". I'll also add that our population is current over 30 million. 1 million is just 1/30th of our population -- so all that shows is that when the opinions of 1 in every 30 Canadians were complied, the man with the most votes was Douglas. I'll emphasis that, at least to my knowledge, the CBC never released what percentage of the vote Douglas received.

And I take offense to your claim that the "right wingers" complain about our healthcare system. I have many complaints about it, and don't consider myself to be "right wing" at all. I am a conservative-leaning independent, and I decide my support based on the candidates, not necessary just on the candidate's party. I have never belonged to a political party, nor do I plan on it.

So much for not getting bogged down in a debate. I enjoy debating politics, but am reluctant to do it in a non-political arena (specifically on a WW2 website)..

As always, best regards.

 

Well, George, we'll have to just "agree to disagree" when it comes to the quality of our national healthcare system.

I stand by what I said in my earlier posts. And I tell you honestly, I would be financial ruined today if I were living in the United States and I had to deal with the medical bills from my wife's surgeries related to her car accident.

If I had the misfortune to live in a country with a "free market" "free enterprise" healthcare system, I'd be "free" right now to live on the street, or maybe in one of the tent cities that are springing up all over the United States even as I write this comment.

(To say that our healthcare is "free" and that "you get what you pay for" is about as generous as your earlier assertion that proportional representation was the system of third world despots...but not of the most advanced social democracies of Europe.)

As far as your criticisms of the CBC goes, one of the most highly regarded public broadcasting services in THE ENTIRE WORLD, well, we'll have to agree to disagree once again.

You don't like our national healthcare system. You don't care for Tommy Douglas and the CCF. You don't care for the CBC.

What exactly do you like about our country, besides the Conservative Government of Stephen Harper? And his bid to scrap the long gun registry?

By the way, I don't remember calling you, specifically, a "right-winger." And I honestly didn't mean to offend. But you know what they say: "If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck...."

 

Here's an interesting article, written by Jane Bryant Quinn at CBS Moneywatch.com called "U.S. Healthcare System Ridiculous, Says Canadians":

You have to leave the country to get a proper perspective on the high cost of health care in the United States. Even if it’s just over the border.
My husband and I spent a long weekend in Canada last month, lapping up plays at Stratford, Ontario’s justly famous Shakespeare Festival. At our bed-and-breakfast, we lapped up waffles and strawberries, and got an earful from Brenda, our host, on the craziness of American medical bills.
She was planning a trip to Florida, where her brother lives, at the end of the theater season. For safety she’ll buy a private travelers’ health insurance policy tailored to costs in the United States. She doesn’t dare leave home without it. “I’d go bankrupt if I had to pay even part of an American bill,” she said.
At home, Brenda is covered by Ontario’s single-payer policy, in a tax-supported system that amounts to Medicare for all. She gets only token coverage, however, if she falls ill or has an accident in another country, and America scares her. Some countries’ medical systems are affordable, she says, but not the one in the United States. Canadians pay more for travelers’ policies usable in the U.S. than for policies designed for use anywhere else in the world.
Brenda bristled with facts. When her brother in Florida had to be rushed to the hospital last year, the ambulance bill came to $1,300. When her husband had a similar emergency in Stratford, they paid $45. If she needs a Florida doctor, she’ll be reimbursed at Canadian rates, which are significantly lower than the rates charged in the U.S. Brenda tried to be polite but she couldn’t understand why Americans endure it.
As luck would have it, a doctor was staying at our bed-and-breakfast, too. He makes less than his peers in the U.S. and said he didn’t care. Life was fine and he was glad not to have to negotiate prices with patients or turn away the uninsured. His bottom line on U.S. care: “The corporations that own American hospitals exist only to make money, that’s the problem.”
Americans imagine that Canadians rue their system because of the waiting lists for elective surgery. The rich avoid lines by going to the U.S. (or elsewhere in the world) and paying out-of-pocket. At our Stratford breakfast, however, no one worried about a four-month wait for a hip transplant. They all said they take the waits into account by starting the march toward elective surgery a little earlier than American patients might. As long as they were kept pain free, they saw no reason to hustle toward the knife.
As for rumors running around the web that older Canadians can’t get lifesaving or pain-reducing procedures such as heart bypass surgery: They’re false.
Yes, but what about taxes? The face of the doctor’s wife got a little grim. “Taxes go up and people just pay them,” she said. For example, sales taxes on many items rose in Ontario in July. She didn’t like it, but would she give up her health-care system in return for a lower tax? Not a chance. “No one in Canada lives in fear of medical costs,” she said.
I prowled around the web, looking for comments on Canadian medical care. Health outcomes are generally better than in the United States.
No system is perfect, of course, and there are grumps. “Healthcare is not free in Canada even though it seems like it. We are taxed to death,” one person complained (while going on to say that Ontario ought to boost the amount it reimburses patients for clinic care).
The stories that affected me more told how reliable access to care can change a life. Here’s just one:
“My dad at the age of 50 was forced to go into business for himself. I am pretty sure he would not be able to afford or qualify for any health insurance at his age. But because he was Canadian, he was able to start his own company. I am also pretty sure that, considering the expenses I incurred with three premature children, my employer would be none too happy with me if I worked for a small American firm. That’s something I’m not worried about here.”
Will Americans ever achieve that same peace of mind?


Read more: U.S. Health Care System Ridiculous, Say Canadians - CBS MoneyWatch.com​

 

Hhhm seem to have drifted from jobs to the health care!

On health care at least the wounded US Serviceman can look forward to specialised care - here the military hospitals have been closed and there have been instances of abuse of wounded servicemen in Nation Health hospitals - and apparently some hospitals require that uniforms are not worn since there are other patients\hospital staff who object to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Anyway that said -

One very sad fact in the UK is that a very high proportion of those "living rough" ie with no accommodation or job are ex-servicemen, some say as high as 25%. The figure for unemployment of ex-servicemen is (to my knowledge) unknown but believed to be high.

I honestly have no idea of what Obama is proposing but I did wonder given the very high involvement of US forces in various conflicts in recent times whether:

1. There is a problem of re-integration and employment of ex servicemen

2. Obama is aiming any of his job creation at ex-servicemen.

I am thinking of starting a separate thread to see if the problem exists elsewhere and find out if there are better ways of helping than what we have here in the UK.

 

I would think the reintegration of soldiers, here in the US, back into the work force would currently be a problem, given the declining job market. Less jobs to be had, and a good bit of competition for the ones that open up. Given that most of the new jobs are in the "service" industries, I don't see a soldier, whom had just gotten out of the service, going to work flipping burgers at MickeyDs or working at Wal-Fart, unless they were really desperate for a job.

 

Well, I am glad that the system worked for you. As I implied before, the system works for some but not for others. Based on that, to say that it is perfect and a source of pride for all Canadians is wrong. You like it, I don't. I'll agree with your comment that we should "agree to disagree". Lets just leave it at that.

John, I'm sorry to inform you that I never said anything of the sort. I don't even recall seeing anything on this forum about proportional representation. Perhaps you are thinking of another "right-winger"

Feel free to think as you wish about the CBC. I enjoy watching certain programs (Peter Mansbridge's reporting is excellent). I'll also emphasize that I, for one, couldn't care less whether the CBC is owned by a Liberal or a Conservative. What I do care about is when a strong bias becomes apparent in their programming, and they don't admit it. As I said before, the thing that really made me angry was the "vote compass" device and their coverage of the election. I haven't watched the CBC for a while, so maybe they have tuned it down a notch. As a production company, they make top-notch documentaries. Their news coverage, on the other hand, leaves something to be desired.

So, the only great things about our country are healthcare, Tommy Douglas, the CCF and the CBC? I beg to differ. Our nation has a proud history of peace and prosperity. I am proud of it. In terms of foreign policy, we (generally) know when to hold back and when to get involved. Our economy has (historically) done better than others in times of crisis. We are a diverse country. Yes, there are also many things I don't like, but that doesn't mean I don't like the country. There are many things about Canada that make it good (we are a world leader in technologies, engineering, natural resources - just to name a few). Just because I don't agree with what you define as "great" doesn't mean I don't like our country. I'll ask the same question to you - besides healthcare, Douglas and the CCF, what do you like about Canada?

Well, you did say that the "right wingers" criticize healthcare. As a critic (and you were responding to me) I took the comment to be directed at me. But, I can take the criticism, and it didn't offend me that much -- I just merely wanted to point it out that I am not a "right wing" keyboard warrior just looking to pick a fight.

 

Thanks, George, very much for your feedback.

1. On the proportional representation issue, I must have confused you with another poster. -My apologies on that point.

2. When I think of the CBC, I'm thinking primarily of our radio service, which I regard as mostly excellent. (I have neither a cable nor a satellite package, and therefore, watch minimal television of any kind, except things I might see on You Tube or download on the computer.) I don't believe, honestly, that the CBC has a "left-liberal" bias...but then again, I'm a left-liberal myself, so maybe that's a bit of a cognitive blind spot for me. -I'm willing to conceed that.

3. I'm going to agree with you wholeheartedly, George, when you say that the things you like about Canada include the following: our peace and prosperity, our cultural diversity, our ability to -in most cases- carefully pick our fights re: international affairs, and the -relative- strength of our national economy. -I wouldn't disagree or find fault with any of those assessments.

I'm glad you're not just looking to pick a fight. (I'm not either. Honestly.) -And by the way, I did like your phrase "right-wing keyboard warrior."

One question: Why the moniker "George Patton"? -Did you have a relative who served with Patton in the Second World War? -Or perhaps you're just a fan of George C. Scott?

 

Well, I liked Patton as a commander. Hence the forum name "George Patton" -- as my signature says, my actual name is Alan.

 

Back to the "jobs" OP, here are a couple of interesting things in JPEG. One a 'toon, one a list of largest employers in the world.

View attachment 14210

 

That cartoon titled "the Republican fantasy world" can fit the Democrats just as easy. Any one of them. Politician = sleazebag.

 

If you take all the "Isms" in the world which includes both American Parties, and many organizations in many areas of manly concerns....one thing they all hold in common is they are man made and once created become man interpreted to the Nth degree. I will say that these things are "tools" that man can use. However some of the members of each of these isms begin to worship the tool and begins to measure their tool against every matter. In the resulting worship of the tool they become blind to those things that may benefit their fellow man. I say the "Isms" are no better than the best of the people commanding a leadership in each of these. How foul any of them can be in the absence of good leadership. I am as susceptible as anyone else to this and from time to time have to stand back and admire the statesmen that have led us in the past from which ever side of the spectrum of political thought they may have come from. If you as a citizen can no longer do this....you have begun to worship the tool itself and will find no closure. I suggest for you a study of the compromises that our constitution is born of. The Federalist Papers explains a lot of background that is also helpful. What we are hungry for is statesmen......what we are enticed to vote for may be something else.....hence a lot of dissatisfaction we have only ourselves to blame for.

 

The American Jobs Act is sound economic policy and a necessary step in eliminating the possibility of a double-dip recession. In order to stabilize our capricious, boom-and-bust economy, a deliberate and comprehensive restructuring of our political and economic system is required. This Act does not provide such a remedial solution, but it does represent a substantial, short-term plan that will palliate our precipitous economy if passed.

The Act is a combination of tax cuts and spending increases. Firms that increase their payroll by adding new workers or increasing the wages of their current employees will receive a complete payroll tax holiday for the first $50 million in payroll increases. In a similar vein, firms that hire veterans or long-term unemployed workers will be given a tax credit of minimally $5,600 and $4,000 respectively. These tax cuts are designed to serve the needs of the working class.

Although the government cannot literally create jobs in the private sector, these tax cuts are the most direct way for the government to increase private sector employment; they are the closest the government can come to literally paying private workers’ salaries. Such policy is acceptable and advisable only considering the dire circumstances of our economy, and the need for bipartisan support in the process of making this bill into law. The Act will also extend the payroll tax cuts made last year for 160 million American workers, providing a $1,500 stimulus to the typical American family. This is basic economics: more money in the pockets of consumers leads to increased consumer spending, and thus promotes a greater possibility for corporations to realize positive returns on investment.

Direct job creation and support for the unemployed is the most expedient and dynamic method through which this act seeks to temporarily stabilize our economy. The act will prevent roughly 6 million citizens from losing their unemployment insurance. If these unemployment benefits were to expire, the economy would lose the stimulating consumption of those 6 million people. Moody’s chief economist, Mark Zandi estimates that for every $1 spent on extending unemployment benefits, the GDP is increased by $1.54. Furthermore, the Act will prevent 280,000 teacher layoffs and provide $90 billion to modernize 35,000 public schools and rebuild basic infrastructure. Similarly for every $1 spent on increased infrastructure spending, the GDP is increased by $1.44 according to Zandi’s report.

Overall the Act is priced at $447 billion, but it will be fully payed for as part of the President’s long-term deficit reduction plan. The president recently revealed the general components of this plan, which seeks to reduce the deficit by more than $3 trillion over the next decade, $1.5 trillion of which will come from tax increase primarily on the upper class, and $1.1 trillion of which will come from decreased American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Despite the carping of Republicans, stimulus measures work. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed into law by Obama in 2009, raised the GDP by between 0.8 and 2.5 percent, “lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.5 percentage points and 1.6 percentage points,” and “increased the number of people employed by between 1.0 million and 2.9 million” according to the Congressional Budget Office. The American Jobs Act is predicted to add 2 percentage points to GDP growth next year and create 1.9 million jobs.

The economic benefits of the American Jobs Act are quite salient. The Act will create jobs and will be fully paid for. Unfortunately the act may be too late to save our economy. The spending cuts demanded for and achieved by the Republicans during the budget and debt ceiling debates will cost America jobs. For example, the Economic Policy Institute estimates that the debt deal passed in August will cost the U.S. economy 1.8 million jobs through 2012 if no counter actions are taken.

The United States economy is in a precarious state and we cannot afford to continue to futilely cut non-defense discretionary spending. The situation demands direct action by the federal government and the American Jobs Acts provides us with such an action for the short-term.

 

They all come in under the platform of "Change" although the change they are espousing may differ. I no longer even hear the word, it just sounds like, "Blah, blah, blah."

I always maintained there was no way Obama could deliver what he promised because from the moment he took office it would be the sole purpose of the Republic party to block every single effort he made. And before any Republicans take exception, I'd say the same thing about a Republican that took office, that tearing him or her down would be the top priority of the Democratic party.

I had some small hope that the good will generated by Barack Obama, because of his energy, the way he created excitement and because it was a major step forward for the US to elect an African American president, which was exciting in itself, might spur both sides to a small measure of optimistic cooperation. But I feared , even more, that even that would not be enough, and it was not.

That is the reason, I believe, that the bill is considered controversial and it is what is wrong with our country today. Politics is not about serving for the good or betterment of our country or citizenry it is about winning, full stop. And, yes, I know there has always been that element, but I think it has reached a crisis point where we are unable to work together or have intelligent discussion.