07 Nov 09
A year ago, when the American economy was on the edge of collapse I was supportive on Presidents Bush and Obama's decision to pump billions in stimulus dollars into the American economy in order to avoid a massive economic meltdown. I was not happy at the thought, but I felt it was necessary. That should now end, this can be done gradually over the next 6-9 months. The economy seems to have stabilized, and further stimulus spending will only add to the already huge national debt as well as increase inflationary pressures. 😏
07 Nov 09
Originally posted by bill718Coming from you, that's one of those things that make someone do a double-take.
A year ago, when the American economy was on the edge of collapse I was supportive on Presidents Bush and Obama's decision to pump billions in stimulus dollars into the American economy in order to avoid a massive economic meltdown. I was not happy at the thought, but I felt it was necessary. That should now end, this can be done gradually over the next 6-9 ...[text shortened]... will only add to the already huge national debt as well as increase inflationary pressures. 😏
Although technically correct, the politicians will find it too unpopular for their re-election bids while the unemployment numbers remain high (california is in double-digits, so are many other states in the country)... that's politics, half their job is prioritizing popularity and poll numbers towards a victorious election over more commendable goals.
08 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by eljefejesusThis may come as a shock to you, but I'm not a Socialist as many here claim. As a Real Estate Agent, and Landlord, I run my own business, pay my own bills, balance my own books, and have never drawn a penny of public assistance. I am however opposed to those who think that Capitalism can, and should police itself, as well as the stupid idea that giving massive tax breaks to the super rich will magically transform the American economy into an economic wonderland, because these same rich people will automatically invest these extra dollars in growing American business's therby creating a massive amount of great paying jobs. Most of the tax break money is invested elsewhere, and the majority of jobs created are those paying at or below the poverty level. I also support a public option for healthcare because I don't believe that Insurance Companies and HMO's should dictate who gets medical coverage, and who does not, based only on the size of there wallet. The typical Republican attitute regarding healthcare seems to be "I GOT MINE...TO HELL WITH YOU!!" As a Christian, I believe in caring for the poor. I believe in giving back to my community and to my fellow citizens. I believe that ALL American's are entitled to at least a minimum amount of healthcare, regardless of there ability to pay, just like every other industrialized country in the world. I believe these things are more imporntant than some extra profits for our beloved Insurance Companies and HMO's. It's a pity that the G O P does not share my views...and if this makes me a Socialist. SO BE IT! 😏
Coming from you, that's one of those things that make someone do a double-take.
Although technically correct, the politicians will find it too unpopular for their re-election bids while the unemployment numbers remain high (california is in double-digits, so are many other states in the country)... that's politics, half their job is prioritizing popularity and poll numbers towards a victorious election over more commendable goals.
08 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by bill718So you would agree that it is "good" to reduce the quality of living for the "haves" so that the "haves nots" can be elevated? I suppose its all how you want to shift the misery around. Of course, like in the former USSR this model is said to be the goal but never is achieved. What ends up happening is that you have fewer and fewer "haves" and an oligarchy of sorts forms forming a more totalitarian like regime. Then the masses are herded like cattle in the ways they see fit as we lose more and more of our freedomes for "the common good". Even more frightening is the fact that no power exceeds that of the state. For example, if insurance companies get out of line, you can always go running to Big Brother. However, if Big Brother gets out of line then all you have is a meaningless vote for one of two parties that are headed, or at least have been headed, in the same direction anyway. In fact, I am glad you conceed both Obama and Bush are headed down the same road.
This may come as a shock to you, but I'm not a Socialist as many here claim. As a Real Estate Agent, and Landlord, I run my own business, pay my own bills, balance my own books, and have never drawn a penny of public assistance. I am however opposed to those who think that Capitalism can, and should police itself, as well as the stupid idea that giving massi that the G O P does not share my views...and if this makes me a Socialist. SO BE IT! 😏
As for myself, I am also a Christian. Don't you think I care about the poor as well? If you look at the ministry of Jesus, he was about transforming hearts and minds to do the "right thing". In fact, he NEVER politicized his message. So where is this transformation if giving is forced? In fact, where is giving? Giving, in fact, becomes a tax and receiving becomes an entitlement. You then rob the giver of the blessings associated with giving and you rob the one receiving of the gratitude of having recieved something. What you wind up with is a society hell bent on getting out of paying taxes. like most we see in governmnet doing, and wefare recipients clamoring that what they are getting is never enough. Then you add insult to injury as the middle man, the government, ends up takiing a good chunk of the money that is suppose to go to the poor. No wonder neither party is supportive of reform. They both benefit financially from the setup.
To illustrate my point farther, you may want to take a look at your Bible and study the nation of Israel. There were provisions made for the poor, but not mandatory pay outs nor any middle men. In fact, they had no king at first, only judges to keep the peace. Read 1 Samuel chapter 8 when the people demanded a king to rule over them. God warns them about the consequences of having sinful men ruling and reining over them, and we still see it today.
08 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by bill718I never thought your were a socialist. I do, however, think that you sometimes tend to use gross oversimplifications, using trite ideological statements to sum up and "solve" extremely complex issues with one dimensional ideas; without bothering to support your hastily drawn conclusions with numbers, facts or pretty much anything.
This may come as a shock to you, but I'm not a Socialist as many here claim. As a Real Estate Agent, and Landlord, I run my own business, pay my own bills, balance my own books, and have never drawn a penny of public assistance. I am however opposed to those who think that Capitalism can, and should police itself, as well as the stupid idea that giving massi that the G O P does not share my views...and if this makes me a Socialist. SO BE IT! 😏
I am very glad to see that you have not chosen to do so on this thread and I hope that this is the start of a trend of your supporting your own views and arguments more thoroughly. Though I don't fully agree with your analysis on this post, I have to say that IMHO this is one of your best posts that I can remember. 😏
08 Nov 09
Originally posted by whodeyYou'll pardon me if I'm not crying big tears for our beloved super rich in America. Your idea that a few percentage points in taxes on them, so the working class can have a few crumbs of healthcare, will put these people poorhouse, is just plain silly. You've been listing to propaganda from the right wing too long. This has nothing to do with the USSR. This has to do with the fact that less than 2% of Americas population controls half of the countries wealth, and they want more! That's fine by me...but not if some janitor or Hotel maid can't get medical care because an Insurance company has decided these folks don't fit into there "coverage parameters" It amazes me that Republicans pander to the super rich thinking these people have magical powers or something. Case in point: Small business people like myself employ over 75% on Americans, but who gets the majority of the tax breaks when the G O P is in power? The fortune 500! Who recieved the stimulus money? The fortune 500! Who are the first in line for corperate welfare money? The fortune 500! This has nothing to do with socialism, this has to do with the super rich protecting there place at the top. If you want to continue to suck up to these people, go ahead. I refuse!😏
So you would agree that it is "good" to reduce the quality of living for the "haves" so that the "haves nots" can be elevated? I suppose its all how you want to shift the misery around. Of course, like in the former USSR this model is said to be the goal but never is achieved. What ends up happening is that you have fewer and fewer "haves" and an oligarchy ...[text shortened]... ences of having sinful men ruling and reining over them, and we still see it today.
08 Nov 09
3 edits
Originally posted by bill718We are not talking about the Super rich in America. We are talking about the average Joe who has a job and access to health care. We are talking about the government imposing another form of health care which may be inferior to the one they have now including higher wait times and higher taxes etc. with God knows who in government having to OK your every move between you and your doctor.
[b]You'll pardon me if I'm not crying big tears for our beloved super rich in America.
Those who are "SUPER RICH" don't need any health care plan they put on the books because they can either afford their own private doctors and/or seek medical attention anywhere across the globe. In short, what you are doing is diluting the quality of care in my opinion in the long term at a frighteningly increasing cost to the tax payers and future generations in the US. It is the blue color worker or the working poor who are stuck with whatever the government wishes to impose upon them, not members of the elitist Congress.
In fact, I started a thread about what Robert Riech said about what the next president would say about health care if he were to be honest. He gave like a three minute lecture on it in the mid 90's at the university of Berkley. In it, he said that we would have to make certain "sacrifices" to make health care affordable for everyone. This included research for inovative ideas that helps to extend life medically will have to come to an end. We simply can't afford to keep the "sick" alive any longer than we do now. In fact, he said we keep them alive too long as it is. My guess is the will ration care from those who are considered "terminal" or elderly.
08 Nov 09
Originally posted by bill718And part of this 2% in government are about to tell you what kind of medical care you should have. You know, these are the same clowns that oversaw the credit crisis coming and going and then proceede to hold a gun to our heads saying give us your money or else!! At first the voters were all up in arms about haning all that money over to the government and his corporate cronies....that is until they began to watch their retirement money dissappear. Its a little thing called extortion.
. You've been listing to propaganda from the right wing too long. This has nothing to do with the USSR. This has to do with the fact that less than 2% of Americas population controls half of the countries wealth, and they want more!
May I suggest we have been fleeced by both the left and right? May I suggest it is YOU who have been propogandized?
08 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyWe are talking about the government imposing another form of health care which may be inferior to the one they have now including higher wait times and higher taxes etc.
We are not talking about the Super rich in America. We are talking about the average Joe who has a job and access to health care. We are talking about the government imposing another form of health care which may be inferior to the one they have now including higher wait times and higher taxes etc. with God knows who in government having to OK your every m My guess is the will ration care from those who are considered "terminal" or elderly.
from what i have heard, its in need of some serious reform. in the U.K, health service is excellent. if an elderly person needs a hip replacement, there is a waiting time of around twelve weeks, it has given many a new lease of life. All children under the age of sixteen receive what amounts to 'free', dental treatment and 'free', eye treatment. ALL persons under a certain income are entitled to 'free', medical treatment. i think its what's termed a social conscience.
08 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieDon't get me wrong, waiting is not an issue with all health problems.....unless you have a cancerous tumor. Then they flock to the US for treatment. Innovation is another issue. Most of it comes from the states but I fear this too will come to an abrupt end. The feeling is that keeping people alive using innovative devices and techniques is simply too expensive. Of course, the last issue is the cost. You can't convince me that these clowns have any idea how much it will cost, just like those that set up Medicare and Medicaid did not see it going bust when proposed. They just launch it into orbit and make wagers as to where it lands. Meanwhile, the debt climbs ever higher and higher.
We are talking about the government imposing another form of health care which may be inferior to the one they have now including higher wait times and higher taxes etc.
from what i have heard, its in need of some serious reform. in the U.K, health service is excellent. if an elderly person needs a hip replacement, there is a waiting time of aro ...[text shortened]... re entitled to 'free', medical treatment. i think its what's termed a social conscience.
09 Nov 09
Originally posted by bill718You certainly recognize the long-term benefits to unwinding temporary government stimulus, yet you don't recognize the same in terms of stimulus via government spending in healthcare, which is a short-term hand-out with long-term downsides too. Same with attacking the rich and wealth as somehow evil. You'll be surprised to hear this, but even poor people are smart enough to learn that wealth is either a reward, or something that is actively discouraged by the state.
This may come as a shock to you, but I'm not a Socialist as many here claim. As a Real Estate Agent, and Landlord, I run my own business, pay my own bills, balance my own books, and have never drawn a penny of public assistance. I am however opposed to those who think that Capitalism can, and should police itself, as well as the stupid idea that giving massi ...[text shortened]... that the G O P does not share my views...and if this makes me a Socialist. SO BE IT! 😏
The poor not having wealth is a motivator for many poor people to get wealth. People should be educated about saving and investing, rather than encouraged to spend all their wealth so that others may take pity on them. Tough love is better than hand-outs. Think about the proverb about teaching a man to fish rather than giving him a fish. Do you want to create socialist-style dependents? That would certainly flatter your desired ideals, though it wouldn't really be what's best for a society in the long-term, to make such government intrusions via "public options" and other such nonsense. What do you mean the majority of jobs are below poverty level, people can choose to become investors by saving some of their earnings, and people can choose to educate themselves. You want to help the poor? Stop treating them like they need handouts.
09 Nov 09
2 edits
It seems like political debate about the economy is mainly the following three people talking past one another - with none really trying to address what the other two are saying.
Person A:
The means of production are controlled by a small number of evil capitalists who live as kings, and they benefit from the work of a large mass of people paid very little, barely enough to live on. Strong unions or government interventions are needed to ensure the lower classes get more than a few crumbs.
Person B:
The main reason why poverty exists is because many people are too just lazy to get an education or whatever else it takes to land a high-paying job, or they lack the discipline to save up and invest their money. Efforts to help the poor just encourages them in their laziness - indeed, it is the threat of being thrown into the street that provides the motivation behind a prospering economy.
Person C:
Big Government and-or Big Business are just a big conspiracy by the people in power to keep everyone else under their thumbs. Both the Republican and Democratic parties are both part of this effort to deprive the common people of their liberties. All problems will be solved if only the common people rise up and depose all these elitists who are trying to control everyone's life.
09 Nov 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesLOL... that's actially very good melanerpes. However, which of these is the most unemotional, logical, thought-out, real-solution option? A, B, or C? With the worldwide failures of the policies of the A's, and the whimsical conspiratorial policies of the C's, that leaves the unpopular bot more prudent solutions of the B's, with of course room to avoid the extremes of any policy through a few exceptions. Reality and financial prudence and incentives cannot be ignored or you empoverish more people, something the emotional A's and C's don't always care as much about as making an emotional (A's) or political (C's) point. B's in countries facing huge overspending and bankruptcy-facing entitlement programs have reality on their side.
It seems like political debate about the economy is mainly the following three people talking past one another - with none really trying to address what the other two are saying.
Person A:
The means of production are controlled by a small number of evil capitalists who live as kings, and they benefit from the work of a large mass of people paid very l ...[text shortened]... common people rise up and depose all these elitists who are trying to control everyone's life.
09 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by eljefejesusthe real-solution option is taking A, B, & C and mixing them all together, moving beyond the feel-good narratives and pragmatically figuring out what approach works the best.
LOL... that's actially very good melanerpes. However, which of these is the most unemotional, logical, thought-out, real-solution option? A, B, or C? With the worldwide failures of the policies of the A's, and the whimsical conspiratorial policies of the C's, that leaves the unpopular bot more prudent solutions of the B's, with of course room to avoi ge overspending and bankruptcy-facing entitlement programs have reality on their side.
A major problem with the pure B approach is that even if every person got a Harvard education and a graduate degree in rocket science, you'd still need a lot of people to wash the floors, stack the shelves, dig the ditches, flip the burgers, pick up the garbage, and all of the many other menial tasks that need to be done -- and most of these jobs just don't pay very much. And the typical poor person has very little savings left over after they've fed their families and paid the rent. It's not like everyone can become the next Warren Buffett if only they save a few extra pennies.
And - as your list of "economically free" countries indicates, there appears to be enough room for a country to be very socialistic (a la Sweden) and still have a great deal of economic freedom.