Huge State Economic Backlash Due to Stimulus Funds?

[rcjunkie]

I, like Kerry, resisted the temptation to engage in on-line politics, but I'm hooked. While it's at times rewarding to see/hear opposing views, it often goes from being productive and enlightening to nothing more than constructive stupidity---present party included.

[soonerguru]

How do you think they are going to pay for Obamacare? Not only that but Obama said 2010 was going to be the year where he focuses on deficit reduction. What do you think Obama means by that?

I guess you haven't read the CBO report showing that the health care proposals will lower costs, or if you have, you don't agree with their findings. Fine.

Obama probably will raise your taxes if you make more than $300k, but he's not going to do it in the thick of a recession.

[soonerguru]

Think this goes back to the post that started the thread

Larry,

I asked for facts. What, exactly, "hidden costs" are associated with accepting this stimulus money? Please spell them out specifically, rather than relying on a slanted editorial piece from the WSJ.

Please use facts to support your claims.

[soonerguru]

Are you trying to impress someone with the name calling.
I only respond to mature, intelligent posters.

rcjunkie,

You can dish it out, too, don't try to be coy.

Respectfully, my question, how will Henry accepting stimulus funding create a "mess" for the next governor?

Please use specifics.

[mugofbeer]

I guess you haven't read the CBO report showing that the health care proposals will lower costs, or if you have, you don't agree with their findings. Fine.

Obama probably will raise your taxes if you make more than $300k, but he's not going to do it in the thick of a recession.

According to CBO, average premiums in the individual market would increase 10 to 13 percent because of provisions in the Senate health care bill, but, crucially, most people (about 57 percent) would actually find themselves paying significantly less money for insurance, thanks to federal subsidies for low- and middle-class consumers, than they would under current law

What I read here is the only people who will pay less out of pocket expenses for their health insurance under the plan are those who will receive federal subsidies.....meaning the more wealthy (as to what this term constitutes is a mystery) will subsidize the less wealthy.

[soonerguru]

What I read here is the only people who will pay less out of pocket expenses for their health insurance under the plan are those who will receive federal subsidies.....meaning the more wealthy (as to what this term constitutes is a mystery) will subsidize the less wealthy.

That is happening anyway, although indirectly, when people show up at ERs with no health insurance but receive care.

Those of us who have insurance pay more to subsidize the costs of those who don't but still receive medical care.

I don't have the numbers but do you ever wonder how many people in the medical field are employed in billing and collections? It must be extraordinary.

[mugofbeer]

There is no business, industry or agency that can't benefit from centralization. That's why there are only a handful of integrated oil and gas companies, a handful of pharma companies and a handful of automakers. If you're trying to say we should have nationalized health care just because the number of people working in billing and collections could be consilidated, you could make the same statement for any industry.

[Kerry]

I guess you haven't read the CBO report showing that the health care proposals will lower costs, or if you have, you don't agree with their findings. Fine.

Obama probably will raise your taxes if you make more than $300k, but he's not going to do it in the thick of a recession.

Explain this to me. In the current plan the tax increase will start right away, but the benefits don't start for 3 years. So that means they have to collect taxes for 10 years to pay for 7 years of benefits (the CBO only reviewed the first 10 years). In the second 10 year period we will have 10 years of benefits. How are we going to collect 13 years of taxes in that 10 year period?

[Larry OKC]

Larry,

I asked for facts. What, exactly, "hidden costs" are associated with accepting this stimulus money? Please spell them out specifically, rather than relying on a slanted editorial piece from the WSJ.

Please use facts to support your claims.

These aren't my claims as it wasn't my post but OKCTalker's, would have to ask him. Have read articles that spelled out the the increased cost to states that are accepting the funds.

Good day.

[soonerguru]

There is no business, industry or agency that can't benefit from centralization. That's why there are only a handful of integrated oil and gas companies, a handful of pharma companies and a handful of automakers. If you're trying to say we should have nationalized health care just because the number of people working in billing and collections could be consilidated, you could make the same statement for any industry.

The current health plan that passed the Senate is not a "nationalized" health plan. Frankly, I would be hugely in favor of that, but that is not what has been proposed.

[soonerguru]

Explain this to me. In the current plan the tax increase will start right away, but the benefits don't start for 3 years. So that means they have to collect taxes for 10 years to pay for 7 years of benefits (the CBO only reviewed the first 10 years). In the second 10 year period we will have 10 years of benefits. How are we going to collect 13 years of taxes in that 10 year period?

If you're trying to say that it will cost money, yes, of course it will cost money. On that we do not disagree.

The flip side is that if it's successful in lowering costs -- or even slowing the increase in health care costs -- it would be deficit neutral.

I should point out this has nothing to do with the stimulus, and whether Oklahoma should accept approximately $2.6 billion, which is the subject of this thread.

[soonerguru]

There is no business, industry or agency that can't benefit from centralization. That's why there are only a handful of integrated oil and gas companies, a handful of pharma companies and a handful of automakers. If you're trying to say we should have nationalized health care just because the number of people working in billing and collections could be consilidated, you could make the same statement for any industry.

Actually, what you're saying has absolutely no connection to what I was asking. None at all. It was as if you didn't apply any thought whatsoever to my question and just began composing some bizarre, parallel argument (with a tiny lecture intertwined.).

My question was genuine, as I did not have or offer facts, and was a speculation, mainly owing to the fact that so many people welch on their bills at hospitals in the US.

[rcjunkie]

rcjunkie,

You can dish it out, too, don't try to be coy.

Respectfully, my question, how will Henry accepting stimulus funding create a "mess" for the next governor?

Please use specifics.

All your here for is to disagree and argue, I refuse to stoop to that level.
I would have better luck and probably a more intelligent conversation trying to explain things to my 3 year old grand daughter or one of my Great Danes.

Move on to your next gripe, take care and stay warm.

[OKCTalker]

This thread went sideways right after I posted my question. I don't engage in "did too" - "did not" arguments with people who would rather fight than learn. I provided a link to my source - the Wall Street Journal - which resulted simply in defaming an arguably excellent publication.

I was - and am - very concerned about the state of Oklahoma's fiscal future, and brought up a specific issue for discussion and illumination. Instead, this turned into another political hijacking involving unrelated issues.

I'm no longer disappointed with the lack of intelligent, respectful discourse elsewhere in the world, but I am disappointed to find it in such short supply here at OKCTalk.

[soonerguru]

All your here for is to disagree and argue, I refuse to stoop to that level.
I would have better luck and probably a more intelligent conversation trying to explain things to my 3 year old grand daughter or one of my Great Danes.

Move on to your next gripe, take care and stay warm.

Suit yourself. I'm still open to understanding how accepting stimulus funding will create a "mess" for the next governor.

[soonerguru]

This thread went sideways right after I posted my question. I don't engage in "did too" - "did not" arguments with people who would rather fight than learn. I provided a link to my source - the Wall Street Journal - which resulted simply in defaming an arguably excellent publication.

I was - and am - very concerned about the state of Oklahoma's fiscal future, and brought up a specific issue for discussion and illumination. Instead, this turned into another political hijacking involving unrelated issues.

I'm no longer disappointed with the lack of intelligent, respectful discourse elsewhere in the world, but I am disappointed to find it in such short supply here at OKCTalk.

Don't despair.

The Wall Street Journal is widely recognized for outstanding journalism. It's opinion section, however, has a mixed reputation.

Not trying to "defame" WSJ, I pointed out that your "source" was an editorial, not an article.

As respectfully as I can, I'm asking you to provide hard statistics to back up the outrageous suggestion that accepting stimulus funding would destroy Oklahoma's economy. The stimulus, among other things, has been used to keep teachers employed, build roads and bridges, build broadband Internet infrastructure, offset huge deficits in Medicare funding and cover gaps in unemployment insurance and food stamps. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Given the fact that our state is facing a deficit of as much as $1 billion in the coming fiscal year, I'm having trouble understanding how the stimulus won't be a good thing for our state.

Please provide examples of the "hidden costs" and additional spending required by the stimulus that you suggest will damage our economy.

I think we're all smart enough to do a cost-benefit analysis of accepting stimulus funding, provided we have the facts to make an informed decision.

[soonerguru]

Have read articles that spelled out the the increased cost to states that are accepting the funds.

Where? Can you cite them?

[Urbanized]

Nah. I just figured out long ago how futile (and poisonous) it is to argue politics on Internet message boards. Those who drink a beer with me from time to time find out I'm pretty willing to be and interested and interested in talking politics.

"And interested and interested?" What a dope.

[Popsy]

Thought I would make an attempt at addressing how the acceptance of stimulus money could impact the next govenor for guru's benefit. First though I would state that I do not blame Henry for accepting the money because if you are bleeding badly it might be silly not to stem the flow and put a band aid on it. But what happens when the stimulus runs out and the bleeding starts again at an even worse rate of flow. The new govenor will have to deal with it. Say things keep getting worse and instead of an 18 per cent shortfall, there is a 30 percent shortfall with no stimulus to fall back on because the nation's creditors have placed a stanglehold on our credit. The impact on state government at that point would be huge. Maybe Obama will keep printing money to help out but the former strength of the dollar will drop to lows never seen before. A question for Urbanized. If you can call posters names is it fair to call you one or would that damage your sensibilities?

[soonerguru]

Popsy,

I'm fairly certain that Urbanized was kidding.

I think I understand your point, but most economists believe we've seen the bottom -- if not the end -- of the recession. What we're looking at is sluggish growth and high unemployment in the near future.

Oklahoma has not had the mass layoffs other states have had. That's not to say we have not had layoffs, we have, just not to the same degree.

Realistically, Oklahoma will fare better and sooner than other states. We're just suffering right now because it took longer for the ugly tide to reach us and we're in the midst of it right now.

Again, we're fortunate there's a second round of stimulus funding available, because if it weren't, we would be looking at a draconian situation right now.

It seemed to happen shortly after we were all patting ourselves on the back for being "recession proof." Let's remember that next time Forbes exalts and/or decries cities and states in the future for any reason.

[Popsy]

Guru. I hope the economists are right, but if they are not, I feel certain you know it will get ugly.

[Larry OKC]

Where? Can you cite them?

No, because I didn't save them or bookmark them, but I distinctly recall reading that info in the Oklahoman.

[soonerguru]

No, because I didn't save them or bookmark them, but I distinctly recall reading that info in the Oklahoman.

Not doubting you, I just encounter a ton of uneducated hearsay about this and other current legislation. For example, "death panels" on healthcare, "the destruction of medicare," the "end of employer-provided healthcare," the "government confiscation of individuals' guns," etc. etc.

These are ridiculous, fear-based statements that are effective at getting people really freaked out about Obama.

A local article I can recall about the stimulus funding involved Tulsa. Tulsa's city council had the opportunity to accept stimulus funding to hire a dozen officers. The funds were enough to keep the people employed -- with benefits -- for four years.

There were a couple of well -- there's no other way to describe it, extremely partisan Republicans -- on the council who argued against accepting the money. Tulsa's version of Mark Shannon on the radio was railing against it, etc. etc. Their argument was, what happens after four years? How will Tulsa pay for the officers?

Well this was before Tulsa announced they were having to lay off officers.

Tulsa set an all-time record for homicides last year and their crime situation is much worse than OKC's.

Obviously, they chose to accept the stimulus money and hire the officers because the city believes -- wisely, in my opinion -- that its tax revenue situation will improve in the next four years. And they're right.

There are also people who are opposed to spending money on some of the stimulus items. Of course there are! You couldn't get four elected officials to agree on a paint color, let alone a spending initiative.

The bottom line here is there is an awful lot of specious, sensationalistic discussion about how stimulus funding is going to end up costing the states, but I have seen little to no actual evidence that this is true.

I have seen abundant evidence, however, that there is massive, and possibly unprecedented, Republican partisan opposition to literally anything and everything the Obama administration proposes, regardless of its merits or lack thereof.

[Urbanized]

...A question for Urbanized. If you can call posters names is it fair to call you one or would that damage your sensibilities?

Uh... ...if you had actually read my post and looked at who I quoted, I was calling MYSELF a dope. I don't call other posters names on message boards. Ever. Once you resort to namecalling the person on the other end has won. Actually, IMO, once you resort to heated argument, the other person has won. Or, at the very least, you have lost. Sorry to go all Zen.

[bluedogok]

I have seen abundant evidence, however, that there is massive, and possibly unprecedented, Republican partisan opposition to literally anything and everything the Obama administration proposes, regardless of its merits or lack thereof.

I have seen abundant evidence, however, that there is massive, and possibly unprecedented, Democrat partisan opposition to literally anything and everything a Republican administration proposes, regardless of its merits or lack thereof.

I have seen abundant evidence, however, that there is massive, and possibly unprecedented, Republican partisan opposition to literally anything and everything a Democrat administration proposes, regardless of its merits or lack thereof.

Both of those above statements are fundamentally correct, as yours is...welcome two the world of two party politics....
The Republicans are doing nothing much different than they did when Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kenneday, etc. was in office just as it is no different than what the Democrats did when Bush II, Bush I, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, etc. was in office. It's just the same 'ol crap over and over, the main goal of the party in power is to retain their power and nothing else. The same thing will happen again when power flip flops, that is the only constant.