Going Rogue

[WT Sharpe]

[QUOTE=Nate the great;660448]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

You are more than wlecome to move to one of those countries and use their system. There is no need to try to bring it here.

In the 60s, Many cars sported the bumper sticker, "Love It or Leave It." I prefer to love it, and stay and continue to work for an even more perfect union.

[emellaich]

Re: The stimulus package

No matter how it was spent, and no matter the short term consequences, I think it'll turn out as a mistake.

I used to complain when I heard G.W. Bush was spending 1.5 billion on Aids in Africa. It would be wonderful to help all of the poor and the under-privileged in all of the world, but when your budget is upside down you can't just take out loans on the future. Now, I hear that Obama has sent $60-some billion for the same purpose. I believe that the Bush administration did not make fiscally sound decisions. And the Obama administration has proven to be an order of magnitude worse.

Sometimes, the best medicine for an illness is to hunker down and let your system get better. Applying leeches might make you feel like you are doing something, but it can make you sicker in the end.

In regard to the stimulus package, I do expect that it has/will improve the economy. Money spent is money in use and the trickle down/up/sideways impact will magnify the results. But where does the money come from?

How do we absorb debt-payments in the future without stifling our economy in the future? At one point, the fed was actually buying up treasury securities in order to prop up demand for them. This would be like using your credit cards to pay your mortgage.

My forecast is for a near term blip as the stimulus and time create a mini-recovery. Long term, I expect the dollar to sink, especially against China and the Asian economies. Inflation will rise sharply and our buying power will sink.

To me this is the 'government bubble'.

During the Internet bubble we saw crazy behavior as so-called investors chased stock prices up when the companies had no hope of profitability. Experts called this the new economy until it came back to earth.

During the real estate bubble, we had some of the lowest loan rates in history, yet 1/3 to 1/2 of buyers were buying on variable rate loans. Anyone could see the consequences. There was no way that those variable late loans were ever going to get cheaper. In fact, the history of interest rates would tell you they were going to go up. Of course, those who could afford the stuff they were buying would never choose a variable rate loan. This meant that there was a guarantee that defaults would be huge once the loans reset to normal interest rates, and/or the rates rose.

The government bubble assumes that money is limitless. To a large extent this view is a problem we have had for many years. The problem has cut across political parties. If we need more money we can just 'create' it with a budget and borrow it from the Chinese and the Saudi's. Obama's folks have taken this to an unbelievable extreme -- at least to me. I thought the spending of past administrations, such as Bush's was short-sighted and possibly negligent. I literally can not believe the level of deficit spending in the Obama administration.

And a few years from now, it will be obvious how bad these decisions were. The bottom line is that sound financial practices always seem to rise to the top. Whether it is tulip bulbs, the internet, real estate or government spending don't bet against common sense. You really can't spend more than you make on an ongoing basis.

MLH

[WT Sharpe]

[QUOTE=Nate the great;660448]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

You are more than wlecome to move to one of those countries ...

I'm sure these folks will be glad to know that.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by emellaich

During the real estate bubble, we had some of the lowest loan rates in history, yet 1/3 to 1/2 of buyers were buying on variable rate loans. Anyone could see the consequences. There was no way that those variable late loans were ever going to get cheaper.

Because people didn't think the bubble would burst. They banked on selling their house in two years for a 40% win fall. So, why get a 4% fixed when they payments were so much lower on a 1.5% adjustable with a 5 year balloon. Or even worse an interest only or negative amortization. Everyone figured they could sell their house in 2 years and be rich. I guess they didn't realize that this is all paper wealth invented by debt rather than actualy wealth built on production and commodities with real value.

Yes, the US is in bad shape not just because of the government but because of GREED!

BOb

[BenG]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

In the 60s, Many cars sported the bumper sticker, "Love It or Leave It."

That's what I said last year about those Texans who were talking about making Texas a separate country. (Chuck Norris volunteered to be president)

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I'm not covered under the current system (and I like it that way).

That's because you can go to an emergency room and get medical treatment that the rest of us have to pay for should you need it. How well would you or any other opponent of national health care like it if the law was that no one could receive medical treatment at any hospital unless they either had health insurance or first posted sufficient cash to pay for any treatment they received so that taxpayers and those with insurance wouldn't have to bear the burden?

I suspect -- but admit that I do not know -- that most naysayers to national insurance who are currently uninsured by choice or by circumstance would be very unhappy if their access to the hospital emergency room required advance payment for all costs.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Those of you from other countries, let's hear from you. Would you trade what you have for the USA system?

Certainly not.

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

excuse me? Would you trade the freedoms, opportunities, lifestyle you have here for any other countries system?
As

I feel that living in the system that I do, gives me the greatest opportunity to live a free, happy, fulfilled life.

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Saturday Night Live -- is a comedy show that is always poking fun at politicians (among other things) and the exaggerate and make things up. So he's being completely incredulous that CNN a reputable news station would fact check a comedy skit.

Quite comical the chain though, all it would need was a SNL sketch about a news show watching a comedy news show poking fun about a news show fact checking a comedy show and we would have had a complete circle.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

I"d rather my government concentrate on keeping us safe from outside (and inside) attacks, put more money into education, cut the rampant corruption (HA!) and help those truly in need.

Putting more money into education is simply putting more money into lifetime employment for a lot of mediocrity. I agree education needs more money and should get it, but not until teaching jobs are merit based rather than time-served based. Besides it is very difficult for the federal government to boost education aid because education is still considered a local-based prerogative, which is one reason why there is such a disparity in the quality of education received across the country, and even within a single state.

Yes, cut the corruption. Absolutely. First step: do not let any congress person serve more than 1 term on any committee and require them to rotate through every other committee before they can return to one on which they have already served.

Second step: Let no representative serve more than 4 consecutive terms and no senator more than 2 consecutive terms. If term limits are good enough for the presidency, they are good enough for congresspersons.

Third step: Ban all lobbyists from Capitol Hill and even 1,000 feet. They are worse than sexual predators and if banning is good enough for predators, it ought to be good enough for lobbyists. In addition, require that any company that has a federal contract to pay a tax of 250% on all sums it spends on lobbying or "educating" any government official other than in public hearings that are conducted under oath (so that falsehoods made in attempt to influence legislation can be prosecuted) and broadcast in full on C-SPAN.

Fourth step: Create a special US federal prosecutor whose district is solely government employees, including congresspersons and executive branch folk, and whose focus is corruption by politicians and civil servants. Create a parallel special prosecutor for government contractors and lobbyists who lobby the federal government.

That will get us started on cleaning up corruption.

Finally, yes, help those truly in need. Of course, those truly in need are not the Halliburtons, Goldman Sachs, and KKRs of this world nor are they corrupt foreign governments who happen to currently espouse what we want to hear (Karzai and Afghanistan come to mind). Rather, lets take care of our own beginning with our wounded soldiers who deserve better disability pensions and medical treatment, and proceed down the path to include those who are too poor to afford medical insurance or to bu food. Does it not bother anyone that we can ship tonms of food to places around the world to feed the hungry yet we have starving folk right here?

Yes, DesertGrandma, let's keep our country safe by fighting the good war with equipment our military says it needs and not equipment our legislators want; let's fight corruption; and let's help those who need food and healthcare. Good thoughts for this holiday season.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

And so you think having our government screw around with the current system is a better idea?

It can't be any worse than the system in place. Capitalism and free markets have their place, but they are not panaceas to all ills. Just as a free market military force (i.e., let private companies decide where, when, how to defend our country and to create and raise the forces to do so) would be an unacceptable way of defending our country, so, too, the free market system has shown itself to be an unacceptable way to provide universal education and now universal healthcare. Because the market has failed, let the government try. It has done a very good job overall with Medicare and the VA. I don't see many conservatives demanding that the goverment stop giving them Medicare.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by rhadin

That's because you can go to an emergency room and get medical treatment that the rest of us have to pay for should you need it. How well would you or any other opponent of national health care like it if the law was that no one could receive medical treatment at any hospital unless they either had health insurance or first posted sufficient cash to pay for any treatment they received so that taxpayers and those with insurance wouldn't have to bear the burden?

I suspect -- but admit that I do not know -- that most naysayers to national insurance who are currently uninsured by choice or by circumstance would be very unhappy if their access to the hospital emergency room required advance payment for all costs.

So long as you attack me by impugning my motives there is no chance that we will come to an understanding. I have said this before, and I will say it again.

I am gainfully

employed. I will pay for

my own medical care.

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I've been wondering about something, and this thread is a good place to ask. If she is a lightweight, then why are so many people spending so much time attacking her? When someone gets this much negative press, isn't it possible that the media sees her as a serious candidate and is making sure that she is discredited?

This is nothing to do with the media seeing her as a serious candidate unless you also think that the octomom, john and kate and other reality tv stars are also serious candidates, the chat show hosts and their writers need to produce a vaguely funny and topical monologue each weekday so its inevitable that they will pick the easy targets of famous people with little real merit.

Originally Posted by pilotbob

But, actually, I think we need to remove alot of regulation, not add more. For example, why can't health insurers compete over state lines? That's crazy.... if any company could provide insurance in all the states then there would be more competition.

Wouldn't the most likely situation then be that you ended up with a few really big players covering the whole country who were able to be far more efficient at refusing to payout claims and avoiding insuring the people that might harm their profits.

The focus of your healthcare system are the profits of the health insurance companies, shouldn't the primary focus of any healthcare system be the actual healthcare?

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I am gainfully

employed. I will pay for

my own medical care.

Here's hoping you never catch anything too expensive then.

On another note, wouldn't this topic be better suited to the Lounge since even in the beginning it was never really a reading recommendation.

[BenG]

I am gainfully employed. I will pay for my own medical care.

And so are most of the people who are disagreeing with you.

[kennyc]

What I'm finding astonishing is that she has managed to capture headlines in most of the media for the last week. Incredible. Even better than Ann Coulter.

How about Sarah for Prez and Ann for Vice? she'd make a good Cheney.