Who knows more about economics? Obama or people who run businesses?

Consider this article from The American Spectator, which talks about the Obammunist response to companies losing massive amounts of money because of Obamacare. (H/T ECM)


By last Friday, AT&T, Caterpillar, Deere & Co., and AK Steel Holding Corp. had all announced that they were taking the one-time charges on their first-quarter balance sheets. More companies were expected to make similar announcements this week.

[…]On Friday White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett were calling the CEOs and Washington office heads of the companies that took the financial hits and attacked them for doing so. One Washington office head said that the White House calls were accusatory and “downright rude.”

[…]”Most of these people [in the Administration] have never had a real job in their lives. They don’t understand a thing about business, and that includes the President,” says a senior lobbyist for one of the companies that announced the charge. “My CEO sat with the President over lunch with two other CEOs, and each of them tried to explain to the President what this bill would do to our companies and the economy in general. First the President didn’t understand what they were talking about. Then he basically told my boss he was lying. Frankly my boss was embarrassed for him; he clearly had not been briefed and didn’t know what was in the bill.”

[…]”We had memos on these issues, but none of our people, we think, looked at them,” says  a staffer. “When they saw the stories last week about the charges some of the companies were taking, they were genuinely surprised and assumed that the companies were just doing this to embarrass them.  They really believed this bill would immediately lower costs. They just didn’t understand what they were voting on.”

And more from National Review, where the CEO of Aetna was interviewed. (H/T Ace of Spades via ECM)


Will insurance premiums go up?

The answer is yes, and some of the things that will drive those premiums are significant additional taxes the industry will ultimately have to pay in the first year.

The President said that this bill would not have any impact on people who already had coverage, that it was about the uninsured, that there would be no change. Will this legislation change the coverage of people who are already paying for it?

My perception is, yes, things will change. You might not have a plan that includes the exact same doctors. You might have plans that have richer benefits, and therefore you’re going to pay more for benefits you may or may not want. It would have been a better message to say, we’re going to make certain you maintain your eligibility.

The “Robin Hood” intention of giving to the unproductive by taking from the productive seldom pays off, since the productive are the ones who give people jobs. And a lot of people are going to lose their jobs because of Obama’s economic ignorance. Either that, or companies will raise their insurance premiums, so that the poor will have to pay more for health care. Obama doesn’t know what he is doing, he probably thinks that communism has made Cuba rich. He’s just trying to help poor America reach the opulence of communist North Korea.

6 thoughts on “Who knows more about economics? Obama or people who run businesses?”

  1. Just more thuggery by Obama & Co. If you dare to point out their errors they’ll drag you in front of Congress to make a statement and scare others from complaining. Sick stuff.

  2. I think the biggest problem is the inability of the left, and in this case Barry O, to think deeply on either causes of problems or the possible consequences of their plans to fix them. I really think they never consider how their superficial policies draw the worst of our society to game the system. Most of us on the right realize full well that there some people who are truly deserving of assistance. The difference is that we know that direct assistance goes to those very people, with nothing going to the slackers and buffoons who never truly make an effort to carry their own loads. Gov’t programs not only allow for the slackers, but they encourage slacking. A conservative, free-market based system provides for those who might otherwise be in need a chance to pull themseles up with even less outside assistance. Only the slackers, then, are left behind with only themselves to blame.

    These basics are lost on people like Obama, especially since I am not convinced he really cares about the truly needy to begin with, but instead is looking for something of a more personal nature when instituting socialist proposals.

    1. I agree with you. I think the government should allow people to give away tons of their income to charity and not have it count as income at all. It’s fun to help a handful of people on a one-on-one basis. And we all should do it. But when the government takes away all our money, it gets that much harder to take care of your neighbor’s needs. Helping people directly is much more efficient. I think when people get help from a FRIEND, then they know they have to be careful about imposing on their FRIEND. But with the government, no one thinks twice about it because they have no idea whose money it is – they just keep using it without shame. And that’s good for nobody.

  3. Hi Wintery:

    I’m glad to see you extol the virtues of helping one’s neighbor, “Love they neighbor as thyself” being the second of the two commandments (along with “Love God, first and Foremost”) Jesus articulated for his followers.

    Can you talk a little about the kinds of charity you favor?

    I, too, am for charitable giving, but it begs the question of how to fund those things that people don’t want to pay for. I’m talking about roads, wars, and schools. None of us are objective enough to properly fund everything that needs it (needs itself being highly subjective). Isn’t this how we get NIMBY ( not in my backyard) and pork barrel projects dominating our discussions and budget projections? I mean, everyone is charitable when they feel like it, which is not sufficient to provide the kind of fiscal order a democratic society needs to function.

    PS: I know a lot of single people, for example, who would be happy not to spend all their tax money on sending other people’s kids to school. A lot of retired people could care less whether kids in their community are educated at all. I, on the other hand, believe that a community without properly educated kids is not the kind of community in which I’d like to live, and so I teach kids ( on a volunteer basis) even though I don’t have any.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s