I (respectfully) disagree. There is hardly anything ingrained about a social welfare net in the U.S. Social security is not “sacrosanct” — Bush tried to privatize it! Sure, that didn’t go anywhere (given the financial crisis, what a disaster that would have been!), but he tried. Decades later, collective bargaining rights for unions are still mighty hard to come by (see the Employer Free Choice Act debate). Other signs the social safety net lets too many fall through abound. The U.S. is one of only four countries in the world that doesn’t provide paid parental leave (the other three are Liberia, Papua New Guinea, and Swaziland). Out of the top 20 economies, we’re the only one that doesn’t provide guaranteed sick leave or paid vacation. And health care? For people to be uninsured or go bankrupt because of medical bills is unheard of in other advanced industrialized democracies.

The social welfare net in the U.S. leaves much to be desired. If Obama’s channeling FDR is meant to indicate that there’s a chance he’ll improve it, I’m all for the comparison.

War always stimulates an economy– when there was still a draft it completely opened up the job market and virtually eliminated unemployment, war sparks the production of steal, iron other resources necessary for wartime, and in some instances allows our country to acquire additional resources from other regions.

Obama’s bill seems counter intuitive for many reasons. In the bill he has made few, if any, concessions to the Republican party regarding the economy in order to stimulate bipartisan cooperation– and now Republicans are being portrayed as stubborn. The Fed Reserve is already printing and pumping entirely too much money into a mutilated market, which is why we find ourselves in a deflationary enviroment– soon to be inflationary– then worst of all, possibly followed by hyperinflation (equities up, dollar decimated in value).

Lastly, his health care plan will only most likely hurt the unemployment rate. He is mandating all businesses to provide health care, even smaller employers who previously weren’t required. Regardless of an individual’s state of health the upper class will receive less coverage, the middle class will most likely receive the same or a small incremental change, and the lowest will most likely be fully covered. Having to provide health care will function as a tax on smaller businesses/employers and lead to further job cuts or lower income. Additionally, he is pushing for the federal government to control/run this sector–there is typically less efficiency whenever there is big government.

I would love to hear anyone’s thoughts…

Here is a link of how many economists have come out since January against Obama’s stimulus bill:

http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf