By E. Thomas McClanahan, Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist
White House economist Christina Romer was on TV today, saying the administration wouldn't rule out a second stimulus package. A second stimulus? Whoa. That's exactly what the country doesn't need.
Former Clinton Treasury man Roger Altman had a troubling piece the other day in The Wall Street Journal, saying that quite soon we'll be facing a big tax increase.
The budget deficit and the national debt is increasing so rapidly, he wrote, that perhaps as early as next year Main Street and the financial markets will "exert irrestible pressure to reduce the deficit."
His prediction had a chilling plausibility -- even moreso if you consider the extra debt that would be loaded on with another stimulus package full of wasteful pork like the last one. Even more troubling was Altman's preferred levy: A European-style value-added tax.
That would be the perfect capstone to accompany President Obama's mad drive to replicate the massive tax-and-regulatory structures that have made the European economy so sluggish for the last few decades. An apt word was coined to describe the overall problem: eurosclerosis. Europe built a welfare state it cannot financially support, and its costs and rules suffocate economic dynamism.
In 2005, a writer in The Times of London noted that in Europe, "unemployment has been stuck between 8 and 11 percent since 1991 and growth has reached 3 percent only once in those 14 years."
We are now headed down the same path, thanks to the fiscal recklessness of this administration. A second stimulus, indeed. These people have to be stopped.









Delicious
Digg
ugg boots
Good ! I like it ! Welcome to read following news: ugg boots,Nike dunk sb,discount ugg boots, uggs ,nike dunk low,ugg boots sale,UGG Bailey Button boots,new nike sb,UGG Classic short boots,UGG Nightfall boots,cheap nike dunks,UGG Classic tall boots.
Vegas2112 is taking over for Interface
I find this to be a credible source. The only I'm sure someone like jenniferm can take comfort in the fact that some of those uninsured seeking care, were dirty, undocumented immigrants who should have been denied compassionate care to begin with.
Really? Have I written that--or even implied anything on the cleanliness of an "undocumented" immigrant. Because I don't think I did.
I simply asked for a count on the number of illegal immigrants included in the 40+ mil number--yeah, that certainly translates into what you wrote. Good grief.
If the only way you can make your point is by making up something that I didn't write, then YOU GO GIRL!
Have you noticed that Vegas2112 has taken over for Interface as the insulter of the group? She's had several of her posts deleted already on just this thread alone. If she can't logically argue a point she starts with the potty mouth. So sad.
Nice.
I find this to be a credible source. The only I'm sure someone like jenniferm can take comfort in the fact that some of those uninsured seeking care, were dirty, undocumented immigrants who should have been denied compassionate care to begin with.
Really? Have I written that--or even implied anything on the cleanliness of an "undocumented" immigrant. Because I don't think I did.
I simply asked for a count on the number of illegal immigrants included in the 40+ mil number--yeah, that certainly translates into what you wrote. Good grief.
If the only way you can make your point is by making up something that I didn't write, then YOU GO GIRL!
vegas...
illegal aliens should be shown compassion by putting them on a bus or boat for home... Not by taking my money and giving them healthcare!!!
FactCheck.org
They just go run and hide or repeat it again.
The information I was using came from the WSJ, I have the article saved, but on my work computer which I won't have access to until Monday. However this is pretty close to what the WSJ had, I believe the base of the information is from the Census Bureau:
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/the_real_uninsured.html
The number of people who are uninsured and cannot afford it is much smaller than 45 million.
I find this to be a credible source. The only problem is that it hardly makes your case.
I will concede that slightly over 5 million may be undocumented immigrants who seek emergency treatment (they are not seeking preventative or traditional healthcare).
However, with more than 7 Million that have lost their jobs in the past year, these numbers will increase significantly.
I'm sure someone like jenniferm can take comfort in the fact that some of those uninsured seeking care, were dirty, undocumented immigrants who should have been denied compassionate care to begin with.
Jenn
They just go run and hide or repeat it again.
The information I was using came from the WSJ, I have the article saved, but on my work computer which I won't have access to until Monday. However this is pretty close to what the WSJ had, I believe the base of the information is from the Census Bureau:
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/the_real_uninsured.html
The number of people who are uninsured and cannot afford it is much smaller than 45 million.
Tom vs Nobel Laureates and Warren Buffet
Nobel laureates in economic science and the most successful investor in US financial history believe that this stimulus is needed. What is your level of training in economics and in finance? Should your opinions be believed or even warrant attention when you use virtually no US economic data? Let me suggest that you are the one that is nuts as are some readers who consider your unsupported opinions credible. Prove me wrong. What are your economic credentials? Are they better than those mentioned above? What data are you using?
I believe
.... a few people have asked for a source of the 45 mil without insurance claim and not once has Interface provided it. Nor has anyone else.
They just go run and hide or repeat it again.
Sadly, not
Are you some renowned economist posing as an anonymous poster? You can try and wish away the numbers if you like but the the truth is irrelevant to what you may or may not think and believe. Sorry, Try again.
Sorry but just try a little search and you will find tons of debunking. So your fake outrage here will be ignored. Thank you for playing. Please come again.
It is obvious that you have nothing. You are parroting idiots who, while they may be much more intelligent than you, are intellectually dishonest.
Can you address the previous question about who your sources are?
I think you are full of crap [And there you go again with that potty mouth] and wouldn't spend a single minute trying to look for something that has never been asserted by anyone credible before.
I'm not going to do your work for you. And obviously you've not been reading this site for the past few days because it was all layed out for you. But then my guess is you are one of those nice Socialists who have no logic and want the government to run your life for you. Good luck with that.
Your credibility could hardly be lower riki
Are you some renowned economist posing as an anonymous poster? You can try and wish away the numbers if you like but the the truth is irrelevant to what you may or may not think and believe. Sorry, Try again.
Sorry but just try a little search and you will find tons of debunking. So your fake outrage here will be ignored. Thank you for playing. Please come again.
Can you address the previous question about who your sources are?