The Economy

[top gun]

BigRob;61837]You do realize that Obama is going to expand the deficit right? Remember he also sponsored a bill that would have sent $800 billion over seas. So all this talk about he would be spending money at home, his actions have yet to back that up.

The fact is Bush is the biggest spender of all times... and he's a Republican. McCain wants to kill off Social Security & Medicare... make it an individual "stock market" choice. We see in the past few days how that can fall away in a second. Sure eventually things will rebound but when you're retired you need that money TODAY!

It won't be easy but roll back the Bush tax cuts to the rich. Get out of the occupying entire counties business and make sure Big Business is paying it's fair share and we will eventually see some daylight.

This is the sad thing everybody needs to know and set in their minds to NEVER EVER VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS AGAIN.

Republicans are doing much of this on purpose. They have no problem playing loose & fast with big business breaks & bailouts because they want us SO POOR that they can they say... SEE WE JUST CAN'T AFFORD ENTITLEMENTS LIKE SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE!

I remember we tried to make it private, but it was killed.

DO YOU NOT SEE ANYTHING? People collecting off the stock market are about to jump out windows after all the failures & would be if not for all the series of government bailouts THIS TIME!

Another day another bailout for failed Republican policy... The largest insurance company in America AIG fails! I'll start the thread so you might hear about it.

Every campaign is going to spend money. No one can fault them for that. McCain will continue to spend as President as well. The issue here however is that Obama supporters somehow believe we are going to have all this money to spend domestically when we are not going to. Almost 3/4 of the money we would have saved if there was no war, he would sent overseas to fight poverty.

Dude we're not going to be out of this BUSH REPUBLICAN CLUSTERFOCK for a long time. But how stupid can we be to just continue on doing the SAME clusterfocking under John McSame?

Social Security & Medicare have to be shored up that's not even a question. On heathcare I think there will be some type of a bridge plan worked out. I don't think they can go full national until this stupid wasted occupation debt is whittled down. But with an Obama administration and a Democratic Congress they can relatively quickly use their leverage to encourage better prices & more access.

When the insurance companies, drug & heathcare monopolies see that they really could become completely nationalized if their inflation is not curbed they may well make some massive adjustments to create a much better healthcare environment.

 

[BigRob]

The fact is Bush is the biggest spender of all times... and he's a Republican. McCain wants to kill off Social Security & Medicare... make it an individual "stock market" choice. We see in the past few days how that can fall away in a second. Sure eventually things will rebound but when you're retired you need that money TODAY!

Bush has spent a ton yes. If Obama keeps his campaign promises his budget will be a 10% increase on the Bush budget... so, if spending is your concern, how exactly do you support him?

It won't be easy but roll back the Bush tax cuts to the rich. Get out of the occupying entire counties business and make sure Big Business is paying it's fair share and we will eventually see some daylight.

This is the sad thing everybody needs to know and set in their minds to NEVER EVER VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS AGAIN.

Rolling back the Bush tax cuts will generate 270 Billion over 5 years. (Clinton levels) Obama promises to increase the budget by 300 billion a year. Quite the shortfall.

You then say "Big Business" must pay their "fair share." This argument is completely worthless until you define "Big Business" and "fair share" and then set out parameters and tax brackets and account for the short fall. Saying "big business" will pay their "fair share" to account for the shortfall makes no sense.

Republicans are doing much of this on purpose. They have no problem playing loose & fast with big business breaks & bailouts because they want us SO POOR that they can they say... SEE WE JUST CAN'T AFFORD ENTITLEMENTS LIKE SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE!

So the Republicans forced banks to give bad loans, then crashed the housing market and the banking sector to prevent paying social security? I am sorry, but you sound like a moron by saying that.

DO YOU NOT SEE ANYTHING? People collecting off the stock market are about to jump out windows after all the failures & would be if not for all the series of government bailouts THIS TIME!

Another day another bailout for failed Republican policy... The largest insurance company in America AIG fails! I'll start the thread so you might hear about it.

Why would people "collecting" off the market jump out of a window? All of that aside, I did see the AIG situation.

In regards to that, we "loaned" them money, at an 8.5% interest rate. Should they pay the money back, the taxpayer actually makes money. Should AIG have collapsed you would have seen huge ramifications all over the world. So really, in this case, the loan was the only option.

Further, there are stipulations on the loan, such as the government can control the board etc...

Dude we're not going to be out of this BUSH REPUBLICAN CLUSTERFOCK for a long time. But how stupid can we be to just continue on doing the SAME clusterfocking under John McSame?

Social Security & Medicare have to be shored up that's not even a question. On heathcare I think there will be some type of a bridge plan worked out. I don't think they can go full national until this stupid wasted occupation debt is whittled down. But with an Obama administration and a Democratic Congress they can relatively quickly use their leverage to encourage better prices & more access.

When the insurance companies, drug & heathcare monopolies see that they really could become completely nationalized if their inflation is not curbed they may well make some massive adjustments to create a much better healthcare environment.

Social Security would not need to be "shored up" if we would simply stop borrowing against it. Further, social security does not even beat inflation in terms of a return. If you let me invest the money I pay into it, I would get a better return with ease. So why exactly should I be in favor or supporting something I can pay into my whole life, which will not even beat inflation?

Further, Senate Bill 2433 (Obama's baby) pledges $800 billion overseas to fight poverty. All this talk of "spending the money at home" is wishful thinking. Further, guess what committee rushed that bill through, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by who... yes, Joe Biden.

Further, you basically propose that a heathcare company needs to control inflation, how do you plan for that to happen? Econ 101 tells us all that setting price ceilings is a terrible idea.

 

[top gun]

BigRob;61909]Bush has spent a ton yes. If Obama keeps his campaign promises his budget will be a 10% increase on the Bush budget... so, if spending is your concern, how exactly do you support him?

All politicians speak in "goals". The Obama goals are so much better for the American people that the continuation of Bush goals with a McBush I can't even compare it.

If things keep getting whored out like your group is doing there won't be anything left TO save. We can and will do much better than this.

Rolling back the Bush tax cuts will generate 270 Billion over 5 years. (Clinton levels) Obama promises to increase the budget by 300 billion a year. Quite the shortfall.

You then say "Big Business" must pay their "fair share." This argument is completely worthless until you define "Big Business" and "fair share" and then set out parameters and tax brackets and account for the short fall. Saying "big business" will pay their "fair share" to account for the shortfall makes no sense.

It's a comprehensive plan that will take time. But what we have now with this Republican economic debocal reminds me of what my Dad used to say... Son when you find yourself in a hole over your head... stop digging.

So you have the roll back on the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Stop the massive bleed off of funds on the War of lies... maybe even push Iraq to pay for some of our effort. And as far as Corporate Welfare it should stop or be massively cretailed. We might have to also cut back on certain foriegn aid packages.

There's things we can do. We don't have to just stay stuck on stupid because we happen to be there now.

So the Republicans forced banks to give bad loans, then crashed the housing market and the banking sector to prevent paying social security? I am sorry, but you sound like a moron by saying that.

I thought you were more politically savvy. That's a very old & well known political stratagy... it's called starving the beast. I'm not saying that the Republicans wanted it to get THIS FAR out of hand, I do doubt that. But their goal has for a long time been spend in other places (hence the great Bush spending) and it gives us more standing to say we can't afford entitlements.

The moronic thing is being so Republican cynical to think that way about important programs for our own American elderly.

Why would people "collecting" off the market jump out of a window? All of that aside, I did see the AIG situation.

In regards to that, we "loaned" them money, at an 8.5% interest rate. Should they pay the money back, the taxpayer actually makes money. Should AIG have collapsed you would have seen huge ramifications all over the world. So really, in this case, the loan was the only option.

Further, there are stipulations on the loan, such as the government can control the board etc...

I've already addressed this in another post at length but I'll summarize. If these companies were such great investments A) They wouldn't need the "loans" bailouts in the first place and B) If these were such great deals other companies in the private sector would be snatching them up.

I'm not saying these bailouts aren't necessary as screwed up as the group of deregulates has evolved things into. I'm just saying it shouldn't be governments place to have to use hard earned taxpayer money to do it.

Social Security would not need to be "shored up" if we would simply stop borrowing against it. Further, social security does not even beat inflation in terms of a return. If you let me invest the money I pay into it, I would get a better return with ease. So why exactly should I be in favor or supporting something I can pay into my whole life, which will not even beat inflation?

Your first line it true. They should never allowed raiding it. Al Gore was 100% on point with his... LOCK BOX it!

On your 2nd point your concept of what Social Security is is wrong. Social Security was created to give some amount of guaranteed security against poverty stricken old age. It's the guaranteed part that's important here not the rate of interest.

Whenever this comes up I have the obvious answer that blows your invest for themselves argument away every time. If the stock market is such a better place and a secure deal... then FDIC the investments in the privatized plan so people can't lose.

But you won't because you know that's the whole point... there is real risk!

Further, you basically propose that a heathcare company needs to control inflation, how do you plan for that to happen? Econ 101 tells us all that setting price ceilings is a terrible idea.

I'm saying that when they look at the fact that they may be highly "regulated" or even nationalized they may suddenly want to work together on a compromise plan that benefits real people real fast.

And then at some point I think national healthcare is the best final solution... but at this moment we have all this Republican Bush debt that has to be addressed.

When President Obama can come out and lays it on the line to the American people from inside the White House and just charts it out... This is what Bush spent our money on... this is how far in the hole we really are... this is how I plan to chip away at it... people will be refreshed by the honesty and give him time because they'll see he's trying to implement some improvements while at the same time digging out of a real mess.


Just give the man a chance!

 

[BigRob]

All politicians speak in "goals". The Obama goals are so much better for the American people that the continuation of Bush goals with a McBush I can't even compare it.

If things keep getting whored out like your group is doing there won't be anything left TO save. We can and will do much better than this.

I can agree all politicians speak in terms of goals. But Obama is pushing actual legislation that will send $800,000,000,000 dollars overseas. If Obama is worried about the domestic economy, how can he justify sending $800,000,000,000 overseas at the same time?

It's a comprehensive plan that will take time. But what we have now with this Republican economic debocal reminds me of what my Dad used to say... Son when you find yourself in a hole over your head... stop digging.

Well, I can say the Bush tax cuts are a comprehensive plan that will take time, and we just need 10 more years of them to see their real effect.

So you have the roll back on the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

$270,000,000,000 over 5 years... assuming of course a booming economy. Still a bit short.

Stop the massive bleed off of funds on the War of lies... maybe even push Iraq to pay for some of our effort.

By transferring these funds to Africa according to legislation Obama has proposed in the Senate. I do not see how this solves spending problems.

Iraq should take more control of paying for their reconstruction I agree, but it is a slow process, they are just now signing oil deals, which will bring in their revenue.

And as far as Corporate Welfare it should stop or be massively cretailed. We might have to also cut back on certain foriegn aid packages.

There's things we can do.We don't have to just stay stuck on stupid because we happen to be there now./B]

Does this mean you are against tax credits and subsidies for alternative energy sources? Because your party is certainly not. Democrats are in favor or corporate welfare, as long as they deem the corporations worthy, no different than the Republicans.

I thought you were more politically savvy. That's a very old & well known political stratagy... it's called starving the beast. I'm not saying that the Republicans wanted it to get THIS FAR out of hand, I do doubt that. But their goal has for a long time been spend in other places (hence the great Bush spending) and it gives us more standing to say we can't afford entitlements.

The moronic thing is being so Republican cynical to think that way about important programs for our own American elderly.

I just do not buy this. Seeing as how Republicans were in control for the last 8 years, why would we need to tank the housing market to avoid spending on Medicare of Social Security, we could have just said NO, or better yet, grown the economy to generate more funds to pay for them. I used to work with a Senator and still have many friends on Capital Hill, and I can assure you this kind of thinking has never once entered the equation, especially not in the majority.

I've already addressed this in another post at length but I'll summarize. If these companies were such great investments A) They wouldn't need the "loans" bailouts in the first place and B) If these were such great deals other companies in the private sector would be snatching them up.

I'm not saying these bailouts aren't necessary as screwed up as the group of deregulates has evolved things into. I'm just saying it shouldn't be governments place to have to use hard earned taxpayer money to do it.

I am not sure that another company being unable to buy them is a sign of distress. I think it certainly caused panic, but in a slowdown many companies are strapped for cash themselves, and cannot come up with 85 billion to buy "junk" mortgages.

Your first line it true. They should never allowed raiding it. Al Gore was 100% on point with his... LOCK BOX it!

On your 2nd point your concept of what Social Security is is wrong. Social Security was created to give some amount of guaranteed security against poverty stricken old age. It's the guaranteed part that's important here not the rate of interest.

Whenever this comes up I have the obvious answer that blows your invest for themselves argument away every time. If the stock market is such a better place and a secure deal... then FDIC the investments in the privatized plan so people can't lose.

But you won't because you know that's the whole point... there is real risk!

I disagree here. Social Security's inflation adjusted rate of return is 1.23%. If I was allowed to keep my own money, but forced to put it in some kind of savings account or CD's, I could generate 3-5% without even trying, and that is FDIC insured.

I'm saying that when they look at the fact that they may be highly "regulated" or even nationalized they may suddenly want to work together on a compromise plan that benefits real people real fast.

I have never been of the mindset that threatening nationalization will cause business to lower their price... might make them move overseas though.

And then at some point I think national healthcare is the best final solution... but at this moment we have all this Republican Bush debt that has to be addressed.

Well, I am all for national healthcare, as long as it is done through private market solutions.

When President Obama can come out and lays it on the line to the American people from inside the White House and just charts it out... This is what Bush spent our money on... this is how far in the hole we really are... this is how I plan to chip away at it... people will be refreshed by the honesty and give him time because they'll see he's trying to implement some improvements while at the same time digging out of a real mess.


Just give the man a chance!

I do not think he is going to do that. I think he is going to come in, and pursue his new tax and spend policies aggressively, but obviously we can debate that until he either wins or loses and does or doesn't.

 

[PLC1]

I can agree all politicians speak in terms of goals. But Obama is pushing actual legislation that will send $800,000,000,000 dollars overseas. If Obama is worried about the domestic economy, how can he justify sending $800,000,000,000 overseas at the same time?

I hadn't heard about that one, so I checked it out. You must be talking about SB 2433, as described here. There is a link to the actual bill also.

The legislation would commit the US to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the US already spends,” on foreign aid. $845B to corrupt governments who will use the money to sustain their corrupt elite and to buy weaponry, plot against us, and ensure that the poor and hungry stay that way while blaming the U.S government and citizens for their troubles.

The answer, of course, is that the US can't commit to sending that much money overseas, especially now with the budget deficit, and the economy in crisis, especially with both candidates talking about whose tax cuts are the best.

Is there no fiscal sanity in Washington at all any more?

And don't tell me that the McCain camp is any better, either.

This nation is in for a rocky road, regardless of who wins the White House in 2008.

 

[BigRob]

I hadn't heard about that one, so I checked it out. You must be talking about SB 2433, as described here. There is a link to the actual bill also.

Yea, I cited it in other threads, I should have redone it, thanks for the link. Notice that it was Biden that shoved it through committee for him.

The answer, of course, is that the US can't commit to sending that much money overseas, especially now with the budget deficit, and the economy in crisis, especially with both candidates talking about whose tax cuts are the best.

Is there no fiscal sanity in Washington at all any more?

And don't tell me that the McCain camp is any better, either.

This nation is in for a rocky road, regardless of who wins the White House in 2008.

I agree, I cannot tell you that McCain is going to pay down the deficit and balance the budget, because I do not think anyone can.

 

[Sihouette]

I wasn't sure whether or not to put this in the "solution to the oil problem" thread or this one since they are inexorably tied at the hip. So here it goes.

Here's my problem with this situation. When you and I invest, take that risk, and lose, we lose. That's it. Plain and simple. When really rich people play the same game with other people's money...making tons off it in the meantime by risky investments, they get bailed out when they lose...by us...

When "Uncle Sam" says "he" will bail out these institutions, what he means is "you folks will bear the burden in the form of huge national debt, reduced programs to the poor and middle classes, meanwhile we rich folks will find ways to get you to make sure we still live in posh, affluence and still enjoy high levels of healthcare and financial soundness."

It is the final slap in the face from the GOP.

And by the way, the current 'word on the street" is that it is the housing crises that spurred all this on. I think we can find a root deeper than that. I think things started getting out of hand with this illegal war in Iraq and the BigOil push behind that.

T Boone PIckens pointed out that "in the future" a record amount of American wealth was going to be funneled to the Middle East. What he failed to point out was that it already has been funneled to the Middle East OPEC magnates, many of which have deep ties in Washington and our nation's bedrock. That bedrock was shaken when their big gamble: taking over Middle East oil reserves and all the trickle-down wealth they hoped to provide to themselves (and maybe eventually us) failed. That was the beginning of the end.

The housing crises never would've been a crises if our nation was strong and had only a meager obligation to help that out and had preserved better oversight. Our nation is weak precisely because of our unnecessary decades-long forced dependance via the oil monopolies and their lobbiests; who actively suppressed alternative energy to this very day.

No, they didn't totally succeed in convincing the public that alternatives didn't work, only that they were "weird" "futuristic" and "unattainable".. All of which was false even as long as thirty years ago. They're still at it today with their TV ads telling us that widescale alternatives are still "a long way off" and we "need a bridge" to them for many more years with oil oil oil and drill drill drill.

No. We don't. We need petrolium products to move heavy machines and trucks that need torque but we don't for passenger cars and we don't for light industry. We could've had alternatives for them decades ago and not even be talking about the economy today from the saved revenue and interest.

I'm tired of the lies. Know the truth.

What BigOil has essentially done, almost single-handedly, is to gut our nation's Treasury and financial solvency by keeping the funnel of our GNP profits heading right back out the door and overseas to the Middle East when it should've been invested right here at home.

Who are the terrorists? Now you're beginning to see just who has the most culpability to bring this nation to its knees. We have 911. Let's now have 9-16 where we remember the day the bank-dominoes began to fall, courtesy of BigOil and its long-reaching influence on our nation's very core.

 

[Sihouette]

We have one shot to save our very country. If we don't shore up the middle class and working poor F-I-R-S-T we will have no consumers to make any immoral wallstreet tycoon rich anymore.

The working stiff provides the base for THE ENTIRE ECONOMY. You let them drown even further in debt and you'll slit your own throats fatcats..

The solution is to turn that entire package of financial relief into one that assits mortgage payments and shores up housing values, frees up monthly income for consuming and stimulates the economy on these two vital issues. Banks would regain their assets as housing prices stabilize from retained ownership. And the wealth would percolate from the bottom upwards.

True, the tycoons would have to sweat it out for awhile, maybe have to shop at Costco for awhile to get by like the rest of us do..but our economy will return much more quickly if we do this.

Solution
1. Trickle UP economics

2. Legislation barring outsourcing of american jobs (you know, so those "terrible risk" lendees can actually provide society with their income in the form of mortgage payments and payroll taxes! It's not like they don't want to for crying out loud..)

3. Retention of US wealth by rapid cessation of money bleeding out to purchase foreign oil.

4. Withdraw from Iraq and begin the painstaking process of rebuilding our world reputation out of the toilet it's in now.

5. Stimulate new jobs by investing MASSIVELY and QUICKLY in alternative energy for passenger cars and light industry, retaining the use of fossil fuels for plastics, diesel for heavier machines and trucks and ag use. Become world leaders in manufacture of alternative-fueled passenger cars.

6. Focus on producing food, the new gold to sell on world markets, until our industry recovers itself to augment.

7. Health care universal in exchange for lowering the minimum wage. This will stimulate business, which will no longer have to pay as much, and the worker will return home with a net gain in monthly revenue retention since huge premiums will no longer be an issue for either the employer or the employee. We all, instead, pay a smaller monthly stipend to a gigantic treasury pot that offsets medical costs to everyone. Yes, socialized medical care so we don't have to die a proud and "free market" nation.

*****

In short, give the workers a roof over their head and good health without worry and see how damned patriotic and productive we'll be. Whip a dead horse even harder with that godforsaken Wallstreet Bailout plan and you'll be up to your eyebrows with the stench of economic death..

Heck, I'd even suggest that the left compromise and allow drilling in ANWAR as long as the strictest environmental standards ever enacted would apply to the operations there AND representatives from groups like Greenpeace and other groups are allowed to monitor the activites 24/7.

So there you have it. From the left a lowering of the minimum wage in exchage for healthcare as that compromise; and an offering of drilling in ANWAR in exchange for heavy monitoring and royalties to taxpayers on profits. Since it is a NATIONAL refuge, it belongs to the entire US. Therefore we all have a stake in those oil profits.

Now let see who is smart enough to sit at the table of compromise in order to get elected...

 

[Pandora]

We have one shot to save our very country. If we don't shore up the middle class and working poor F-I-R-S-T we will have no consumers to make any immoral wallstreet tycoon rich anymore.

The working stiff provides the base for THE ENTIRE ECONOMY. You let them drown even further in debt and you'll slit your own throats fatcats..

The solution is to turn that entire package of financial relief into one that assits mortgage payments and shores up housing values, frees up monthly income for consuming and stimulates the economy on these two vital issues. Banks would regain their assets as housing prices stabilize from retained ownership. And the wealth would percolate from the bottom upwards.

True, the tycoons would have to sweat it out for awhile, maybe have to shop at Costco for awhile to get by like the rest of us do..but our economy will return much more quickly if we do this.

Solution
1. Trickle UP economics

2. Legislation barring outsourcing of american jobs (you know, so those "terrible risk" lendees can actually provide society with their income in the form of mortgage payments and payroll taxes! It's not like they don't want to for crying out loud..)

3. Retention of US wealth by rapid cessation of money bleeding out to purchase foreign oil.

4. Withdraw from Iraq and begin the painstaking process of rebuilding our world reputation out of the toilet it's in now.

5. Stimulate new jobs by investing MASSIVELY and QUICKLY in alternative energy for passenger cars and light industry, retaining the use of fossil fuels for plastics, diesel for heavier machines and trucks and ag use. Become world leaders in manufacture of alternative-fueled passenger cars.

6. Focus on producing food, the new gold to sell on world markets, until our industry recovers itself to augment.

7. Health care universal in exchange for lowering the minimum wage. This will stimulate business, which will no longer have to pay as much, and the worker will return home with a net gain in monthly revenue retention since huge premiums will no longer be an issue for either the employer or the employee. We all, instead, pay a smaller monthly stipend to a gigantic treasury pot that offsets medical costs to everyone. Yes, socialized medical care so we don't have to die a proud and "free market" nation.

*****

In short, give the workers a roof over their head and good health without worry and see how damned patriotic and productive we'll be. Whip a dead horse even harder with that godforsaken Wallstreet Bailout plan and you'll be up to your eyebrows with the stench of economic death..

Heck, I'd even suggest that the left compromise and allow drilling in ANWAR as long as the strictest environmental standards ever enacted would apply to the operations there AND representatives from groups like Greenpeace and other groups are allowed to monitor the activites 24/7.

So there you have it. From the left a lowering of the minimum wage in exchage for healthcare as that compromise; and an offering of drilling in ANWAR in exchange for heavy monitoring and royalties to taxpayers on profits. Since it is a NATIONAL refuge, it belongs to the entire US. Therefore we all have a stake in those oil profits.

Now let see who is smart enough to sit at the table of compromise in order to get elected...

I am not for the socialized health care but you know what Sihouette, You are on to something here with the lowering min wage so the companies can hire more people. With a lower wage the worker won’t need money for health care costs so that "could" work.

I wonder how it would work for someone like me. I have been at my job for 18 years. They pay over 900 dollars a month "they claim” to my health care. Would I get that money from my company? They wouldn’t need it to pay for my health care anymore and its said to be my benefit for working for them so it seems it would be mine. I would be willing to give that up without a stink if they promised to use the money to hire more people.

 

[PLC1]

I am not for the socialized health care but you know what Sihouette, You are on to something here with the lowering min wage so the companies can hire more people. With a lower wage the worker won’t need money for health care costs so that "could" work.

I wonder how it would work for someone like me. I have been at my job for 18 years. They pay over 900 dollars a month "they claim” to my health care. Would I get that money from my company? They wouldn’t need it to pay for my health care anymore and its said to be my benefit for working for them so it seems it would be mine. I would be willing to give that up without a stink if they promised to use the money to hire more people.

If we had universal care, then your company would pay that $900 a month into it.

If that universal care were to be in actuality "socialized medicine", then the $900 wouldn't begin to cover the costs.

If, on the other hand, there were just one insurer, with negotiated rates of pay and legislative controls as to how much they could charge, then that 18% of the GDP we are currently paying for health care would start to go down. Right now, it is going up. Once rates started to come down, your company and hundreds of others would save money in the long run.

France, for example, pays just 7% of their GDP for the #1 rated health care system in the world.

We pay more than anyone else, by far.

The only real question is whether the federal government is so corrupted by greed and moneyed lobbyists that it can't do what the government of every other major nation in the world is doing currently, which is to provide universal coverage at an affordable price.

Right now, I'm not sure as to the answer to that question.

 

[Pandora]

hmmm ok well it sounded good for a few moments. I really dont want that kind of medical but so many others do and Id rather do it and not hear about it than not do it and hear about it.

I dont want to budge when it comes to standing up to terrorists and crazy nuts like the president of Iran, but I could cave on health care just to keep sanity.

But since that plan wont work, I want my 900 bucks from my job. It drives me nuts that they give it to some health care company that I dont even go to.

why do people go to doctors anyways? I have had strep throat, 104 temp and never needed a doctor. I was able to cure myself

 

[PLC1]

hmmm ok well it sounded good for a few moments. I really dont want that kind of medical but so many others do and Id rather do it and not hear about it than not do it and hear about it.

I dont want to budge when it comes to standing up to terrorists and crazy nuts like the president of Iran, but I could cave on health care just to keep sanity.

But since that plan wont work, I want my 900 bucks from my job. It drives me nuts that they give it to some health care company that I dont even go to.

why do people go to doctors anyways? I have had strep throat, 104 temp and never needed a doctor. I was able to cure myself

It's pretty hard to diagnose strep without a lab test, and very difficult to cure it without modern antibiotics.

Aren't you glad though, that your employer pays $900 a month for health insurance?

If you were to get that same $900 as a part of your paycheck, you'd pay taxes on it. If you're in the 28% bracket, as I am, then you'd get to keep $657 of it. I'm not sure what your state income tax is in Oregon, but in California another 8% would go to the state.

But, Oregon doesn't have a sales tax, so maybe they don't have an income tax either.

Still, you could not buy the same insurance your company provides, even if you kicked in the extra dough. For one thing, if you have, or if you developed in the meantime, some health problem, then that would be a "pre existing condition", and would not be covered.

If you were to have high blood pressure, for example, heaven forbid, then had a stroke, you would be out hundreds of thousands of dollars, even if you survived.

If your company were to be taken over by a real fourteen caret SOB, and you wanted out, you would not dare to quit before finding another job that provides health care unless your health was perfect. Even if it was, if some uninsured drunk were to crash into your car, by no fault of your own, you could still be out hundreds of thousands of dollars for medical care, paid out of pocket if not covered by government.

I'm not sure what Oregon provides, but California would kick in Medical, after you spent most of your savings and sold your house. Of course, many doctors don't take Medical, so you would have to go wherever they would take you for your rehab.

All because you exercised your free choice and tried to change jobs.

No system is perfect, but ours truly sucks.

 

[Pandora]

It's pretty hard to diagnose strep without a lab test, and very difficult to cure it without modern antibiotics.

Aren't you glad though, that your employer pays $900 a month for health insurance?

If you were to get that same $900 as a part of your paycheck, you'd pay taxes on it. If you're in the 28% bracket, as I am, then you'd get to keep $657 of it. I'm not sure what your state income tax is in Oregon, but in California another 8% would go to the state.

But, Oregon doesn't have a sales tax, so maybe they don't have an income tax either.

Still, you could not buy the same insurance your company provides, even if you kicked in the extra dough. For one thing, if you have, or if you developed in the meantime, some health problem, then that would be a "pre existing condition", and would not be covered.

If you were to have high blood pressure, for example, heaven forbid, then had a stroke, you would be out hundreds of thousands of dollars, even if you survived.

If your company were to be taken over by a real fourteen caret SOB, and you wanted out, you would not dare to quit before finding another job that provides health care unless your health was perfect. Even if it was, if some uninsured drunk were to crash into your car, by no fault of your own, you could still be out hundreds of thousands of dollars for medical care, paid out of pocket if not covered by government.

I'm not sure what Oregon provides, but California would kick in Medical, after you spent most of your savings and sold your house. Of course, many doctors don't take Medical, so you would have to go wherever they would take you for your rehab.

All because you exercised your free choice and tried to change jobs.

No system is perfect, but ours truly sucks.

Well it takes time to get over strep, It took me 3 weeks to get over the really bad part and another week or two till I was back to my old self. And I only missed 1 and a half days of work.

I am not glad they pay the 900 to my health insurance, I want my money. I would rather put that money tax free right into a health savings plan. Since I only go to the doctor when i need surgery it could stay there till I have my next surgery. We have a free clinic with my school district that you could go to if you want. They diagnose your issues and give flu shots if you want one. Take lab tests, all of the small stuff.

I have worked for the same company for 18 years and have seen a doctor twice, both times went in for surgery. I had to pay out of pocket over 3 thousand dollars after my insurance for one surgery and about 2 thousand for the other. Had that 900 dollars a month gone into a health savings plan for the last 18 years it would have added up to $194.400 plus interest. Both of my surgery’s put together did not come to that.

Also, we have to pay a monthly fee plus a co pay. $50.00 a month for 18 years that was deducted from my pay check for my monthly health insurance payment was $10,800.00 that I would have been happy to put into a health care savings account.

That is more than enough to cover my medical expense. Not everyone might want to do it the way I want to, but it is my money, I should be able to do this if I wanted to

If my math is right and it should be, that is $205,200.00 that should have been mine before interest. My surgery's together cost less than 30,000.00. Can you see where I was screwed ?

 

[Libsmasher]

For starters - your post is MASSIVELY stupid! You know NOTHING of economics.

We have one shot to save our very country. If we don't shore up the middle class and working poor F-I-R-S-T we will have no consumers to make any immoral wallstreet tycoon rich anymore.

The working stiff provides the base for THE ENTIRE ECONOMY. You let them drown even further in debt and you'll slit your own throats fatcats..

You got that completely ass-backwards - the fatcats provide a living for the working stiffs - it corporations didn't bring together capital and technology and engineers to provide a factory for working stiffs to work in - what would they do? Subsistence farming?

The solution is to turn that entire package of financial relief into one that assits mortgage payments

You want taxpayers to dump money on the morons that caused the whole problem? GRRRRRRRRRREATTTTTTTTT PLANNNNNNNNNNN!!!

and shores up housing values,

Housing values are shored up ONLY when the demand starts exceeding inventory, not by dumping tax money on risk-taking stupid people.

frees up monthly income for consuming and stimulates the economy on these two vital issues.

You want to rob peter to pay paul - you'd create a much more massive deficit, clobber the value of the dollar, and send oil prices skyrocketing.

Banks would regain their assets as housing prices stabilize from retained ownership. And the wealth would percolate from the bottom upwards.

You need some economic logic to percolate into you skull, but it doesn't look promising. How MUCH are you going to bail out people for? What do you MEAN by it? Pay their mortgage arrears? Then who provide that financing from then on? The government permanently? Or who? Banks? They all collapsed because you didn't want to bail them out - remember???

True, the tycoons would have to sweat it out for awhile, maybe have to shop at Costco for awhile to get by like the rest of us do..but our economy will return much more quickly if we do this.

COMPLETELY ludicrous - if the banks are not bailed out NOW, THE WHOLE ECONOMY STOPS - then your working stiff not only doesn't have a house, he doesn't have a job!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2. Legislation barring outsourcing of american jobs (you know, so those "terrible risk" lendees can actually provide society with their income in the form of mortgage payments and payroll taxes! It's not like they don't want to for crying out loud..)

The international competition will then clobber them. You sound like a assembly line for ways to destroy business - AND jobs.

3. Retention of US wealth by rapid cessation of money bleeding out to purchase foreign oil.

"Rapid" cessation??? How??? You want to stop motor traffic dead in its tracks, and send gas prices up to $100/gallon?

4. Withdraw from Iraq and begin the painstaking process of rebuilding our world reputation out of the toilet it's in now.

Who do we need to rebuild our reputation for? Cuba? Russia? China? Zimbabwe? Venezuela? "Rebuild", my ass.

5. Stimulate new jobs by investing MASSIVELY and QUICKLY in alternative energy for passenger cars and light industry, retaining the use of fossil fuels for plastics, diesel for heavier machines and trucks and ag use. Become world leaders in manufacture of alternative-fueled passenger cars.

With the money coming from exactly WHERE? More titanic Obamataxes? Or where?

6. Focus on producing food, the new gold to sell on world markets, until our industry recovers itself to augment.

And give up on aerospace, biotech, etc? Now you're sounding like the KHMER ROUGE! Let's drive eveyone out into the countryside to grow food!

7. Health care universal in exchange for lowering the minimum wage.

There's no such thing as "universal" health care - only rationed health care.

This will stimulate business, which will no longer have to pay as much,

They'll be taxed to pay for it, Megathink.

and the worker will return home with a net gain in monthly revenue retention since huge premiums will no longer be an issue for either the employer or the employee.

BOTH will pay huge new taxes, and for a vastly reduced level of rationed "care".

We all, instead, pay a smaller monthly stipend to a gigantic treasury pot that offsets medical costs to everyone. Yes, socialized medical care so we don't have to die a proud and "free market" nation.

People DIE with socialized medicine! Bureaucrats in the NHS send people home to die, because their operation isn't in the budget, or they're beyond the age limit, or a thousand other bureaucratic reasons that have NOTHING to do with the capability of medical science.

In short, give the workers a roof over their head and good health without worry and see how damned patriotic and productive we'll be. Whip a dead horse even harder with that godforsaken Wallstreet Bailout plan and you'll be up to your eyebrows with the stench of economic death..

Your ideas would have precisely ONE result - they'd trigger, very quickly, a worldwide depression.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Libsmasher is one of those Turkeys who vote for xmas believing all that **** about having to give lots of money to the rich to benefit the poor.

It must be so easy to govern the US.

You just tell the citizens something and most of them go 'uh, OK'.

Like the story about the poor cowboys suffering at the hands of the bad injuns.

Or Iraq having WMD

Uh Ok.