I have a solution ...give more nukes to Israel and take the collar off... I bet the middle east become very .....Quiet after an initial uproar...

Israel probably has enough nukes for an impressive genocide.

But that was never Israel's agenda.

(This is why the world expects Israel to give land for peace. Everybody knows that it is the Arabs peace must be bought from, not Israel.)

Let's see...

3% of 6.6 billion is around 198 million.

Covering 50,000-60,000 people would be spending around $4,000-$3,300 each?

Hasn't the White House come up with figures closer to $6,000 per person per year?

Seems like SF is doing something right if they can do it that cheaply.

But they are only average numbers, after all. Personally, I don't go to doctors or seek medical help on a yearly (or even semi-yearly) basis. I only go if I really have to. I go many years between any visit to a doctor, so I doubt in my 53 years that I have racked up even close to $175.000-$318,000 in medical bills - even considering the 5 (2 corrective knee and 3 hernia) surgeries I have had over the years.

I doubt that any of us spend $3,300-$6,000 per month on health insurance - per person, per year. But, that is what 'insurance' is all about. It is paying (relatively) little to get a lot if you need it, or spending a lot even if you only ever need a little.

Insurance plays on the fears of people, and profits by those fears. Because most people don't really need all that much money for health care.

The USA is broke. If any normal person would have wasted money in reckless abandon like the US did, Bernie Madoff's crimes would be called peanuts.

The public debt amounts to over 11 trillion USD and it will grow ... but the GDP is over 14 trillion USD. Ok, the US can't simply say "Let's stop spending for a year and we're debt free", but these numbers show that the US is still credit worthy - meaning that it will happily get deeper into debt to pay for new shiny stuff.

Joking aside, these numbers are catastrophic, because some of those debts have to be paid every year with no way of postponing them, limiting the budget the US has available to continue their wasteful spending. Most of the debts are from government bonds whose payments are due and the only way to get more money is to sell more government bonds.

In case you don't know how government bonds work: A country is basically lending itself money based on it's future GDP. E.g. the US assumes it will have a GDP of 40 trillion in the year 2029 so it can "borrow" against that from the US government of 2029 ... long after the current government is free of any responsibility.

While there's a lot that can be said against this practice I'll refrain from doing so. I merely wanted to point out that paying without money traditionally never was a problem for the USA.

Another way to generate money is to print it. This will lower the worth of the dollar shortly after (and it's theoretically forbidden for the USA to do so according to a pact making the dollar the world's lead currency in exchange for the promise to not print more dollars - but who's to tell someone with nukes fighting a losing war in vietnam what to do?).

But even the permanent devaluation of the US currency can be beneficial and it's a very likely (and dreaded) scenario that the US may enforce it. Government bonds can include protection against inflation (which is why they are regarded as a safe investment) but nothing protects against the devaluation of the currency. If that happens, all current debts are reduced as well as the worth of all government bonds still due.

Of course, this act will eliminate the dollar as lead currency and destroy any credibility for a long time ... and china will be "pissed off" because they bought most of the bonds. But to be honest, it may not matter anyway since the Euro € is very likely to replace the dollar as lead currency anyway.

Raising taxes is a good way to get money, too, but that's something average americans can understand and put on those funny protest signs. "DON'T TAX OUR COCA COLA, OBAMANAZI!".

 

Anyway, regarding the health care reform, money isn't really the issue. The reform should - and that's something anyone can agree with - make health care more cost efficient and better, no matter which form it takes.

But instead of discussing it earnestly, political games are played, lies are spoken, rational arguments screamed down.

Financed by private insurers.

So what's the obvious solution? Support Obama's policy of spending even more?

http://www.politicsrealm.com/images/obama-deficit.jpg

http://caseyresearch.com/images/Federal%20Deficit%20Borrowing%203.jpg

I honestly don't know what would have happened if Obama didn't bail out these failbanks. I think one of those banks (AIG, I think) was involved in government bond trading and having that fail might have prevented the admin from getting new money.

Anyway, the US economy always was pure anarchy with regular crashes every 10 years or so, some of them epic. And thanks to lobbyism the whole bloody country is nearly unreformable, especially if a weak president is in power with naive ideas like bipartisanship. Bush might be a ruthless fanatic and stupid as a dining table, but he pushed most of his agendas through despite all opposition. Hence the mess you are in.

On a global scale, countries are acting to survive the possible total meltdown of the US economy. Europe will suffer but probably be fine due to a strong domestic trade. China will be hit hardest since they own many dollars and a dependent on US imports.

So, in an ironic twist of fate, the country you are preparing to go on war with is your greatest ally.

Talk about values.

You are confusing the deficit with the bailouts.




A ruthless fanatic? Are you even following American politics?

Bush was as much a ruthless fanatic as the Pope is a protestant dairy farmer in Londonderry.

And as for the alleged stupidity, the man has an MBA and can pilot military aircraft. How much smarter are YOU?




I don't know which US imports China depends on.




Which country are "we" preparing to go on war with that was "our" "greatest ally"???

ah, poisoned topics. Ignore my personal inflections. Sorry, I made the same mistake I accused your political debates of doing.

Anyway, about the china thing: China has strong interest in keeping the dollar strong and it relies on americans importing goods from them. That's what I mean with "ally". And I will refuse to discuss the willingness of the USA to fight wars - worthy or not. So I'll just concede that point: The USA is not preparing for a war against China.

Can happen to anyone.




I don't know if the US imports more from China than the EU or other parts of the world.




Of course it isn't. I don't think it ever came up.

But an "ally" I wouldn't call China either.



P.S.: Can you tell me what you are doing at the end of your comments? Whenever I reply directly to you, my comment will start as a quote, until I clean it up by copying it to Notepad and back to remove special characters.

Are you pasting text from a word processor like Word?

 

Currently China is one of the world's greatest export nation and the USA is the top customer by far: US$337.8 billion in 2008. (source 1, 2). The first european country - Germany - imports about US$115 billion. China might not be your "ally", but you bound together by strong economic bonds (haha) and goals.

China has a total trade balance of US$295 billion (world wide trade, not just us), meaning that the destruction of the US economy will bring china into a high trade deficit (although the subsequent turmoil on the world financial market would be even worse).

For comparison: The USA already has a trade deficit of US$29 billion (source). In layman's terms this means that you sell a cheeseburger for less than the price of the cheese.

There are those nice graphs floating around that were formerly used to demonstrate how deeply Bush fucked up the US economy. Now it has Obama estimates included to illustrate how much worse he supposedly is.

The anti-Obama versions usually stop at 2009 but even so it's not very promising. The common reading is that Dubya turned a massive trade surplus into a titanic trade deficit, climaxing in the current crisis. He dug a hole too deep for Obama to climb out anytime soon. Of course, depending on your political point of view you can spin it anyway you want, even though it seems indisputable that the US economy floored despite all those shiny neo-liberal free market measures introduced during the bush era.

(btw. I'm not sure exactly how much of the budget deficit is related to the trade deficit. be aware that the above graphs might not complete represent what I'm actually talking about)

No, I do it directly in the browser.

JoeUser forum software has problems with nested quotes. Among many other shortcomings. I sometimes get the same problems you described and have to fix it manualy, too.

Something to complain about in the forum-issues subforum - but good luck with that.

What exactly where those measures?

 

This is probably another poisoned topic but let's mention "outsourcing" amongst others. You could google something about the bush economy and see if some of the arguments against neoliberalism make sense now.

"outsourcing" was one of the Bush era measures that brought about the recession?

And I could google about the Bush economy and would find left-wing Web sites?

That's it? That's what you meant when you implied that you knew what measures Bush introduced and how they lead to a recession?

 

NAFTA, finance market deregulation (directly causing the housing market collapse), war against terror, tax cuts for the rich, budget cuts in maintenance (see new orleans levys), ...

But can I assume by your last answer that you are not interested in looking into these topics but rather want to bash on me for not liking Bush?

NAFTA? Be more specific. How did NAFTA cause the recession?

Which finance market deregulation that caused the housing market collapse are you talking about?

How is the war against terror an economic policy?

Which tax cuts for the rich caused the recession and how?

Where did the Bush administration cut the budget of maintenance and why is the Bush administration responsible for budget cuts in maintenance in a Democrat-led state? Are levees the responsibility of the federal government? If so, what did the Bush administration do in four years that affected the levees and why didn't the state government act appropriately?

I think you are simply listing things you remember as "bad" and think it is safe to pretend that Bush is somehow to blame for them. You remind me of the lefties who believe that the word "Nicaragua" is proof that the CIA are involved in whatever situation one is currently talking about. ("Saddam gased the Kurds." - "Yeah, he was an US ally." - "Actually, he was a Russian client." - "And what about Nicaragua, eh?")





Yeah, that's right. I don't accept indeterminate accusations without questioning them or even find out what they actually are because I "want to bash on you" for "not liking Bush".

The labor laws in Québec are, how to put it "gently", more obvious & less restrictive on BOTH the employers and any potential workforces. UFCW gave me & plenty of others excellent work conditions & a reasonably good salary in a Renovation center as salesman between 87/92 (long time ago, i know, the dynamics have changed since and yet, recession helping i STILL had a family of four to sustain)... that didn't stop the ownership from selling & demolishing the "old" stores and starting big-box style alternatives to compete with Home-Depot (sounds familiar?), Rona and the likes. We delt with contractors as often as with the one-time walk-ins for

The staff turnover rate in such commerceS has a serious impact on quality of services since customers have lower chances to meet the same staff year after year. Experience matters when you need clear advice on such important purchases -- you don't want to renovate your precious houses the wrong ways, for that you need reliable solutions at optimal costs, etc.

Wally Marty did exactly as when Hyundai failed in Bromont, they built the huge places. And once personel had *legally* signed for syndication - they simply closed the stores. And that's not counting the part-timer scams by scheduling people on restricted "hours" at minimal salaries to maintain Payroll expenses at INCREDIBLY lowest possible costs. Respect your co-workers, give them a real smile worth reasonable & earned money or CLOSE them all, one by one never to return in Québec -- or Canada, btw.

But they won't do that, do they -- too profitable for investors rather than the daily punch_clockers of a group of employees which must face the very same economic conditions as anyone else outside these walls. For every dollars they don't see on their payckecks, consumers get and buy a quick flood of items. Invaluable savings for their family budgets? Sure?

Raising taxes doesn't actually work if you want to increase revenue. Presidents Kennedy, Reagan and Bush lowered taxes, and tax revenues went up. At some point, economic activity is stifled, and revenues go down. There's no point engaging in some activity if the government is going to take most of your money. The rich already pay the vast majority of taxes, and if you took all their money, you couldn't possibly pay for all the schemes.

Money is an issue when you can't afford something, and no country can afford to pay for an unlimited amount of treatment. The Social Security/Medicaid/Medicare scheme is going to collapse as it is, and adding another insanely expensive scheme to that will merely hasten the collapse, and then what happens to health care?

Read my first post about one of the provisions in the Senate  bill, and consider the implications. Health Police, with the authority to monitor your life, and instruct you as to your eating, exercise and smoking habits. Consider how many employees would be required to carry out such a scheme, and how much that would cost.

Claiming that the opposition to the bills is financed by the insurance industry is ludicrous. The supporters, on the other hand, are financed by Acorn, the SEIU, and the Democrat Party and it's supporters. Now the Democrat party is organizing what they call "grassroots" demonstrations. That support is artificial; the opposition is real.

 

I am still wondering whether the (however many) real grassroots supporters of the healthcare reform are shouting "We care and want to give our own money to help other people!" or "We care and want other people to give their money to help us!".

In other words, how many of the caring supporters of Obama's plans are in it for the chance to give money to other people (and why didn't they already organise such a system a long time ago) and how many are in it for the free lunch?

 

The reasoning behind sustainable growth is that you need productivity & infra-structures; artificial influx by dropping values of both cannot be "compensated" by any coincidental market conditions (be it offered or enforced, btw). That's where some estimated Trading pacts were to be the temporary solution for a quick balance out of money flows not printed but applied to solid but stable mechanics of transactions between pooled countries (EU, NAFTA, etc).

You've got meat & TeeVees, here's wheat or rice -- sort of.

And since currency "evaluations" are just a transitional factor, anyone still is dependant on Offer/Demands activities.

The housing market collapse was brought about by Democrat policies of providing mortgages to people who couldn't afford them through Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae.

Should we call off the war against terror? You know, just let them have a free hand? What the heck, it costs too much, anyway, right?

A lot of rich people are rich because they are productive, and provide employment for the rest of the populace. Socialists don't produce wealth, they steal it; they run out of other peoples money sooner or later.

New Orleans was a Democrat disaster; the governor (a Democrat) didn't allow the federal government in in time, the mayor (a Democrat), didn't bus people out when he could have, and the funds allocated for levee repair weren't used for the repairs.

Such as; India, Japan, Russia or Taiwan?

Four of which have better interests to (i dunno, somehow) keep watch rather than interfere when called for. Diplomatically yours or implicitly theirs makes central Asia as much of a bottleneck as Tibet staring up at the Himalayas.

No wonder Indonesia and the Phillipines are located in the Pacific ocean. Call it a coincidence of distance from foot steps or triggered missiles.

Duh -- since when socialism doesn't employ people to generate wealth also.

I read on Wikipedia:

In 1977, the Carter Administration and the United States Congress passed and signed the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, or CRA , designed to boost lending in inner cities with areas of extreme blight by forcing area banks to open new branches in these areas and to have a certain percentage of their lending portfolio of small business loans and home mortgages located in these areas. Failure to maintain this ratio would result in the banks being prevented from opening branches in other areas that were not distressed.

In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans to low and moderate income borrowers by increasing the ratios of their loan portfolios in distressed inner city areas designated in the CRA of 1977. Due to the increased ratio requirements, institutions in the primary mortgage market pressed Fannie Mae to ease credit requirements on the mortgages it was willing to purchase, enabling them to make loans to subprime borrowers at interest rates higher than conventional loans. Shareholders also pressured Fannie Mae to maintain its record profits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_mae#Contributing_factors_and_early_warnings

It goes on to say how the Bush administration added to this, but apparently that was done with government grants to help people pay mortgages.

You seem to be right.

 

The war against terror is something we have to fight regardless of the economy goes. Nobody is safe unless the terror regimes are stopped. And the later we fight the war, the more expensive will it be, both economically, and in human terms.

 

Well... socialists do produce wealth and do not necessarily steal. There are two types of socialists. The first type believe that everybody should contribute according to their means. You can find those on kibbutzim in Israel and among the early Zionists. The second type believe that everybody should receive according to their needs (as defined by who-knows-who). You can find those among the unemployed and lazy.

Anyone who believes in solidarity should ask himself what he can contribute and not what he can gain from it. But I don't see protesters on the street demanding that government accept their labour or money to help provide healthcare to other people.

 

That's what I heard. But apparently the Bush administration should have known that the Democratic administration of Lousisiana was incompetent and should have taken over funding of the levee repairs when the state government decided not to repair them any more.

 

So does slavery. But slavery itself is not productive without using other people's labour without their consent.

 

Excellent summary of the "situations".

Lemme add that private insurers have already cashed in the process and wouldn't possibly stand for any restrictions that would limit the juicy pipeline of steady profits. So don't worry, citizens, you're still covered and pending to receive treatments when you must. How efficient and reasonably priced those will be is a whole different issue.