yeahhh

In my first article, "Economic woes hurt Medicare, Social Security" the author talks about the titled programs will run short of funds sooner than previously expected, due to the recession. It is now expected that the Social Security trust fun will be exhausted by 2037 now, and the Medicare hospital trust fund will become insolvent by 2017. Treasury secretary Tim Geithner said this report shows the urgency for the government to overhaul and restructure these programs. Republicans and Democrats disagree over how to restructure, with the Republicans opposing a democrat-written bill to offer government health insurance to the 46 million uninsured people.

I wish I knew more about the health care industry, but it seems to me that it is impossible for the government to pay for so many people's insurance. It astounds me that almost a sixth of our population doesn't have health insurance, and that makes me think: why aren't health insurance companies efficient enough to tap into this huge consumer base. I feel like in the last few years more and more people have started to take advantage of the government plans, which creates a burden on the government and is bad for our debt. However, the goal should be to find a system which can sustain everyone, and I feel if people want to keep these institutions such as Social Security and Medicare, we're going to need to raise taxes.

My second article was titled "GMAC to provide financing for Chrysler dealers, which was about about how Chrysler's bankruptcy judge said that since Chrysler Financial (Chrysler's lender), stopped lending to Chrysler after the bankruptcy declaration, that Chrysler could now get financing from GMAC, the former financing unit of GM. GMAC will now assess dealer credit over the next 180 days to determine which Chrysler dealers  are eligible for long-term credit lines, and which ones have to find their own financing sources.

I wonder how much having to transfer to this new financial company is going to hurt Chrysler's chance at survival. It seems like it will definitely slow down the recovery process if anything. Also, i wonder why a financial institution named after Chrysler refused to lend them money after the bankruptcy declaration. There is much to learn here....

My third article was called "How business will wage war on Obama tax plan", and it talks about how business will fight Obama's overseas tax shelters that were supposedly loopholes for corporations. One of the most contested loopholes is letting companies not pay U.S. taxes on oversea investments until the money comes back home, allowing them to stash profits and jobs overseas. Big companies have already started to form coalitions to fight the administrations plan, and have 4 major points they are addressing. 1) that america is unique in taxes overseas subsidiaries and the loopholes are necessary to keep American business competitive, 2.) that the action would be bad for an ailing economy, because by making them less competitive, your giving multinational businesses incentive to move headquarters, 3.) the companies are drumming up local stir by appealing to lawmakers in their own states, and 4.) companies are stressing that changes to deferral should only happen in the context of a broader rewrite of the tax code, one that can properly compensate a little for these new expenses.

In my opinion, these companies are completely right. It seems to me that Obama did not do his homework on this one, and that this tax change is only going to hurt the American people. rather than helping them. If these companies are pissed enough to move out of the country for this, I think Obama should reconsider instituting it. If America is the only country that taxes its country's abroad business investments, why take it any further than that?