Are the Obama voters happy with the Trillion dollar bill?

[Eureka]

Socialism>Capitalism>Fascism.

 

[Old Baldy]

No - Feudalism - Communism/Socialism/Fascism - Capitalism.

 

[The Gardener]

Well here we are into week three or four of the economy saving stimulus package and the Dow plunges another 254 points. As of 1:35pm the Dow is well below 7,000.

I know Doug - blame it on Bush!!?? Isn't the mantra of you liberals?

What is going on with our economy is completely unrelated to political party. Both parties have the same paymasters, and frankly speaking, the end state of this deleveraging would be the same thing regardless if it were Obama, John McCain, or even a solid economic conservative such as a Mitt Romney in the oval office.

The end state is the death of the US's business model, which has been running feverishly in an unsustainable mode for decades. The epitapth of the death of this business model was crafted as far back as the 1970s, when US became a net importer of oil, and simultaneously took itself off of an asset-backed currency regime. From that point on, we were doomed. Reagan briefly took us off of the negative trajectory by deregulating banks, allowing us to create asset bubbles... but now even these are popping. Bush Senior chipped in by giving China most favored nation status, allowing us to export the inflation that our bubble system was creating... but of course in the longer term, this has turned out to be disastrous too. The Clinton/Rubin cabal poured gasoline on the fire by repealing Glass Steagall (allowing retail banks to play in the investment banking world) and by giving Fannie and Freddie a nod and a wink. As for Bush junior, I have no freaking idea what his contribution was other than do everything he could to allow elites to loot this country, and do everything he could to destroy this country. I'm just beguiled by Bush junior... how on earth is this guy not in leg irons? Or, why is he not in hidden exile at some remote Paraguayan ranch that isn't marked on the map?

The difference between doing nothing, and/or trying to play FDR ala Obama, is similar to the difference between death by car crash (sudden and swift), or death by cancer (less sudden, more drawn out). There are arguments that could be made in support of both positions, and frankly speaking, I'm personally really not sure which is best. I suppose the car crash might be quicker, but the resulting chaos might be more traumatic to a nation with countless unresolved and simmering social issues amongst our heavily armed populace. The cancer method tries to smooth out the pain, but creates crushing debts that will need to be paid for generations, and will probably hamper any sort of recovery for significant amount of time. I just don't know... and, who really does know? I hear economists that admire and respect fall on both sides of this issue.

I'm sure his health care proposal will work wonders for the economy.

Right now, the US Government has an estimated $1.2T in unfunded medical obligations to pay for retired federal workers and military servicemen. Medicare, right now, is underfunded over $40T, and as the cost of health care in this country continues to increase at a rate higher than inflation, this figure will grow exponentially. That's right, in order to give our pensioning citizens basic health care that they have been promised from Medicare, we need to come up with 40T RIGHT NOW. That is, of course, TRIPLE this country's entire GDP. Not gonna happen, so something needs to change or something needs to break.

Oh, we're gonna get nationalized health care, all right. But it won't be done in the name of fairness and/or socialism, but rather, it will be done as a act of desperate national survival, by a nation on the brink of systematic failure and collapse. In other words, it won't be a fancy-smanchy slick Euro-Canadian system, but rather it will be an austere system designed to RATION health care. They have no other choice. Either that, or tell all the baby boomers who plan on relying on medicare that they're S.O.L. and are now officially on their own with no assistance. I predict the government will nationalize health care because in doing so, they can drastically reduce the cost of the medicare obligations as, by nationalizing it, they can remove all of the excess legal cost associated with malpractice... they can remove all of the actuarial costs that most insurance companies carry... and, they can flat out RATION prescription drugs, which has been one of the largest drivers of the skyrocketing cost of health care.

It's gonna happen... well, I suppose one way that it might be avoided is if the Federal government goes broke before these obligations go cash-negative, in which case the unfunded obligations would not need to be met, as there would be no central government of which to obligate... but of course that portends an entirely different stream of problems... lol

Sorry, but I'm now starting to laugh at the partisan sniping I hear and see on TV. Its like watching the navigator and the night watchman on the Titanic both fighting and furiously pointing fingers at each other. Both parties are clueless, both have allowed and encouraged this disaster we are in, and frankly, I don't think that either of the parties really understands what just happened.

 

[Old Baldy]

I know Gardener. I just get irritated when I hear the same old "blame Bush for everything" stuff out there.

This debacle was a long time coming.

As to health care, does the movie "Soylent(sp?) Greeen" ring a bell?

 

[Doug Douglas]

I know Gardener. I just get irritated when I hear the same old "blame Bush for everything" stuff out there.

This debacle was a long time coming.

Right. It was, like, 8 years coming.

 

[Eureka]

I think 8 years is being a bit shortsighted Douglaaaas.

I think 30 is more likely. Although you might be able to argue that had we had another 8 years of a Clinton type president, say Al Gore. That this whole thing could have been staved off longer. Or perhaps avoided altogether.

 

[The Gardener]

I think 30 is more likely.

I agree.

 

[Old Baldy]

+1

 

[CCS]

At least my roommate is not afraid of sociallism. He thinks sociallized medicine will lower health care costs. He's not at all worried about paying for the costs of all the smokers, drinkers, and overweight people. Of course many private health insurance companies don't discriminate on that basis either.

 

[Eureka]

At least my roommate is not afraid of sociallism. He thinks sociallized medicine will lower health care costs. He's not at all worried about paying for the costs of all the smokers, drinkers, and overweight people. Of course many private health insurance companies don't discriminate on that basis either.

This type of thinking annoys me to no end. If you were in a position. Where you were sick and you were denied care because you could not afford it. You would want assistance. You would want help.

Instead you have Americans who have Health care, who are being taken care of. Griping about having to help people out. Simply because they aren't the ones who need it.

Your already helping pay for those people anyway. Whether you realize it or not.

If your sick you should be taken care of. No matter who's fault it is. This is basic humanitarianism. And is more important then a second house or an overpriced car.

 

[badasshairday III]

Health care in this country will become similar to what is seen in Australia. 2 tiers. The public sector and the private sector. Those with money will demand better care than the public sector can give.

And that is fine, especially considering when people get older and in rough times like this, lose their jobs, they have a fallback. For 50 year olds, the price to get private insurance outside of an employer based service is crippling, especially when you have no job. However, with that being said, in this current system I have no sympathy for 20 something's (think they will never die) currently who do not purchase health insurance and instead blow money on a vacation to Vegas. They could easily buy high deductible insurance for catastrophe's like emergency surgery ect for 50$ a month. Then when they get sick/hurt, they expect society to bail them out. Take some damn personal responsibility.

In terms of Obama's trillion dollar plan, yeah, it sucks have big government, but CCS don't even say that the Republicans are not big government as well. And in rough times like this, I think it is our best interest to support our President and hope that things get better.

 

[badasshairday III]

Oh, we're gonna get nationalized health care, all right. But it won't be done in the name of fairness and/or socialism, but rather, it will be done as a act of desperate national survival, by a nation on the brink of systematic failure and collapse. In other words, it won't be a fancy-smanchy slick Euro-Canadian system, but rather it will be an austere system designed to RATION health care. They have no other choice. Either that, or tell all the baby boomers who plan on relying on medicare that they're S.O.L. and are now officially on their own with no assistance. I predict the government will nationalize health care because in doing so, they can drastically reduce the cost of the medicare obligations as, by nationalizing it, they can remove all of the excess legal cost associated with malpractice... they can remove all of the actuarial costs that most insurance companies carry... and, they can flat out RATION prescription drugs, which has been one of the largest drivers of the skyrocketing cost of health care.

You are absolutely spot on G.

Except I wouldn't use "fancy" to decribe the Euro-canadian systems.

 

[Bryan]

Health care in this country will become similar to what is seen in Australia. 2 tiers. The public sector and the private sector. Those with money will demand better care than the public sector can give.

I think that's a very reasonable compromise, and I hope that gets implemented in this country, too.

I continue to be fascinated why so many people in this country are terrified at the prospect of "big governament" getting involved in something like health care, although an obvious big contibutor to that is all the bad-mouthing done by Republicans and other right-wing reactionaries. The chatter on AM talk-radio is FULL of that kind of garbage, and it goes on day after day after day after day... Even though I don't like the idea of any kind of control of what goes out over the airwaves, I really do hope that they re-institute a "fairness doctrine" for radio programs.

Did y'all see that funny comment made by Bill Maher during the closing monologue of his show this past Friday evening? He said that so many people say something to the effect that "Do you REALLY want all businesses to be nationalized, and work about as well as the Postal Service??", and Maher's reply to that was (I'm paraphrasing here, using the best of my recollection) "Uh....YES, the Postal Service works pretty damned efficiently! For only forty-two cents, you can get an important letter all the way across the country (3,000 miles or so), and into the hands of loved ones! If only all PRIVATE companies worked as efficiently as that!" :hump: But instead, the de-regulation and relaxation of government control has produced this economic crisis, not to mention the scumbags of the world like the Bernie Madoffs and the filthy-rich corporate CEOs who haven't done a damned thing to EARN their riches. It's absolutely disgusting.

 

[Old Baldy]

You know I disagree with you on nationalized health care and the so-called fairness doctrine Bryan.

If liberals can't compete with conservatives on the airwaves, that's their fault. They ain't entertaining enough and don't captivate the audiences as well. However, you always have MSNBC, Mahar and NPR.

Some sort of national health care is ok as long as it isn't too much if you get what I mean. But I am totally against control of the airwaves. I mean TOTALLY. It falls under the category of tyranny for me.

I mean, here we are with the liberals winning big in 2006 and 2008, yet they want the fairness doctrine. Total control maybe? Free society, free airwaves, any other way is tantamount to tyranny IMHO.

But I wholeheartedly agree with you on the fat cat scumbags!! Here's what I'd like to see happen to some of those egregious fat cats: :firing:

Let's put greedy consumers in there also.

 

[CCS]

When every airwave is used, and stations fight over them, then maybe we can ration them somehow. But until then, last I checked, 2/3 of the frequencies are just static. There is nothing stopping a liberal station from taking one of the static channels and setting up shop.

The reason I listen to right wing radio is the music on most stations is just lame. If Obama wants to kill right wing radio, all he has to do is put some good music on the radio and I'd listen to that instead. These music stations play CD filler too much, when they know it is not a hit song.

 

[CCS]

And one thing I hate about NPR is when they spend an hour or two talking about classial Jazz and other arts, at a time when I want to know what is going on in washington. No wonder liberal radio does not make money.

 

[Eureka]

That's a ridiculous argument. Since republicans and conservatives blast away like children in the schoolyard then the other side should just do it as well?

You couldn't have a democratic rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh's audience is uninformed. Which is why when he says things like he's blue collar America, when he actually makes 50 million dollars a year, no one questions. Or he's pro family values, and been divorced 4 times.

When you call into His show your screened on whether or not you agree with him not whether or not your crazy.

Only select republicans could eat that guy's garbage.

Fear the brown people, they'll kill us all with the guns we sold them!
Watch out they've got a musket!

Not that all Democrats seem to be informed either. Obama seems to have won just as much for his smile as he has for his policies.

So maybe you could have the democratic equivalent. But that doesn't mean there should be one.

Although say what you will about Maher but he's more centered then Bill O' Reilly or Rush Limbaugh. He actually brings people on his show that don't agree with him. On his show there's a debate.

 

[Bryan]

Although say what you will about Maher but he's more centered then Bill O' Reilly or Rush Limbaugh. He actually brings people on his show that don't agree with him. On his show there's a debate.

Yes he _does_ bring people on his show who don't agree with him, and for that, I have great respect for him! :hump:

I'll have to admit, though, that Michael Medved is fairly good about that, too; for example, a while back he had Naomi Wolf as a guest, and she was physically in the studio, not just a telephone interviewee.

But the other right-wing reactionary wackos on the radio like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Michael Savage (in my opinion, Savage is about one step away from being committed as a TOTAL nutcase) wouldn't DREAM of having guests who disagree with their positions. I have no respect at all for them.

 

[Old Baldy]

You guys would probably be surprised to know that I do not listen to any of the right wing or left wing talk radio shows.

I never got into the rabid extremism on those types of shows.

As corny as it sounds, I'm for bringing people together. I honestly believe the VAST majority of us want the same thing. We just differ on how to get there.

Those extremist, although possibly entertaining, talk shows do not achieve the goal I long for.

I watch O'Reilly and MSNBC now and then but that's about it. MSNBC is more extreme from my point of view but it provides some balance overall for me.

I just never have gravitated towards those extreme party line programs. They turn me off - BIG TIME.

Now the outdoor channel on Wednesday nights from 8:00 to 10:00pm is my kind of show. It's a two hour conglomeration of firearms programs!! Yes baby, now that's what I'm talkin' about!!

Oh, and let's not forget the science, military and history channels!!

Come on guys, stop watching that political crap so much. Those programs ain't good for the soul. They're shallow and stupid IMHO.

 

[Bryan]

Old Baldy, do you ever watch Bill Maher's show on HBO on Friday night? The guy is VERY smart, VERY funny, VERY entertaining. I think he's a national treasure.