NEW DELHI: All 500 million mobile users in the country may have to change their phone numbers from January 1, 2010, and adopt a 11-digit cellular number if a DoT proposal is accepted by the industry. But, all leading operators said that it would be ‘next to impossible’ for the country to move to a 11-digit mobile number by January 2010 as this would involve making massive technical changes to both softwares and mobile network configurations, while adding that this process could take up to 12 months. ( Watch )
The DoT has prepared a draft notification in which it wants all mobile users to adopt a 11-digit numbering plan by pre-fixing ‘9’ to their existing cellphone numbers. A DoT official said that the country will eventually have to move to a 11-digit cellular numbers system.
The logic: Under the current 10-digit numbering scheme, only a maximum of one billion mobile numbers can be issued and the mobile connections in the country will cross this mark in the next couple of years. Pre-fixing an additional digit will allow the Indian telecom operators to issue up to 10-billion individual mobile numbers.
The existing numbering plan that was fixed in 2003 was expected to be in place till 2030. This is because, based on 2003-projections, India was expected to touch 500 million mobile customers only by 2030, but the country has reached this mark 21 years ahead of the projected date. India has been the world’s fastest growing cellular market for the last three years. Thirteen mobile phone firms are jostling for space in the Indian market that most analysts feel can support only 4-5 operators. India is adding an average of 15 million new cellular customers every month.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow
My Thoughts: I would not mind having an eleven digit phone number. If you think about it, it real is only two more numbers. I think they should inform more people about it because they say they were planning to have it done by Jan 1, 2010 and i have not heard one word about this. Also is this really important enough to waste time and money into when it is all said and done?
Thursday, December 3, 2009
RBI allows expats to take home 100% salary
NEW DELHI: Christmas cheer has come early for foreign nationals working in India. They can now take their entire post-tax salaries home, following a change in rules to this effect by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).
This will benefit sectors such as aviation, telecom and infrastructure, which employ a large number of expats, making it easier for them to attract talent from abroad. Earlier, expats could take only 75% of their salaries abroad.
The central bank has changed the regulations under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (Fema) in this regard. The decision will give flexibility to companies in structuring the salary packages of expats without bothering about forex laws. Indian citizens employed by foreign companies abroad but on deputation to India will also benefit from this move.
“This is a very positive move from RBI. However, the expatriates have to ensure that they pay proper Indian taxes and any non-compliance will expose them to penal provisions of Indian tax laws and exchange control laws,” said Amitabh Singh, partner at Ernst & Young.
The entire salary of expat employees is taxable in India, according to the current tax provisions. Experts said the move will insulate expats from exchange rate fluctuations.
A senior executive working with an insurance company in the national capital region said the move will certainly help expat employees working in India, especially those at the mid-to-senior levels. “One cannot remit the entire amount back home, but it will certainly give the freedom to have more cash in hand and thus be able to do more things with your money,” he said, requesting anonymity.
However, companies are not committing to anything yet. LG Electronics HR head YV Verma said it is a good move that will benefit expat employees. When asked if the companies will restructure the salaries following this announcement, he said it was too early to comment on that. “We will have to go through the details before making any such decisions,” he said.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/
My Thoughts: I like what they are doing. It is giving freedom to people to have more cash in their hands. This means they will be able to do more things with your money. It will also help expat emmployes working in India.
This will benefit sectors such as aviation, telecom and infrastructure, which employ a large number of expats, making it easier for them to attract talent from abroad. Earlier, expats could take only 75% of their salaries abroad.
The central bank has changed the regulations under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (Fema) in this regard. The decision will give flexibility to companies in structuring the salary packages of expats without bothering about forex laws. Indian citizens employed by foreign companies abroad but on deputation to India will also benefit from this move.
“This is a very positive move from RBI. However, the expatriates have to ensure that they pay proper Indian taxes and any non-compliance will expose them to penal provisions of Indian tax laws and exchange control laws,” said Amitabh Singh, partner at Ernst & Young.
The entire salary of expat employees is taxable in India, according to the current tax provisions. Experts said the move will insulate expats from exchange rate fluctuations.
A senior executive working with an insurance company in the national capital region said the move will certainly help expat employees working in India, especially those at the mid-to-senior levels. “One cannot remit the entire amount back home, but it will certainly give the freedom to have more cash in hand and thus be able to do more things with your money,” he said, requesting anonymity.
However, companies are not committing to anything yet. LG Electronics HR head YV Verma said it is a good move that will benefit expat employees. When asked if the companies will restructure the salaries following this announcement, he said it was too early to comment on that. “We will have to go through the details before making any such decisions,” he said.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/
My Thoughts: I like what they are doing. It is giving freedom to people to have more cash in their hands. This means they will be able to do more things with your money. It will also help expat emmployes working in India.
UNITED WE STAND.
http://www.americanprogress.org/cartoons/2008/01/repository
My Thoughts: I really thought this was a funny cartoon. It is saying how so many people are together waiting to get a new job or their old job back. They are making a funny joke saying "United We Stand" because they are all in the same situation.
Slowly Getting Out Of Tough Economic Times
New unemployment claims have fallen for a fifth straight week, boosting expectations that the economy shed fewer jobs in November and remains on a path to recovery.
That optimism was tempered, though, by signs Thursday that the rebound will be slower and bumpier than those that followed previous recessions. Both retail sales and activity in the service sector unexpectedly shrank last month as consumers remained anxious about their jobs and hesitant to spend.
The surprise dip in the service sector was worrisome, because this area accounts for nearly 80 percent of the nation's economic activity. It includes such diverse industries as health care, retail, financial services and transportation.
Productivity gains in the third quarter also showed that employers are managing to squeeze more work out of fewer workers. That's a potentially ominous sign for the nearly 16 million unemployed Americans.
Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight, said the reports depicted an economy growing but only sluggishly.
"We have got a recovery, but it is going to remain pretty slow and well below what you would normally see coming out of this deep of a recession," Gault said.
Most worrisome for the economy, perhaps, is that consumers — who drive 70 percent of the economy — continue to limit their spending.
The latest evidence was the miserable November the nation's big chain retail stores reported Thursday. After posting two monthly gains after more than a year of declines, the stores said sales dipped last month — a critical decline because it meant the holiday shopping season got off to a lackluster start.
The more positive news Thursday was the Labor Department's report that the number of newly laid-off workers filing for unemployment benefits fell for a fifth consecutive week. It dropped to a seasonally adjusted 457,000 last week. That's the lowest total since the week of Sept. 6, 2008.
The government is expected to report Friday that employers shed 130,000 jobs in November, fewer than the 190,000 jobs lost in October. But forecasters think the unemployment rate will remain at 10.2 percent, a 26-year high.
President Barack Obama kicked off a White House jobs forum Thursday, saying he was "open to every demonstrably good idea" to reverse the rising tide of job losses. But with limited government resources, the private sector ultimately will have to lead.
"We have to be surgical, and we're going to have to be creative," Obama said.
Companies have been laying off fewer workers. But they have yet to ramp up hiring, and the jobless rate is expected to keep climbing, probably hitting 10.5 percent or higher by the middle of next year.
The government's productivity report said output per hour of work shot up at an annual rate of 8.1 percent in the July-September period. It was the sharpest quarterly increase in six years. For now, that means companies can get by without hiring more workers.
The question is how long they can do so. Nigel Gault, an economist at IHS Global Insight, said companies are reaching the limits of their ability to boost output with scaled-down work forces.
Gault expects employers to begin rehiring in coming months to meet customer demand. That would help sustain the recovery, because it would bolster incomes and encourage more consumers to spend. Many analysts say the economy should begin seeing net job growth sometime early next year.
For now, shoppers are being held back not only by job anxiety but by low wages. Over the 12 months that ended in October, wages and salaries — the most vital component of incomes — fell 2.9 percent, the Commerce Department said last week.
Partly because of that, Gault forecast that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will limp along at subpar rates of about 2.5 percent through mid-2010. High unemployment, which has depressed wages and consumers' ability to spend, will continue to restrain the economy, he said.
On Wall Street, a late-day slide pulled stocks lower ahead of the jobs report Friday. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 86.53, or 0.8 percent. Other stock averages also dropped.
The productivity report showed that unit labor costs, a measure of employers' wage and benefit costs, fell at a 2.5 percent rate in the third quarter. The decline followed a flat reading in the spring and a 5 percent plunge in the first quarter. Lower wage costs have allowed companies to bolster their profits even in a weak economy.
The Institute for Supply Management's service sector index dropped to 48.7 in November from 50.6 in October. It disappointed economists who had expected it to remain in positive territory. Any reading below 50 signals the service sector is contracting.
"There's no sugarcoating this report _it's grim," said Sal Guatieri, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets. "While it's unlikely that the economy will backslide into recession, at a minimum this suggests that the economy's underlying momentum is very weak."
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, testifying at his Senate confirmation hearing, gave a sober assessment of the economy.
"Our task is far from complete," he told the Senate Banking Committee. "Far too many Americans are without jobs, and unemployment could remain high for some time even if, as we anticipate, moderate economic growth continues."
___
AP Business Writer Tali Arbel and AP Retail Writer Anne D'Innocenzio in New York, and AP Economics Writers Christopher S. Rugaber and Jeannine Aversa in Washington contributed to this report.
That optimism was tempered, though, by signs Thursday that the rebound will be slower and bumpier than those that followed previous recessions. Both retail sales and activity in the service sector unexpectedly shrank last month as consumers remained anxious about their jobs and hesitant to spend.
The surprise dip in the service sector was worrisome, because this area accounts for nearly 80 percent of the nation's economic activity. It includes such diverse industries as health care, retail, financial services and transportation.
Productivity gains in the third quarter also showed that employers are managing to squeeze more work out of fewer workers. That's a potentially ominous sign for the nearly 16 million unemployed Americans.
Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight, said the reports depicted an economy growing but only sluggishly.
"We have got a recovery, but it is going to remain pretty slow and well below what you would normally see coming out of this deep of a recession," Gault said.
Most worrisome for the economy, perhaps, is that consumers — who drive 70 percent of the economy — continue to limit their spending.
The latest evidence was the miserable November the nation's big chain retail stores reported Thursday. After posting two monthly gains after more than a year of declines, the stores said sales dipped last month — a critical decline because it meant the holiday shopping season got off to a lackluster start.
The more positive news Thursday was the Labor Department's report that the number of newly laid-off workers filing for unemployment benefits fell for a fifth consecutive week. It dropped to a seasonally adjusted 457,000 last week. That's the lowest total since the week of Sept. 6, 2008.
The government is expected to report Friday that employers shed 130,000 jobs in November, fewer than the 190,000 jobs lost in October. But forecasters think the unemployment rate will remain at 10.2 percent, a 26-year high.
President Barack Obama kicked off a White House jobs forum Thursday, saying he was "open to every demonstrably good idea" to reverse the rising tide of job losses. But with limited government resources, the private sector ultimately will have to lead.
"We have to be surgical, and we're going to have to be creative," Obama said.
Companies have been laying off fewer workers. But they have yet to ramp up hiring, and the jobless rate is expected to keep climbing, probably hitting 10.5 percent or higher by the middle of next year.
The government's productivity report said output per hour of work shot up at an annual rate of 8.1 percent in the July-September period. It was the sharpest quarterly increase in six years. For now, that means companies can get by without hiring more workers.
The question is how long they can do so. Nigel Gault, an economist at IHS Global Insight, said companies are reaching the limits of their ability to boost output with scaled-down work forces.
Gault expects employers to begin rehiring in coming months to meet customer demand. That would help sustain the recovery, because it would bolster incomes and encourage more consumers to spend. Many analysts say the economy should begin seeing net job growth sometime early next year.
For now, shoppers are being held back not only by job anxiety but by low wages. Over the 12 months that ended in October, wages and salaries — the most vital component of incomes — fell 2.9 percent, the Commerce Department said last week.
Partly because of that, Gault forecast that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, will limp along at subpar rates of about 2.5 percent through mid-2010. High unemployment, which has depressed wages and consumers' ability to spend, will continue to restrain the economy, he said.
On Wall Street, a late-day slide pulled stocks lower ahead of the jobs report Friday. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 86.53, or 0.8 percent. Other stock averages also dropped.
The productivity report showed that unit labor costs, a measure of employers' wage and benefit costs, fell at a 2.5 percent rate in the third quarter. The decline followed a flat reading in the spring and a 5 percent plunge in the first quarter. Lower wage costs have allowed companies to bolster their profits even in a weak economy.
The Institute for Supply Management's service sector index dropped to 48.7 in November from 50.6 in October. It disappointed economists who had expected it to remain in positive territory. Any reading below 50 signals the service sector is contracting.
"There's no sugarcoating this report _it's grim," said Sal Guatieri, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets. "While it's unlikely that the economy will backslide into recession, at a minimum this suggests that the economy's underlying momentum is very weak."
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, testifying at his Senate confirmation hearing, gave a sober assessment of the economy.
"Our task is far from complete," he told the Senate Banking Committee. "Far too many Americans are without jobs, and unemployment could remain high for some time even if, as we anticipate, moderate economic growth continues."
___
AP Business Writer Tali Arbel and AP Retail Writer Anne D'Innocenzio in New York, and AP Economics Writers Christopher S. Rugaber and Jeannine Aversa in Washington contributed to this report.
My Thoughts: According to the article I guess we are slowly getting out of our recession. I think we still have a long way to go because our unemployment rate is still at an all time high. Theres still a lot of responsibility on the President right now he really needs to think of a way to create new jobs which he is already doing. Hopefully everything will work out!
AIG Bailout!
The U.S. government seized control of American International Inc. -- one of the world's biggest insurers -- in an $85 billion deal that signaled the intensity of its concerns about the danger a collapse could pose to the financial system.
The step marks a dramatic turnabout for the federal government, which had been strongly resisting overtures from AIG for an emergency loan or some intervention that would prevent the insurer from falling into bankruptcy. Just last weekend, the government essentially pulled the plug on Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., allowing the big investment bank to go under instead of giving it financial support. This time, the government decided AIG truly was too big to fail.
Associated Press
Businessmen leave an American International Group office building Tuesday in New York.
The U.S. negotiators drove a hard bargain. Under terms hammered out Tuesday night, the Fed will lend up to $85 billion to AIG, and the U.S. government will effectively get a 79.9% equity stake in the insurer in the form of warrants called equity participation notes. The two-year loan will carry an interest rate of Libor plus 8.5 percentage points. (Libor, the London interbank offered rate, is a common short-term lending benchmark.)
The loan is secured by AIG's assets, including its profitable insurance businesses, giving the Fed some protection even if markets continue to sink. And if AIG rebounds, taxpayers could reap a big profit through the government's equity stake.
"This loan will facilitate a process under which AIG will sell certain of its businesses in an orderly manner, with the least possible disruption to the overall economy," the Fed said in a statement.
It puts the government in control of a private insurer -- a historic development, particularly considering that AIG isn't directly regulated by the federal government. The Fed took the highly unusual step using legal authority granted in the Federal Reserve Act, which allows it to lend to nonbanks under "unusual and exigent" circumstances, something it invoked when Bear Stearns Cos. was rescued in March.
As part of the deal, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson insisted that AIG's chief executive, Robert Willumstad, step aside. Mr. Paulson personally told Mr. Willumstad the news in a phone call on Tuesday, according to a person familiar with the call.
Mr. Willumstad will be succeeded by Edward Liddy, the former head of insurer Allstate Corp.
AIG's bailout caps a tumultuous 10 days that have remade the American financial system. In that time, the government has engineered rescues that insert it deep into the housing and insurance industries, while Wall Street has watched two of its last four big independent brokerage firms exit the scene.
The U.S. on Sept. 6 took over mortgage-lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as they teetered near collapse. This Sunday, the U.S. refused to bail out Wall Street pillar Lehman Brothers, which filed for bankruptcy-court protection and is now being sold off in pieces. That same day, another struggling Wall Street titan, Merrill Lynch & Co., agreed to sell itself to Bank of America Corp.
The step marks a dramatic turnabout for the federal government, which had been strongly resisting overtures from AIG for an emergency loan or some intervention that would prevent the insurer from falling into bankruptcy. Just last weekend, the government essentially pulled the plug on Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., allowing the big investment bank to go under instead of giving it financial support. This time, the government decided AIG truly was too big to fail.
Associated Press
Businessmen leave an American International Group office building Tuesday in New York.
The U.S. negotiators drove a hard bargain. Under terms hammered out Tuesday night, the Fed will lend up to $85 billion to AIG, and the U.S. government will effectively get a 79.9% equity stake in the insurer in the form of warrants called equity participation notes. The two-year loan will carry an interest rate of Libor plus 8.5 percentage points. (Libor, the London interbank offered rate, is a common short-term lending benchmark.)
The loan is secured by AIG's assets, including its profitable insurance businesses, giving the Fed some protection even if markets continue to sink. And if AIG rebounds, taxpayers could reap a big profit through the government's equity stake.
"This loan will facilitate a process under which AIG will sell certain of its businesses in an orderly manner, with the least possible disruption to the overall economy," the Fed said in a statement.
It puts the government in control of a private insurer -- a historic development, particularly considering that AIG isn't directly regulated by the federal government. The Fed took the highly unusual step using legal authority granted in the Federal Reserve Act, which allows it to lend to nonbanks under "unusual and exigent" circumstances, something it invoked when Bear Stearns Cos. was rescued in March.
As part of the deal, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson insisted that AIG's chief executive, Robert Willumstad, step aside. Mr. Paulson personally told Mr. Willumstad the news in a phone call on Tuesday, according to a person familiar with the call.
Mr. Willumstad will be succeeded by Edward Liddy, the former head of insurer Allstate Corp.
AIG's bailout caps a tumultuous 10 days that have remade the American financial system. In that time, the government has engineered rescues that insert it deep into the housing and insurance industries, while Wall Street has watched two of its last four big independent brokerage firms exit the scene.
The U.S. on Sept. 6 took over mortgage-lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as they teetered near collapse. This Sunday, the U.S. refused to bail out Wall Street pillar Lehman Brothers, which filed for bankruptcy-court protection and is now being sold off in pieces. That same day, another struggling Wall Street titan, Merrill Lynch & Co., agreed to sell itself to Bank of America Corp.
My Thoughts: I think that AIG definately messed up. The government once again bailed out a company that just couldn't hold up to our tough economic times. They also definately played a part in our economic recession because they were a puppet used by the government trying to get everyone to be a home owner. I think that the next time AIG messes up and is in a lot of debt, then too bad you're on your own.
Obama Spending Money We Don't Have!
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/files/2009/04/us_president_barack_obama_spending_moneyMy Thoughts: They are trying to say that Obama is spending a lot of money when he is saying he is trying to save money. This messes up the whole economy because we are spending money we don't have. It does not complete the supply and demand when you are buying supply and you have a "fake" demand. That tends to create scarcity because you buy things you can not pay for.
Bank Of America Is Ready To Pay Back Some Debt!
Bank of America announced that it was ready to repay the $45 billion it received in government bail-out money, which it will finance by selling $18.8 billion in securities and tapping $26.2 billion of “excess liquidity”. The bank had to demonstrate to the Treasury that it was stable enough to obtain investment through the markets. By exiting the Troubled Asset Relief Programme, BofA will be free of many of the restrictions imposed on it, including on executive pay, which is said to be hampering the bank from appointing a successor to the outgoing chief executive, Kenneth Lewis.
Directors at the Royal Bank of Scotland threatened to resign if the British Treasury prevented them from paying £1.5 billion ($2.5 billion) in bonuses at its investment-banking unit. Some British bankers have stepped up their criticism of what they say is overbearing government influence in matters of pay and compensation.
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15037800
My Thoughts: I think it is about time that Bank Of America stepped up and is starting to pay their bailout money back. They really need to step it up even more if they want to survive because I really do not think that the governmment will bail them out again. They are definately figuring things out though and that's good.
Directors at the Royal Bank of Scotland threatened to resign if the British Treasury prevented them from paying £1.5 billion ($2.5 billion) in bonuses at its investment-banking unit. Some British bankers have stepped up their criticism of what they say is overbearing government influence in matters of pay and compensation.
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15037800
My Thoughts: I think it is about time that Bank Of America stepped up and is starting to pay their bailout money back. They really need to step it up even more if they want to survive because I really do not think that the governmment will bail them out again. They are definately figuring things out though and that's good.
AIG Needs More Allowance
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/economy/ig/Economic-Cartoons/Future-AIG-Exec.05IT.htm
My Thoughts: I think this is pretty funny because even though AIG got bailed out by the government, they are still trying to get their yearly bonuses. It just shows how greedy people are. If AIG is not doing a good job in the first place I do not think they deserve any type of bonus.
US Senate casts first votes on Obama health plan!
WASHINGTON — The US Senate on Thursday cast its first votes on legislation to enact President Barack Obama's top domestic priority, overhauling US health care, four days into its bitter debate on the plan.
Lawmakers voted 61-39 on an amendment, authored by Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski, to make it easier for women to get no-cost preventive care including mammograms or annual tests for heart disease.
The vote came after a government advisory task force sparked fears of future rationing of health care by issuing an instantly controversial finding that regular mammograms were not necessary for women under 50.
Senators also defeated a Republican amendment taking aim at the legislation's 400 billion dollars in cuts to the Medicare health plan for the elderly, a key part of paying for the nearly one-trillion-dollar bill.
After months of fractious debate in committee and behind closed doors and a key procedural vote two weeks ago, the Senate finally began its formal consideration of the bill on Monday.
Democrats hope to finish work on the measure this year -- but many votes, and likely Republican delaying tactics, stand in their way.
The White House-backed bill aims to extend coverage to some 31 million Americans out of the roughly 36 million who currently lack it, while curbing soaring costs and improving the quality of care.
The measure includes a government-backed insurance "public option" to compete with private insurers, tough new restrictions on dropping care for pre-existing ailments, and an end on lifetime caps for coverage.
It is estimated to cost 848 billion dollars through 2019 but cut the sky-high US budget deficit by 130 billion dollars over the same period, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
Senate approval of the measure would force the Senate and House of Representatives to reconcile their rival versions of the bill and vote again on whether to send it to Obama.
The United States is the world's richest nation but the only industrialized democracy that does not provide health care coverage to all of its citizens, about 36 million of whom are uninsured.
Washington spends more than double what Britain, France and Germany do per person on health care, but lags behind other countries in life expectancy and infant mortality, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/
My thoughts: I think that Obama's health plan should not be passed because it sounds like a good idea now but not when it is going to cost us 848 billion dollars by 2019. That means taxes will go up. Our kids will have to pay for most of it. Just think about it, would you have wanted your parents to pass a plan that would include you paying off 848 billion dollars?
Lawmakers voted 61-39 on an amendment, authored by Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski, to make it easier for women to get no-cost preventive care including mammograms or annual tests for heart disease.
The vote came after a government advisory task force sparked fears of future rationing of health care by issuing an instantly controversial finding that regular mammograms were not necessary for women under 50.
Senators also defeated a Republican amendment taking aim at the legislation's 400 billion dollars in cuts to the Medicare health plan for the elderly, a key part of paying for the nearly one-trillion-dollar bill.
After months of fractious debate in committee and behind closed doors and a key procedural vote two weeks ago, the Senate finally began its formal consideration of the bill on Monday.
Democrats hope to finish work on the measure this year -- but many votes, and likely Republican delaying tactics, stand in their way.
The White House-backed bill aims to extend coverage to some 31 million Americans out of the roughly 36 million who currently lack it, while curbing soaring costs and improving the quality of care.
The measure includes a government-backed insurance "public option" to compete with private insurers, tough new restrictions on dropping care for pre-existing ailments, and an end on lifetime caps for coverage.
It is estimated to cost 848 billion dollars through 2019 but cut the sky-high US budget deficit by 130 billion dollars over the same period, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
Senate approval of the measure would force the Senate and House of Representatives to reconcile their rival versions of the bill and vote again on whether to send it to Obama.
The United States is the world's richest nation but the only industrialized democracy that does not provide health care coverage to all of its citizens, about 36 million of whom are uninsured.
Washington spends more than double what Britain, France and Germany do per person on health care, but lags behind other countries in life expectancy and infant mortality, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/
My thoughts: I think that Obama's health plan should not be passed because it sounds like a good idea now but not when it is going to cost us 848 billion dollars by 2019. That means taxes will go up. Our kids will have to pay for most of it. Just think about it, would you have wanted your parents to pass a plan that would include you paying off 848 billion dollars?
Obama Needs Help!
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- President Barack Obama on Thursday said he'd look into giving businesses more tax incentives to add employees, as leaders from Corporate America, labor and academia offered up ideas for creating jobs at a White House jobs summit.
Obama called new tax breaks for businesses "an idea we think is worthy of further consideration" at the end of the summit, which drew about 130 participants. He also said that there was unanimous agreement on growing U.S. exports and said that too many businesses still can't get the credit they need to expand.
"We are going to have to unlock that," he said.
With U.S. unemployment at a 26-year high and pressure on Obama's party to address the situation as an election year dawns, Obama's administration is considering a number of job creation proposals but does not want to expand the deficit significantly.
Obama said he heard ideas for job growth including protecting intellectual property and upgrading worker training programs.
He opened the summit on Thursday with a stark message to businesses, saying that only they can hasten an economic recovery and that the government's resources are limited due to the U.S. budget deficit.
"I want to be clear," Obama said at the outset of the summit. "While I believe that government has a critical role in creating the conditions for economic growth, ultimately, true economic recovery is only going to come from the private sector," Obama said.
"We don't have enough public dollars to fill the hole of private dollars that was created as a consequence of the crisis," Obama said.
The summit took place a day ahead of the release of the latest U.S. employment data, which is expected to show yet another month of job losses. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch forecast that the economy shed 100,000 jobs in November. It would be the 23rd consecutive month of job losses. See Economic Calendar.
In a shot at Obama and Democrats, Republicans held a counter-event before the start of the White House's gathering. House Republican Leader John Boehner invited a group of conservative economists to his office Thursday morning for advice on creating jobs.
Boehner also faulted the White House's agenda for climate change and health care.
"The American people are asking, 'where are the jobs?' but all they are getting from Washington Democrats is more spending, more debt and more policies that hurt small businesses," he said.
Organized labor, meanwhile, is asking the president to support a wide-ranging package of funding for infrastructure projects, direct aid to state and local government and extensions of unemployment and COBRA benefits.
"The summit will only mean something if it triggers an urgent round of actions to create American jobs," said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka on Thursday.
Robert Schroeder is a reporter for MarketWatch in Washington.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-opens-job-summit-with-appeal-to-businesses-2009-12-03-145000
My Thoughts: I think it is good that Obama is finally addressing the unemployment situation. Hopefully he can get a team together to come up with new ideas on developing new jobs. I think the idea about reducing taxes on businesses to hire new people is a good idea and should deeply consider it.
Obama called new tax breaks for businesses "an idea we think is worthy of further consideration" at the end of the summit, which drew about 130 participants. He also said that there was unanimous agreement on growing U.S. exports and said that too many businesses still can't get the credit they need to expand.
"We are going to have to unlock that," he said.
With U.S. unemployment at a 26-year high and pressure on Obama's party to address the situation as an election year dawns, Obama's administration is considering a number of job creation proposals but does not want to expand the deficit significantly.
Obama said he heard ideas for job growth including protecting intellectual property and upgrading worker training programs.
He opened the summit on Thursday with a stark message to businesses, saying that only they can hasten an economic recovery and that the government's resources are limited due to the U.S. budget deficit.
"I want to be clear," Obama said at the outset of the summit. "While I believe that government has a critical role in creating the conditions for economic growth, ultimately, true economic recovery is only going to come from the private sector," Obama said.
"We don't have enough public dollars to fill the hole of private dollars that was created as a consequence of the crisis," Obama said.
The summit took place a day ahead of the release of the latest U.S. employment data, which is expected to show yet another month of job losses. Economists surveyed by MarketWatch forecast that the economy shed 100,000 jobs in November. It would be the 23rd consecutive month of job losses. See Economic Calendar.
In a shot at Obama and Democrats, Republicans held a counter-event before the start of the White House's gathering. House Republican Leader John Boehner invited a group of conservative economists to his office Thursday morning for advice on creating jobs.
Boehner also faulted the White House's agenda for climate change and health care.
"The American people are asking, 'where are the jobs?' but all they are getting from Washington Democrats is more spending, more debt and more policies that hurt small businesses," he said.
Organized labor, meanwhile, is asking the president to support a wide-ranging package of funding for infrastructure projects, direct aid to state and local government and extensions of unemployment and COBRA benefits.
"The summit will only mean something if it triggers an urgent round of actions to create American jobs," said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka on Thursday.
Robert Schroeder is a reporter for MarketWatch in Washington.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-opens-job-summit-with-appeal-to-businesses-2009-12-03-145000
My Thoughts: I think it is good that Obama is finally addressing the unemployment situation. Hopefully he can get a team together to come up with new ideas on developing new jobs. I think the idea about reducing taxes on businesses to hire new people is a good idea and should deeply consider it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)