Even in the midst of the deepest and most far-reaching economic crisis since the Great Depression, Americans are still pretty comfortable. The poorest of the poor in this country would be considered wealthy by the standards of most of the world’s population, taking for granted “luxuries” like plumbing, elecricity, and medical care.
The reason we’re so comparatively wealthy in this country, even during this worldwide economic crisis, is because this country has had a historically strong economy, built up over decades of productivity, of leading the world in industrial and technological innovation that has not only generated wealth for the entrepreneurs and investors who made it possible, but has created abundant opportunities for people who were willing to learn a marketable skill, and work hard at it, to earn their way out of poverty and into the middle class.
People like to go on about the “shrinking middle class,” but neglect to consider that the “poor” in this country today have, on average, a higher standard of living than the “middle class” had a couple of generations ago. It isn’t that there’s more actual poverty today, it’s that the bar keeps being raised on what we consider “poor.”
A rising tide lifts all boats, and that has been the case with our economy, up until recently. The standard of living bar has been continuously raised for everybody, generation after generation. This is not because the government provides for us all, but because the productive members of society generate not just money, but value, not just wealth, but opportunity, providing goods and services that continually improve the quality of life for all, while creating jobs and providing the foundation for a sound and healthy economy.
When you hamper or discourage productivity (or drive it offshore) through excessive regulations and punitive taxation, for the dubious benefit of the unproductive members of society, the economy as a whole must suffer. If a rising tide lifts all boats, what happens when the tide recedes? The overall standard of living goes down. We are standing at that inflection point today.
Years ago, we shifted from a production economy to a “credit economy.” Where our economy used to be based on goods delivered, now it’s based on promises, and many of those promises are turning out to be undeliverable. So what do we do now?
The solution is not to keep expanding our dependency on government, while sinking our nation ever deeper into debt, relying more and more on the government to provide what the producers no longer can because the government has tied their hands or driven them offshore. That course of action can only dig us deeper into the hole we’re in right now. The way to recover is to return to a production economy, where you only get rewards for what you produce. If you want something, you have to pay for it. To pay for it, you have to produce something for which somebody else is willing to pay you.
We need to restore productivity, not just have government hire more people and create more bureaucracies to employ them. We need to create value, not pump more money into the economy, which only serves to devalue the money already in circulation. We cannot borrow our way out of debt, nor spend our way into solvency. We need to return to the basic foundations on which this once-great nation was built: hard work, self-reliance, entrepreneurship, industry, and personal responsibility. It’s not rocket science. It’s common sense.
So why are our legislators doing just the opposite of what clearly needs to be done to regenerate our economy? Why are they jamming the accelerator to the floor as the economy heads over the cliff? Because the impending disaster that has been building up for years is now imminent, and they believe it to be inevitable. They’ve given up all hope of salvaging the economy, and figure they may as well grab what they can while there’s still something left to grab. They’re in a feeding frenzy of earmarks, stuffing every bill with as much pork as they can cram in. They are literally looting the economy, justifying their reckless plunder because they figure it’s all going down anyway.
So they pour more money into the economy, mortgaging our country to foreign interests, indenturing future generations of taxpayers, while they and their buddies rake theirs off the top. And the rest of us sit watching in dumb horror (or blind hope) as the value of the money in our bank accounts gets diluted by the flood of new dollars being pumped into the system, and the stock market plummets day after day.
And what happens when it all bottoms out and there’s nothing left to loot? In one scenario, we start over from scratch, the way our forefathers did, and struggle to rebuild a stable economy based once again on real productivity. In a more nefarious scenario, there’s somebody waiting in the wings with other plans for our nation…
Government is Not Your Daddy 
i believe in the more nefarious senario. the enslaving of the american people.
“It isn’t that there’s more actual poverty today, it’s that the bar keeps being raised on what we consider ‘poor.'”
Nope. In the USA, the poverty line was simplified in the 1950s & 1960s to be based solely on the cost of food, and it is updated each year based on the consumer price index. According to the U.S. Census Bureau in 2007, the USA poverty threshold for a single person under 65 was $10,787, and the threshold for a family group of four, including two children, was $21,027.
The U.S. poverty threshold has been criticized for understating poverty, by using an outdated “basket of goods” to set the standard. While cost of these goods is adjusted for inflation every year, the basket of goods itself remains the same, and it excludes the cost of items that were rare among poor Americans in the 1950s…but are now common, like a telephone, a car, and a microwave oven.
The USA has some of the highest relative poverty rates among industrialized countries, reflecting a high degree of inequality. In terms of pre-transfer absolute poverty rates, in 2000 the USA ranked 10th among 16 developed countries, and since then absolute poverty rates have increased. The USA does considerably worse in post-transfer absolute poverty rates than other countries. In 2006, the poverty rate for minors in the USA was the highest in the industrialized world, with 21.9% of all minors & 30% of black American minors living below the poverty threshold. Also, the standard of living for those in the bottom 10% was lower in the USA than other developed nations except the UK, which has the lowest standard of living for impoverished children in the developed world.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poverty_59_to_05.png
“The way to recover is to return to a production economy, where you only get rewards for what you produce”
While I agree that the baloney financial “markets” that were created after the GOP-sponsored deregulation of the late 1990s were a huge mistake, I don’t think that in our current global economy that manufacturing is the wave of the future for this country. What we need is a back-to-basics attitude when it comes to workable & sustainable business models…more hi-tech & alternative energy jobs fueled by an increased performance from our education system. The blind greed of the past has gotten us nowhere…
“We need to restore productivity”
Well, the USA’s productivity rates have increased every single year since 1971 (with the exception of 1974 & 1982), but, unfortunately, what’s happened at the same time is that while U.S. workers have worked harder & longer hours…they have been compensated at the same rate (or lower) over the last several decades. The rich have mainly benefited from the work of the many, which just isn’t fair.
“They’ve given up all hope of salvaging the economy”
This is just more Right-wing fear-mongering. Because the powers that be now are not championing the failed “supply-side” policies of the past does not mean that they have simply “given up all hope”. It’s called change…change from the failed staus-quo that is.
“They’re in a feeding frenzy of earmarks, stuffing every bill with as much pork as they can cram in.”
More Right-wing nonsense…earmarks are down under Democratic Congressional leadership both in the sheer numbers of them & their overall cost, and there is waaaay more transparency on the ones that are left.
Oooppps, I forgot to supply some links for the productivity stuff:
http://www.bls.gov/lpc/prodybar.htm
stats.oecd.org/WBOS/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=LEVEL
Sorry…
Great and VERY accurate article NYD. I tend to agree with OWG, BHO is out to enslave America. He is a Marxist, and he is not afraid to act like one. The amount of spending he is authorizing means he either doesn’t understand economics, or he is dilberaltely trying crash the economy. Either way, we reach the same result. I believe BHO knows exactly what he is doing, and he can’t wait until the economy is dead and the dollar is worthless.
MG,
Wow, after reading the response on this,I thought I was back in time to the good old days of the cold war. The centrally planned economy of the USSR had two propaganda mouth pieces. Tass which meant news, and Pravda translated to truth. News and truth were whatever the state said they were. Up could mean down, black might be white, or perhaps “earmarks are down under Democratic Congressional leadership both in the sheer numbers of them & their overall cost, “.
“What we need is a back-to-basics attitude when it comes to workable & sustainable business models…more hi-tech & alternative energy jobs fueled by an increased performance from our education system. The blind greed of the past has gotten us nowhere…”
What the h*ll does that mean? Hi-tech by itself has no meaning. Lo-tech is often more cost effective. Alternative energy translates in to corporate welfare for Democratic Party contributors. Education system, which means the public one. Teacher’s union welfare and monopoly kick back machine. It means a centrally planned economy where wealth is distributed according to which group is most able to corrupt and influence the government. Kinda the way Chicago runs.
“The rich have mainly benefited from the work of the many, which just isn’t fair.” How do the rich become rich? By supplying whatever the free market deems valuable. This can be talent, management skills, or capital. In any economy, when talent, management, or capital is not rewarded, the many do not work. Or to put it in to terms even a socialist would grasp, if you do not work for the government, you work for a rich guy. If you are good enough, you are the rich guy and you give employment to those who need it.
“While I agree that the baloney financial “markets” that were created after the GOP-sponsored deregulation of the late 1990s were a huge mistake,”
Irrefutable logic, except that it’s wrong. Deregulation became no regulation thanks to Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Franklin Raines, etc. Any financial market system that is corrupted enough will fail. When it is corrupted from the top down by politics, it falls hard.
Your so-called facts will not go unchallenged. I told you before, I can match you fact for fact, or fact for fable.
[…] presents Looting the Economy posted at Government is not your Daddy., saying, “We need to restore productivity, not just […]
It will be interesting to see government revenues fall off the cliff. Trying to squeeze more money out of high-earners in this economy will be hard, as there will be fewer left – the poor and middle class are not the only ones being hit. The target has moved, there are fewer people to be robbed. Income taxes are interesting, they don’t really affect the super-rich – they already have theirs – the only affect people who are not wealthy yet and who are trying to get there, they are a barrier to entry into the upper class. If Obama really wanted to get some money to pay for his little spending spree, he’d confiscate some money. Just think how much he could get if he gave a haircut to the super-rich, like George Soros, who supported him. Take everything over a billion.
Who could complain if they had a billion left? ;-)
Another article on looting at Cafe Hayek:
http://www.cafehayek.com/hayek/2009/03/leonhardt-on-looting.html
Reliance upon normative theories of economics leads one off the cliff. Adopting Marx/Engels–or any of the derivative forms–is to adopt wholesale a set of assumptions that are continually discounted, if not simply disproven.
Among the terms of the neo-Marxist is the buzzword “sustainability.” The blithe acceptance of sustainability as an antecedent to successful economic growth is in itself the creation of a new shibboleth. Unfortunately for these neo-Marxists is an understanding that their word “sustainability” is simply a recognition that the primary purpose of any economic system is to provide for the allocation of scarce resources. Scarcity is not the enemy of the future. It is the engine of the future.
Somehow, Marxist continually stub their normative toes against the Johnson rock. Remember the old joke punchline, “Assume a can opener”? Marxists, whether currently defined as union activists, Democrats, Progressives or Environmentalists all attempt to take that which does not belong to them, the freedom to choose.
Yet, they assume that their way is the only way. And they only want to help us. I don’t believe they want to enslave us. I believe they truly believe that they want to liberate us from the shackles of capitalism. They just don’t see that in order to free us from capitalism, they must loot from the capitalist. And that that is not sustainable.
.
@OG, Are you implying that Marxism (in any sense) is an Oxymoron?
The very things that the Marxist seeks from a post-Industrial society are the things that result from Industrial society.
The best example of such looniness is the “moneyless era” of post-Revolution Russia. (Look for citations referring to the “New Economic Policy”, or NEP.) The struggle between asset and resource allocation is one best fought on the plains of Supply and Demand. For the advocate of post-Industrial society, these things will be determined by the Elite. Without price signals, the post-Industrialist is led by normative values and allocation signals become corrupted. That is, the purported goal of the post-Industrialist is liberty from the onerous exploitation of the worker, yet becomes victim of the onerous exploitation of the worker by the Elite.
I believe there is a value to remaining agnostic about ones economic beliefs when expressed in normative terms. It’s amazing that the history of Soviet Russia has been spackled over by revisionist historians and economists. Yes, Marxism is oxymoronic. As it attempts to liberate, it more fully enslaves.
.
When Mister Guy tells us what he thinks we should do to restructure our economy,I wish he would give an example of somewhere that his plan is being followed and is successful.
I can give an example of where it is being followed and is failing. Now we all know about the USSR and eastern Europe. But those are old classic failures. No alternative energy or high tech. How about today in the US. I cite the People”s Republic of Caleefornia. This is the closest thing in a capitalist country, to socialist, green environmental heaven. It currently has a 10.1% unemployment. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-jobs28-2009feb28,0,3811550.story
They have the most alternative energy, hi tech economy fueled by a liberal education establishment, in the nation. Run by a girley man Rino, Governor Arnold “Kennedy” Schwarzenegger, it and it’s unemployment fund are nearly bankrupt. A shining example for President Obama, of the public sector destroying the private one. The public sector unions make the UAW look like pikers. Just keep taxing the producers and redistributing the wealth. It’s turned the richest state in the union in to a basket case.
More evidence of which party is really at fault for the corruption at the heart of the banking mess. And guess what? This aint no right wing source neither.
“I can match you fact for fact, or fact for fable.”
As if troll…you *never* have been able to do this, and you never will…now deal with it…nitey nite now troll…lol…
“It will be interesting to see government revenues fall off the cliff.”
When has this ever happened Taco??
“The target has moved, there are fewer people to be robbed.”
Sheer nonsense.
“Marxists, whether currently defined as union activists, Democrats, Progressives or Environmentalists all attempt to take that which does not belong to them, the freedom to choose.”
LOL…riiiight, that’s why you “conservatives” go on & on about restricting the right of a woman to choose what to do to her own body. Once again “OR Guy”, your posts are just a pile of words strung together without any meaning…
A brief reduction of a “Mister Guy” comment.
(Insert ad hominem attack here.)
You have no clue of what you speak. You attempt to label me with an opinion I don’t hold. But that isn’t important to you.
You should work on advancing an argument, rather than relying upon an attempt to ridicule. Because, after it’s all said and done, that’s all you contribute. Or, in teh words of teh Bard, “Life is a tale told by an idiot — full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Enjoy your day.
.
“You should work on advancing an argument”
I did above…many of the preconceptions that this potsing is all about are false, period.
BTW, “signifying nothing”?? Sounds a lot like what you’ve continually posted here in this blog…not much of anything significant or with any meaning whatsoever…now deal with that wing-nut…
Mister Guy,
I ask again, humbly, for an example of some place where they are following the policies which you favor.
Alan Scott,
The only place Comrade Guy could mention would be Cold War Soviet Union, he won’t mention them because then his (non-existent) cover would be blown. All you get from him is name calling and meaningless drivel time after time after time…
DJ,
I have tried a different tack. I tried being nice. I believe that when you post something, you should be willing to defend your statements by answering legitimate questions. Asking for successful examples of what you advocate, I believe is a minimal expectation.
“The only place Comrade Guy could mention would be Cold War Soviet Union”
Nonsense, the troll & I have been over this subject at length here:
notyourdaddy.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/save-the-dinosaurs/
There’s no sense in repeating myself yet again here…he’ll just change the subject like he always does…
BTW, thanks so much for adding absolutely nothing to the discussion “DJ”…just like always…
Alan Scott,
Your question was very legitimate, I just do not forsee you getting any answer, there is nowhere Comrade Guy can name outside the Cold war Soviet Union, which failed. Even China has adopted Capitailst principles to build her economy.
Oh wait, he could play the Cuba card…lol, I hear they have a BOOOMING economy, low unemployment-1.9%(1), WONDERFUL health care, and they don’t bailout failing businesses.
(1)”http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/.html.” Fact Monster. © 2000–2007 Pearson Education, publishing as Fact Monster. 16 Mar. 2009 .
DJ,
I keep giving him opportunities to lay out his views, but I do not just want to hear propaganda. I went back over his postings on the above mentioned board. He said that the US and some European nations have mixed economies. What those other countries are, who knows? What a mixed economy is, who knows?
So let’s go with the US. We have free enterprise mixed with socialism. Economically successful industries are heavily taxed to support economically idiotic, but politically connected businesses. This breeds waste and corruption. Right now under Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, businesses are either paying protection money, or lining up for bail outs. I guess “Change” means changing the “Mix” to less capitalism and more socialism.
And unlike MISTER GUY, I can give examples of what I am talking about. That’s what makes me a troll and not a coward.
LOL…no more feeding the troll…because it’s all been said before…and he knows it! LOL…
Mister Guy,
I took the liberty of reviewing your old posts on Save the Dinosoars. Your views on energy were just as backward as they are on the economy.—
“the point of getting a hybrid now is so that in the future you can easily convert it to a plug-in hybrid & be done with gasoline entirely (that’s what I plan to do).”— How’s that plug-in hybrid purchase working out?—“*real* alternative energy sources can be exploited…you know, those ones like electric cars that were squashed in part by Big Oil & the car companies.” —
Uhhh GM makes an electric car, the Chevy Volt. It’s one of their models, that will help bankrupt them, cause no one wants it, except you.
And now to show that President Obama is no smarter than MG when it comes to economics. In today’s WSJ, there is an article about how our El Presidente is on the verge of provoking a trade war with Mexico. Mexico is slapping tariffs on 90 industrial and farm exports from the US. This is retaliation for Obama killing a pilot program letting Mexican trucks haul freight with in the US. It seems that was one of those small items in the $410 billion stimulus bill the President just signed and nobody read.
Alan Scott,
Speaking of things in the “Stimulus” Bill nobody read…how about the “rage” at the 165 million in bonuses (contractually binding legal bonuses btw) which were protected by said bill? Only in the US Senate can you get pissed off over legislation that you did not read. I find it amazing that BHO and the Seante are in such a tizzy over this, had AIG been allowed to fail from the beginning we would not even be listening to this drivel. Now you got Fwank and Schumer screaming about legislating away the bonuses or taxing them away. GOOD GRIEF! I heard yesterday that the Senate pension plan is manged by AIG, I haven’t been able to confirm that one or the other, but if it is in fact true, maybe now we see why AIG is so precious to the Senate.
I don’t have health care. My employer chooses not to provide it (or any portion thereof) and I’m unable to get approval from the health insurance industry to purchase it on my own. Even if the health insurance industry decided they would be nice enough to take my money, I still couldn’t have health insurance because I’d be forced to make tough choices, like not paying my rent or not eating food.
Does that quality me to be the poorest of the poor?
“Does that quality me to be the poorest of the poor?”
Are you serious? The poorest of the poor do not have access to first-world medical care at a first-class emergency room (regardless of lack of income) in a modern, first-world hospital, as you do. You ought to get out more, Mr. Worth.
“I heard yesterday that the Senate pension plan is manged by AIG”
No, it isn’t. The Senate “pension plan” is the same as it is for the rest of federal employees…it’s the Thrift Savings Plan, which is administered by the govt. & directly managed by federal employees (like the Senators) themselves.
DJ,
You are amazed and I am amused at the rage over the $165,000,000 in AIG bonuses. It must be a requirement that you first be a hypocrite to become an elected Democrat in Congress.
Since this board is called ” Looting the Economy” I’d like to offer this blast from the past. Senator Chris Dodd is one of those outraged by the bonuses. I remind those misguided souls who still believe in the myth of destructive Republican deregulation, of Senator Dodd’s role in causing the whole financial crisis.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091102841.html
This also begs the question of whether the Democrats will draft legislation to retroactively tax 100% of the bonuses Mr. Raines and the rest of the Fannie/Freddie mob got for bankrupting the GSEs.
Wigglesworth,
“I don’t have health care. My employer chooses not to provide it (or any portion thereof) and I’m unable to get approval from the health insurance industry to purchase it on my own.”
I don’t mean to make light of the seriousness of your problem, but I gather you look favorably on President Obama’s socialist medical solutions?
You know it just keeps getting better. Forget about the former GSE looters. How about the current crop. Where is the outrage? Why isn’t Senator Schumer getting to the bottom of this? Where oh where is Barney Frank when you need him?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/18/fannie-mae-pay-bonuses-g-execs/
Senator Dodd reverses himself over bonus exemption. Imagine how the press would crucify a Republican for this stuff.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/18/sen-dodd-admits-adding-bonus-provision-stimulus-package/
Nice insults. I’m glad I posted here. Just keep making everything about the acquisition of wealth, keep broadening the gap between rich and poor, and keep letting your neighbor die because they can’t have access to health care like some. Now that sounds like a nice place to live.
“…and keep letting your neighbor die because they can’t have access to health care…”
Yes, they are dropping like flies here in heartless, greedy, Amerika. It’s because rich people are bad and they hate poor people and it is just so wrong. If only we had an enlighetened, progressive President and congress instead of that horrible Nazi, George W. Bu…wait a minute…
Does anyone remember Democrats whining about President Bush’s deficits, which occurred after 911 and during 2 wars?? How do Democrats justify their deficits??? Even though the wars are still on, most of it is not defense spending. All of this, even before SS and Medicare go bankrupt. Hello,,, Democrats. You guys are totally in charge. What the heck are you doing? Is there any intelligent life out there in Disneyland, I mean Washington D.C. ?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/20/budget-deficit-forecast-hit-trillion-year/
Amid all of the misinformation put out by the Democratic Party propaganda media machine,(CNN,MSNBC,ABC,etc.), sometimes truth leaks out from the most unexpected places. Sometimes the NY Times gets it right.
Quote:
“A.I.G. offers another good example. Not all the employees who face the possibility of having their bonuses taxed out from under them work for the evil financial products division. Many of them work in insurance divisions. Very few of them pull down million-dollar bonuses, and none of them brought A.I.G. to its knees. (And employees who bought the company’s stock are already hurting financially, having seen its value virtually wiped out.) They are the ones the company badly needs to keep if it hopes to sell those units at a healthy price. Taking away their bonuses — after they’ve already put the money in their bank accounts — hardly seems like the right way to motivate them. And demonizing them in Congressional hearings doesn’t help either.”
Alan Scott,
Nice find! I am still amazed that the demonizing of a legal and binding contractual bonus is such a big deal. 165 million in productivity bonuses earns the scorn of the Congress, yet TRILLIONS of dollars of wealth that has not yet been created, is confiscated, and hardly a peep is uttered.
DJ,
I have 3 rich people that Mister Guy and Wigglesworth can legitimately hate. After Barney Fwank’s street mob is done burning and pillaging these AIG scapegoats, here are some fatter porkers to roast. Fannie Mae’s Franklyn Raines and Jamie Gorelick, and Freddie Mac’s Leland C. Brendsel.
This last guy, I could use some help on what the current status of his bonuses are. So far everything I find is out dated. I know that the government froze or revoked some of his millions, but that he sued to get them reinstated.
If he won these lawsuits, I think these poor AIG slobs have a leg to stand on, if they want to sue. Why should the small fry get burned, when the big fish are let go?
Years from now, when we are all sitting in the nursing homes and our grand children ask about how we bankrupted the country, and how we let corrupt politicians stay in Washington, here is another example that just keeps on giving.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/23/rep-murtha-dogged-questions-earmark-use/
It’s truly funny how you guys at the top expect your contracts to be legally binding, even when your companies are in severe financial turmoil, but the auto unions contracts were just thrown out the door and some how that has no bearing on contract law?
And for all those complaining about how much stimulus His Highness, sorry the messiah is spending, why don’t you check out this site.
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/11/24/daily46.html
Now just imagine how much the American people and social security would have been helped by Fall Street had Bush privatized it. But then again you probably wouldn’t care since it is just another entitlement program. Maybe that was part of the plan.
This blog is about looting the economy Yet all I hear about is what Government is doing wrong. Lest anyone forget, It is the CAPITALIST (bankers) who are coming to the Government for help. After they got their goodies from their cronies at the Fed and Treasury.
Scoobie jim,
Several of us wanted the big three to fail because the Union contracts are what ruined Detroit. I cannot recall anyone advocating dumping the contracts without GM or Chrysler going bankrupt. Allowing an auto manufacturer or AIG to fail would have nullified the existing contracts, most of us did not support any of the bailouts from the begining.
AIG was bailed out. Because they were not allowed to fail, the contracts are, as I mentioned above, LEGAL AND BINDING, our Treasury Sec’y was the Grand Poobah of the New York branch of the Federal Reserve, he was directly involved in negotiating the bailout, he KNEW the bonuses were contractually obligated then, he had the option to reduce or remove them then, he chose NOT TO. Per the Constitutiton of the United States, the right to enter into a contract is soverign to all men, it can only be taken away via due process, accepting a bailout is NOT due process. Going bankrupt IS due process- see the differnece?
I, for one, have had enough of my God given rights trampled on, contracts are sacred, they should be honored as written-just like the disgusting UAW contracts that are STILL in effect in Detroit, until GM goes bankrupt, the contracts MUST be observed.
Regarding Social Security, It should have been privatized then, it should be privatized now. The plan President Bush pushed didn’t force anyone out of the current SS plan, most had the option- I for one would have jumped all over it, The Congress has no clue how to create wealth, allowing them to provide any portion of my retirement is silly.
Bankers are NOT CAPITIALIST’s, bankers are simple little men who merely count and loan money. A Capitalist is a PRODUCER, someone who generates wealth for themselves and for others. Capitalism did not cause the financial mess we are in, over regualtion did.
You really need to step away from Comrade Guy and his “Socialism-is-the-cure-for-the-disease-of-Capitailsm” mantra and learn about Economics, and Free Markets.
Who exactly benefitted from this collapse then if not the capitalist? We are bailing out an insurance company that had insured bad loans. The people who bet this thing was going to fall are the benificiaries of all the ‘stimulus’ that AIG (a new name coming soon to a branch near you) is recieving. We are backing those insurance claims.
That’s not to mention all the money the fed has doled out, the money the treasury has printed and what has been sucked out of the FDIC. A recent newscast on CBS said that the total was now 12 TRILLION DOLLARS!!!! It’s too bad that’s not on every news cast every day.
Also, why is it that you always call someone who doesn’t totally agree with you a socialist or commie? I don’t support either one of those philosophies. I don’t like anyone telling me how I should live my life or how I should act or think, the same as you and most people I know.
“I cannot recall anyone advocating dumping the contracts without GM or Chrysler going bankrupt.”
Of course, that was the ENTIRE POINT of advocating for the bankrupty option immediately, in order to screw the employees just like was done with some of the airlines.
“Allowing an auto manufacturer or AIG to fail would have nullified the existing contracts”
…which is exactly why the argument that they should be honored now is completely & utterly worthless. Without a bailout, AIG would be toast & no one would have gotten the multi-million dollar bonuses that they most likely didn’t deserve in the first place.
“Because they were not allowed to fail, the contracts are, as I mentioned above, LEGAL AND BINDING”
Wrong again “DJ”, but what else is new eh??
“until GM goes bankrupt, the contracts MUST be observed.”
Thanks for proving my point “DJ”…you’re one of the ones that makes this oh so easy for me…lol…
“The plan President Bush pushed didn’t force anyone out of the current SS plan”
Sure, but, of course, if they did opt out of it…it would have punched a HUGE multi-multi-billion dollar hole in SS, which would cause the whole system to break down that much faster. SS will never be privatized…now get over it…
“bankers are simple little men who merely count and loan money.”
Not under the deregulated system that the GOP advocated for & got back in the late 1990s. One of the main reasons that we’re in the current mess that we are in is because banks stopped doing what banks should be doing…taking deposits that usually earn interest over time, loaning out money, and making a tidy profit off of that business model. Instead they engaged in much more risky schemes & a whole lot of predatory lending in the name of simple greed.
“Capitalism did not cause the financial mess we are in, over regualtion did.”
LOL…sure, sure…keep spinning the same Right-wing “just leave the ‘free market’ alone” nonsense…NO ONE is buying it!
“You really need to step away from Comrade Guy and his ‘Socialism-is-the-cure-for-the-disease-of-Capitailsm’ mantra”
And you really need to understand that the USA is & has been (for very long time now) a mixed economy (NOT socialist or capitalist), which is the most successful type of economy the world over, period.
“why is it that you always call someone who doesn’t totally agree with you a socialist or commie?”
Because that’s all “DJ” has to say at the end of every, single day, period.
Scoobie jim,
I don’t disagree with you that some are benefitting form the bailouts. I do disagree that the beneficiaries are Capitalists. Capitialism requires risk in order to thrive, all of the regulation forced on Wall Street caused Risk to be removed from the equation. With little to no risk many new “schemes” were developed to make money- There were some really smart people who created these schemes, all in the name of making a buck. Not everyone who is rich is a Capitalist, George Soros for example is a self proclaimed socialist, Walter Cronkite is as well. The point is, just because someone works on Wall street or in the financial sector, they are not necessarily Capitalists. They may use Capitalist principles to get rich, but they are not capitalists.
How do you define capitalism scoobie jim?
Regarding AIG, most of the funds that were provided to AIG was funneled to Goldman Sachs, The Centreal banks of Germany and France, and one other bank, I forget which one, I’ll see if I can find the link in a bit. AIG’s Financial Products division-London branch is primarily resonsible for the entire AIG debacle. As I mentioined above, the majority of the people that received the bonuses, earned them.
Regarding your displeasure at being associated with Comrade Guy- I apologize for throwing you under the bus. I have been debating these topics for years and the same old weak ass response come from the socilaists and the Communists, Capitalism is bad, blah blah blah. They (and I had lumped you into this catergory) believe the US was not founded on Freedom of the people, freedom of the markets (capitailiam) nor the ability to fail (a huge part of Capitalism). They all advocate fairness, redistribution of wealth, and in general, punishing those who desire to succeed through excessive taxes. When I read your post, that was how I reacted, again I apologize for that.
To sum things for those that have difficulty comprehending english (comrade guy);
1) The majority of us believe GM should have been allowed to fail because the Union contracts are the cause of GM’s demise.
2) We never supported the AIG or ANY of the bailouts, every company or corporation-whatever you want to call it should have been allowed to fail.
3) As long as a company is bailed out, any and all existing contracts MUST be honored.
4) Had the companies been allowed to fail, ALL existing contracts would have been nullified, and subject to renegotiation.
Contrary to some who troll around here (comrade guy) we have maintained the same beliefs regarding bailouts, and contracts from the beggining.
“The majority of us believe GM should have been allowed to fail because the Union contracts are the cause of GM’s demise”
…which is *exactly* what I said your position was in the first place…using bankrupcy to break a union that you hate. Thanks once again for proving my point…you really don’t need to do it twice in a row “DJ”…once is enough for me…lol…
“As long as a company is bailed out, any and all existing contracts MUST be honored”
…and the FACT that, if the bailout had not occured in the first place, the company would not be able to pay ANY bonuses to their employees that likely didn’t deserve them in the first place (after all, the company was basically belly-up until the feds jumped in) must be conveniently “ignored”.
“Had the companies been allowed to fail, ALL existing contracts would have been nullified, and subject to renegotiation.”
LOL!! There would BE no company left to negotiate with in that case!!
Scoobie Jim,
“why is it that you always call someone who doesn’t totally agree with you a socialist or commie? ”
Simple answer, Mister Guy is on your side of the argument.
Mister Guy,
“Of course, that was the ENTIRE POINT of advocating for the bankrupty option immediately, in order to screw the employees just like was done with some of the airlines.”
Hey Einstein, the ENTIRE POINT was to make the company viable. Viable means that it can survive. It can’t be profitable with out breaking the labor contracts. In the real world a company has to make a profit to survive. To survive it has to attract capital. Uh that means money.
Now that Obama has nationalized GM, it never, ever has to make a profit. The Washington Central Committee can now instruct it’s new motor vehicle’s department on how many Volgas and Ladas to produce. I can’t wait to read it in the new 5 year plan.
I just have to ask what kind of good business passes on to it’s customer the cost of paying large bonuses (the multi-million kind, not the thousand dollar kind) to business men who did their job yet still messed things up? That doesn’t sound like good business practice yet it seems to pass as the norm and should just be accepted. It seems to me as though you agree whole heartedly.
Please tell me exactly how solvent these banks are and how throwing those contracts out like the autos would destroy the company?
I am not all for the unions by the way. Never worked for one but had to deliver parts to union shops. I totally agree that the system inside has become inefficient. I am not sure as if I could’ve worked for one had I had the opportunity.
None the less it strikes me as unjust in the eyes of the law(not business). I just can’t understand how people can’t see the blatant double standard.
scoobie jim,
You tend to fall in to Mister Guy’s trap of not clearly separating the parts of your argument. Let’s stick to bonuses for a moment. I do not believe bonuses should be paid to executives up front. I am referring to Fannie and Freddie. They booked a lot of bad loans, assumed the profit and got rich. Years later when the loans defaulted, Franklin Raines did not have to pay back his bonuses. Your buddies, the Democrats protected him. That said it was not the millions of dollars Raines got that sunk the bank, it was the bad loans.
Now let’s look at AIG. The $165,000,000 in bonuses to AIG execs after the bail out are definitely ugly looking, but they did not sink the company.
Now to switch gears, lets talk about GM’s union contracts. GM’s union contracts ARE responsible for sinking the company. They are not bonuses that can be suspended when business is bad. They are very high overhead costs that MUST be paid. I love these liberal talking heads who say that GM’s troubles were from making SUVs and the wrong cars. That’s a liberal smoke screen. Their costs were too high, PERIOD. Even if you are giving big bonuses to execs, there are not enough to sink a company because the numbers aren’t there. When you over pay your work force verses your competition, add in giganto retiree benefits, that your competition doesn’t have, you will fail. Look it up yourself.
Alan Scott,
Very well said!
Scoobie jim,
It isn’t who got a bonus, or who didn’t get a bonus. It is about the contract. Article 1 Section 10 (I beleive) of the Constitution guarantees the right of the individual to enter into a contract, the contract cannot be revoked without due process. The AIG bonuses were contractually legal and binding, the individulas earned them, AIG was obligated to pay them. Had AIG been allowed to fail, they more than likely would have filed for Bankruptcy and the contractrs would have been nullified. Same goes for GM. As Alan Scott pointed out, the disgusting Union contracts are a very large part of why GM is in the position they are in, let them go bankrupt and the hideous contracts go away, GM and the “union” can sit down and start over-or, GM can relocate to a more productivity friendly state where unions are not mandatory.
You are spot on with your dislike of unions! It is nice to see another INDIVIDUAL in America!
“The AIG bonuses were contractually legal and binding, the individulas earned them”
…sure, sure…while the company was teetering on the brink of not existing…sheesh…
“Had AIG been allowed to fail, they more than likely would have filed for Bankruptcy and the contractrs would have been nullified”
…which is, again, why without a bailout the bonuses would have never been paid in the first place. How a company that’s owned (to the tune of some 80%) by the govt. uses govt. money is entirely within the jurisdiction of the govt., period.
“the disgusting Union contracts are a very large part of why GM is in the position they are in”
And the Right-wing nonsense continues…
Once again Mister Guy proves he can’t understand simple facts. I really enjoy pointing this stuff out.
“How a company that’s owned (to the tune of some 80%) by the govt. uses govt. money is entirely within the jurisdiction of the govt., period.”
You said the government owns 80% of AIG. Are you following me so far????? When you assume ownership, you assume all legal obligations. To restate what DJ tried to tell you. AIG was obligated to pay the bonuses, thus the government was obligated to allow it. Now genius, if AIG went in to bankruptcy the bonuses could have been set asside.
Add to this, your guy Chris Dodd specifically put the bonuses in to the bill, at first denied it, then admitted it.
Now if you are a lawyer, besides being a scientist, show me where I’m wrong. Wait,,,you are too afraid to answer.
Anyone want to bet me that GM’s new owner, Barak Obama, lets GM go in to bankruptcy, and voids the union contracts. If he had only done this earlier, he would have saved taxpayers, anyone not in his cabinet, a few billion.
“Wait,,,you are too afraid to answer.”
LOL…no feeding the trolls…
Mister Guy,
“LOL…no feeding the trolls…”
When you have no facts to back you up, you post mindless drivel. I assume you must go on your own boards to get your thoughts. I’d be happy to debate you on your home turf. Maybe the government is your daddy.
Mister Guy,
Would you please contact your buddies at the DNC and tell them to load up the buses with mobs of brain dead idiots and have plenty of torches and pitch forks. Send them over to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac headquarters. These guys are set to pay out $210 million in bonuses.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123876318076986497.html
I am really glad that President Obama has gotten all of the lobbyists out of Government. I am also happy that he is screwing the rich. Especially all of those involved in the financial sector of the economy, which caused the current problems. Thank God he has people like this to help him.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/04/obamas-economic-adviser-earned-millions-hedge-fund-director/
Thanks Alan Scott, I was running out of ways to simply the obvious for our “special” friend…perhaps english is his second language.
DJ,
No problem, I jump on anything that lacks truth or clarity. I never seem to run out of items to post or postings to comment on, but I think I’ll cut back for awhile. Give the other side more leeway to make their case.
DJ,
My first point would be that I live in Michigan and happen to know that we are a right to work state. I also USED to work in the automotive industry and it was not in a union shop. In fact none of the “job shops” as they were known as, were unionized. In fact upon joking with workers about unions I was informed that the “U” word was not even allowed and if heard by management or owners weather joking or not, would result in the person being fired.
Please refer to my previous post about what my thoughts on working for unions are.
I was joking about unions in some of the same ways I’m sure you or the owners would, yet I could have lost my job.
Secondly, I would like to know how much ones paycheck has to be before the person can claim to have earned the money. Or is it that only “achievers” earn their money and those same achievers “give” money to those less fortunate that they employ?
Also, the Democrats are NOT my friends, neither are the Republicans. Neither party is looking out for the country nor the people they “represent”. They are only looking out for themselves and those whose sentiments are EXACTLY like the ones they themselves hold. The way I see it the Dems want Govn’t to control you and the Repubs want your boss to be able to tell you what to do outside of the work place. NEITHER one agrees with me.
Scoobie Jim,
“I would like to know how much ones paycheck has to be before the person can claim to have earned the money”
Every paycheck is earned. I have never claimed anything else.
Money that is handed out to those NOT working is money NOT earned, there are exceptions such as retirement (although I would rather see retirement be an individual enterprise vice a payout for years of service) and unemployment, I do believe there needs to be a strict limit on the number of weeks of unemployment one can receive, I like 14.
I must disagree with you regarding the unions in Michigan, I left there (from Kalamazoo) in 1984 because the only jobs I could find were union jobs. Well, I could have worked in a hotel washing dishes or busing tables, but I wanted to start a career, not just have a job. Union membership is not optional in Michigan. My brother-in-law was just forced into a union because his company expanded its “labor force” beyond 300 and the unions swooped in under the color of law and screwed all the good working folks, the “union contract” actually cost him 5 percent because of the union dues.
MI is not a “right to work state”. Just because you used to work at a place in MI that was very draconian in it’s view of unions doesn’t mean that unions are a rarity in MI.
scoobie jim,
“The way I see it the Dems want Govn’t to control you and the Repubs want your boss to be able to tell you what to do outside of the work place. NEITHER one agrees with me.”
I get the first part, I don’t get the part about the boss telling you what to do when you are not at work. At any rate the government will now tell you which car will be available to drive, which healthcare your ration card will provide, how many BTUs of heating and cooling you get, how much moonshine will be in your gasoline. By the way, once you get up to 15% or more, it starts eating the soft parts of your engine.
Come to think of it the boss WILL tell you what to do inside and outside of work, if you can find any. Boss Obama.
Where did I say that unions were a rarity in MI?
Do you think I was born last night? I am however telling you that outside the big 3 and Gov’t jobs , they don’t have much membership. Of course that could be said of the whole country. And just because unions are organized in the state doesn’t mean this is not a right to work state.
Hey, I have a Ford Ranger 1989 edition. Still in decent shape and it gets 32 mpg. Do you think I will be “incentivized” to upgrade to a newer,more fuel efficent model?
As far as the employer telling us what to do outside of work, why does my employer need to know my credit score to apply for job?
Some of the questions on job applications are starting to get personal for what is supposed to be a professional setting. I mean your not supposed to bring personal problems to work , so why is work so worried about what an employee does off the job?
“And just because unions are organized in the state doesn’t mean this is not a right to work state.”
You really need to look up the definition of a “right to work state” sometime. From what I’ve read, there was an effort not that long ago to make MI a right to work state, but it apparently failed, which is a good thing…since unions generally help employees earn better compensation from their employers.
“Do you think I will be ‘incentivized’ to upgrade to a newer,more fuel efficent model?”
Nope, not if you don’t want one.
“why does my employer need to know my credit score to apply for job?”
They probably just want to know if you are, in their opinion, a “deadbeat”…who knows why though…
The credit score is more for employees who might have access to money. They figure that if you are not in trouble financially, you are less likely to embezzel. With the job market so tight right now, it is just another screening tool. I agree it doesn’t make it right.
Sorry that I was wrong about Michigan being a right to work state. I was going by what I had heard from previous employers and a friend who owns a business. Apparently they have no problem telling lies that suit their favor.
Either way, right to work only applies to unionized places of employment. It has no bearing what so ever on the rest of the businesses.
As far as not being able to find a non-union job in this state, Apparently a lot has changed since 1984. I personally can’t speak for that time as I was 11 at the time.
Also, I haven’t worked for a large small business. Most were under 50 employees. I can say however, that I was in the machinist/fabricating trade and applied to well over 50 different shops and not one of them was unionized.
Most of the non big 3 unions in the Detroit area where I was working were foundrys, heat treat facilities, and warehouses.
There was also electrical brotherhoods,pipefitters unions and Iron workers and a few others.
All I am saying is the far majority of jobs in this state are NON-UNION. Wal-Mart has a thriving business here. And I don’t see them leaving any time because of right to work.
As to the earning what you work for, it seemed like a lot of comments on this site and in the campaign are trying to say only those who make a lot of money are “useful” or “productive”. Ask Tuco, those seem to be his sentiments. I have a problem with that because I don’t think Wally world or McDonalds would be as succesful with out having as many employees as they have. Especially when their employees are some of the best customers.
I mean really, How succesful would the local gas station be if there was no one there to take the money?
Scoobie Jim, please provide an example of what Tuco wrote that you understood to mean “only those who make a lot of money are “useful” or “productive””.
From what I have seen, the most consistent thought from those of us on the right is; taking more from the “rich” hurts the economy because it is the rich who create the opportunities for jobs. Mickey D’s is a great example. In order for a franchise to exist, someone had to have the capital to buy it. Then they had to hire people to work at the franchise. As can easily be seen, the rich guy does something to give a poor guy a job, a win-win situation. I have never, and I can find no example where anyone here has said or even implied that the kids working at Mickey D’s are not earning their paycheck. Anyone who earns a paycheck, regardless of its size is producing something-that is a good thing.
I find fault in the logic that a person working at Mickey D’s is entitled to health care coverage or any other benefits. Benefits should be enticements to get one to come and work for a particular organization, they are NOT a right. It is not a companies responsibility for a workers well being (outside of common sense safety considerations at the job site). Each individual is responsible for their own health care and their own retirement.
High school kids get jobs, adults embark on a career. Fast food, delivering papers, and working at a nationwide retail chain in the mall are jobs for those who do not yet have the skill sets to start a career.
In a free society, people have the choice to work where they want to. If a person chooses to work at the GAP selling jeans, that is their option, no one wants to take that away from them, at the same time, selling jeans is NOT a career, it can lead to a career in sales I suppose-that would be a good thing-but the skills needed to sell jeans to a teenager are hardly the equal to that of a Xerox salesman.
The high school graduate who gets a job working for a transmission repair outfit (for example), may, in time, learn to do everything involved in rebuilding a transmission, the experience he gains will open doors to him in the automotive industry. A few years working may lead to a career, conversely, he may realize that getting tranny fluid on his hands everyday is not his cup of tea and he will look elsewhere, again this is all HIS choice.
Lets assume, that he does learn everything about rebuilding a transmission and decides that he can make more money (or get benefits) elsewhere, he has now developed a skill set and has a marketable trade that he can use to benefit himself AND a different employer. Thus making him productive for his boss, and himself.
Regarding your last sentence, many gas stations are open 24/7, you can buy gas without ever dealing with a person, many stations have and sell commonly needed items (as well as lottery tickets) along with gas, the majority of the people I see working behind the counters are those who do not want to devote the effort to a career OR those working a second or third job. All of them are providing a service, therefore, they are productive and useful. That being said, I would hardly call their production worthy of anything more than a couple bucks an hour, nonetheless, the are productive and useful.
“taking more from the ‘rich’ hurts the economy because it is the rich who create the opportunities for jobs.”
Ah, and the “trickle-down” crowd (also known as the gang that couldn’t shoot straight) rides again…ugh…
“I find fault in the logic that a person working at Mickey D’s is entitled to health care coverage or any other benefits.”
Right, “screw the average worker”…the mantra of the GOP.
“Fast food, delivering papers, and working at a nationwide retail chain in the mall are jobs for those who do not yet have the skill sets to start a career”
in your own, ignorant opinion that is.
“but the skills needed to sell jeans to a teenager are hardly the equal to that of a Xerox salesman.”
LOL…that is one of the most absurd statements that you’ve ever made here “DJ”, which is quite a feat in your case!
“the majority of the people I see working behind the counters are those who do not want to devote the effort to a career OR those working a second or third job”
…because “DJ” is capable of reading their minds…not…
“I find fault in the logic that a person working at Mickey D’s is entitled to health care coverage or any other benefits.”
Why?
Maybe he’s another Mahatma Gandhi or Jesus Christ. Maybe he’s more “useful” than a lying, evil, thief who works on Wall Street and earns his living by moving around $1 billion at a time via dishonest means. Since money is an inherently flawed method for determining something as important as access to health care the only way to level things out is to apply the system equally to all.
Mr. Lying Scumbag is still free to go out and “achieve” all he wants.
Perks that can be bought with money should be things like Lakers front row playoff tickets. Not something as vital as health care.
Wigglesworth,
You asked “Why?”.
Quite simply, jobs, like those offered at Mickey D’s and the like (actually all those that I mentioned) serve a significant purpose in the daily life of the average American. These jobs allow teens to learn what “work” is. It gives them the opportunity to understand how the business world works, they get a simple course in supply and demand, humility, and for those that work the register, taxes. They learn the value of team work, and the concept of responsibility. Most (I would venture to guess greater than 98%) use the fast food world to gain a bit of experience and little more. There are exceptions, my step sister for example, worked her way through the Burger King chain and now runs her own store. She was required to take some college courses in finance and economics in order to get her most recent promotion. She is the exception, not the rule.
Health care and other benefits do not belong in the “minimum wage” market. It is not cost effective. Most people swing though fast food joints because the service is quick and the price is low, I for one would never pay 15 dollars for a Big Mac.
As I posted before, the US is currently paying about 17% of GDP on health care, imagine how much a Big Mac value meal would cost if Mickey D’s offered Health care to all of its workers. They would quickly go out of business.
The jobs that I previously mentioned are necessary, but they are hardly careers for the VAST majority of workrs. If Mickey D’s offered health care and other significant benefits, most of the laborers would never leave, that would cause a severe loss of job opportunities for the “next” group of young people and would significantly increase the number of people living at the poverty level.
“Perks that can be bought with money should be things like Lakers front row playoff tickets. Not something as vital as health care.”
As I read the above statement made by you, I get the impression that you view health care as right, please explain how health care is right and not a privilege. Where does your belief that health care is a right come from?
Regarding your “perks” description, are you implying that clothing and food and shelter should not be purchased? If this is your position, please expound, if not, can you please clarify?
“Health care and other benefits do not belong in the ‘minimum wage’ market.”
Again, in your ignorant, Right-wing opinion that is.
“As I posted before, the US is currently paying about 17% of GDP on health care”
…and the rest of the world pays no more than around 10% of GDP on health care, and they get *better* health care results & cover ALL of their people!
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
The total lack of economic knowledge of a few on this board is frightening. Someone who employs you has to make a profit after he pays your wages and health care. Some occupations just pay more in wages and benefits.
Why don’t you two open up a business, pay your employees generously, with free health care, and report back to this board, when you are bankrupt? Boss Obama will gladly bail you out with my tax dollars.
Why do you act surprised? I’ve said it before … repeatedly. There is a moral imperative in regards to providing health care to all. “Don’t touch *MY* money” is not a good enough reason to stand idly by while your fellow citizen dies.
Wigglesworth,
So you believe that this will no longer happen under the Obama plan. I argue that it will happen more often than it does now.
For the umpteenth time I will ask you to show me a place that has government run health care that actually works. The two countries that would seem to have the closest plans to Obama’s are Canada and Great Britain. There are plenty of stories coming from these places of people dying while on waiting lists for treatment.
If I have this wrong, please correct me.
Wigglesworth,
Please explain this “moral imperative” you mention. The way you stated your opinion leads me to believe that you are validating your position on your “feelings” that health care is a right. When you create programs based on feelings, there is no end to what the producers will be stuck paying for. For example, lets assume that the Obama single payer health care program you seem to support becomes law. Is it then going to become a right to get to the hospital? Will the producers have to pay for transportation to and from the hospital? What about the follow up visits? How about trips to pick up and refill medications? Not every city has reliable public transportation.
What about the excessive costs involved with some of the procedures? Are you willing to go down the street and inform your 72 year old neighbor that she can’t have a hip replacement because a cost/benefit analysis says it is not cost effective for her to have it? Will the 40 year old with lung cancer be denied treatment because he smoked for two years in high school?
Be very careful when you start using “moral imperatives” and “feelings” when you support a program. Our country was founded on the principle of INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, not moral imperatives. We are supposedly a “moral people”, and on an individual basis, I think the vast majority of us believe we are moral, but for you to claim it a moral imperative that I pay for someone else to have/maintain health care is not only absurd, it is down right disgusting. If someone wants my help, they should come to me directly, you would be surprised how much INDIVIDUAL Americans give when asked.
“lets assume that the Obama single payer health care program you seem to support becomes law.”
OMG…Obama is NOT advocating for a single-payer system, period!
“How about trips to pick up and refill medications? Not every city has reliable public transportation.”
Never heard of the tax deduction that’s already on the books *right now* that allows one to deduct mileage & expenses to go to seek medical care eh “DJ”?? What a surprise…
“What about the excessive costs involved with some of the procedures?”
Those would actually come *down* under a single-payer system (due to the profit & excessive administration costs that would be eliminated), but too bad Obama isn’t pushing for that.
“Are you willing to go down the street and inform your 72 year old neighbor that she can’t have a hip replacement because a cost/benefit analysis says it is not cost effective for her to have it? Will the 40 year old with lung cancer be denied treatment because he smoked for two years in high school?”
When has this ever happened?? Oh yea, it was never…
Something else I’ve said repeatedly. I’d rather wait for health care than have none at all. Maybe sometime we can get together around the camp fire and you can share your “stories.”
“Maybe sometime we can get together around the camp fire and you can share your ‘stories.'”
Don’t bother…those “stories” are mere isolated anecdotes that don’t mean anything globally. No other country that has a some form a single-payer system would exchange their system for our system, and a majority of Americans have wanted a single-payer health care system in the USA for quite some time now.
DJ,
Just like Obama, they cannot answer direct questions. Just like Obama, they cannot give details.
Maybe someone can give a report from the Wednesday night White House infomercial on ABC. I won’t be watching it.