national debt guessing game

[maladroit]

how much has the national debt changed over the past year?

how about just the past three weeks?

no peeking: make a wild guess off the top of your head


**HINT**
it went up

[phatsesh101]

yeah nothing but bad moves in the gov. the housing interest rate was a good idea for people who owned homes not for new buyers. refi lower monthly payments put leftover back to economy sounds great but then they underestimate the stupidity of the american people and people who dont own houses thought it a good opp for them buying houses, raising the cost of houses, supp and demand
so now iwrote an equation. good idea + stupid people = bad outcome

[daihashi]

Every nation has a national Debt, what you should be concerned about is debt per capita in relation to unemployment rate and GDP.

Believe it or not Canada has a relatively small debt and a slightly smaller debt per capita but their GDP is far below ours; putting them in a worse situation to handle debt than us.

I am no fan of the deficit, but it's not the end of the world. It needs to be put under control ASAP.

Markets rise and fall, that's what they do. Look at the market trends over the last 50 years.

[maladroit]

don't blame it all on the american people - the invisible hand of the free markets drove the real estate market pricing...the usa is a consumer society, and consumers want...the system failed, not the people

president bush thought it was a great idea for people who can't afford houses to buy houses, and was still pimping that policy in may 2008:
2002:
President Hosts Conference on Minority Homeownership (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021015-7.html)
2008:
George W. Bush: Proclamation 8263 - National Homeownership Month, 2008 (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=77419)

the banks thought it was a great idea to issue mortgages to people who couldn't afford homes...they made billions off mortgages when things were good, and they made billions more when things were bad and the taxpayers bailed them out

but that isn't why the national debt is $10.2 trillion

the national debt rose by $1 trillion during the year ending september 30, 2008

[maladroit]

canada is in a good position to deal with it's national debt...even though it has government funded universal health care, the canuck federal government still managed to record a budget surplus every year for the past ten years, and pay down it's national debt by about 25% (while the usa increased it's national debt by 90%)

as of march 2008, the canadian national debt was $457 billion, and it's GDP was $1.2 trillion, so the debt/GDP ration is 38%, and the percapita debt is $13,800

in comparison, the US debt/GDP ratio is 77%, and the per capita debt is $33,500

you have to adjust that comparison even more in canada's favour because the canadian dollar is only worth 90 cents US at the moment

Canadian economy online (http://www.canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/)

[daihashi]

don't blame it all on the american people - the invisible hand of the free markets drove the real estate market pricing...the usa is a consumer society, and consumers want...the system failed, not the people

president bush thought it was a great idea for people who can't afford houses to buy houses, and was still pimping that policy in may 2008:
2002:
President Hosts Conference on Minority Homeownership (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021015-7.html)
2008:
George W. Bush: Proclamation 8263 - National Homeownership Month, 2008 (http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=77419)

the banks thought it was a great idea to issue mortgages to people who couldn't afford homes...they made billions off mortgages when things were good, and they made billions more when things were bad and the taxpayers bailed them out

but that isn't why the national debt is $10.2 trillion

the national debt rose by $1 trillion during the year ending september 30, 2008

You have your information wrong. President Bush has been trying to reform Freddie and Fannie since 2001, and McCain since at least 2003. Which are the two GSE's that put us into the mortgage situation we're in today:

Just the Facts: The Administration's Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080919-15.html)

You also quoted a speech, not an actual plan. President Bush never signed into policy to make mortgages so easy to get; which is honestly what got us into this mess along with individual consumer irreponsibility. That was during the Clinton Administration who put pressure on the GSE's to make it happen; which greatly helped put the mortgage crisis where it is today:

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F9582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1)

OpenMarket.org » Archive » Clinton Pressure to Promote Affordable Housing Led to Mortgage Meltdown (http://www.openmarket.org/2008/09/16/clinton-pressure-to-promote-affordable-housing-led-to-mortgage-meltdown/)

And you're right.. that's not why the debt is 10.2 trillion. Which brings me to the question.. Why did you even bring it up? I am no fan of Bush myself but you seem eager in ALL YOUR POSTS, to point blame at this man.

In all honestly the mortgage crisis had been brewing for some time now.

As far as our national debt; part of that can be attributed to the war, part of that can be attributed to the economic situation we're in right now, and part of that can be put onto the American people for being irresponsible consumers.

Sorry but if you're going to point fingers you need to point fingers at ALL administrations Responsible for the current situation we're in.

Hopefully Goldenboy will step up here. He is awesome when it comes to explaining why we are in the situation we're in today.

Point being... you're being excessively bias. You give Bush too much credit if you think he was able to do all this.

[daihashi]

canada is in a good position to deal with it's national debt...even though it has government funded universal health care, the canuck federal government still managed to record a budget surplus every year for the past ten years, and pay down it's national debt by about 25% (while the usa increased it's national debt by 90%)

as of march 2008, the canadian national debt was $457 billion, and it's GDP was $1.2 trillion, so the debt/GDP ration is 38%, and the percapita debt is $13,800

in comparison, the US debt/GDP ratio is 77%, and the per capita debt is $33,500

you have to adjust that comparison even more in canada's favour because the canadian dollar is only worth 90 cents US at the moment

Canadian economy online (http://www.canadianeconomy.gc.ca/english/economy/)

You're also excluding heavy taxation in canada. Try again.

Search around, I've already explained Canada vs US economy fairly thoroughly with a follow up from Goldenboy explaining even further.

[maladroit]

"President Bush has been trying to reform Freddie and Fannie since 2001, and McCain since at least 2003. Which are the two GSE's that put us into the mortgage situation we're in today."

- they were trying to reform fannie and freddie because of an accounting scandal that favoured management bonuses...it had nothing to do with subprime loans...when the subprime crisis broke, fannie and freddie combined had only 18% of the total subprime loans...subprime loans increased from 5% to 21% of the total mortgage loans during the bush administration



"President Bush never signed into policy to make mortgages so easy to get."

- here's president bush signing the american dream downpayment act in 2003...the act was targetted at first time homebuyers with 'impaired credit':
President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 (http://www.americandreamdownpaymentassistance.com/whsp12162003.cfm)

here is george bush explaining how he was forcing fannie and freddie to issue $440 billion in mortgages to low income families:
Fact Sheet: President Bush Calls for Expanding Opportunities to Homeownership (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020617.html)




"As far as our national debt; part of that can be attributed to the war, part of that can be attributed to the economic situation we're in right now, and part of that can be put onto the American people for being irresponsible consumers."

- that national debt increased by $4.6 trillion during the bush administration (so far)...the iraq war cost less than $600 billion so that doesn't explain much...the US economy expanded significantly in the middle of the bush administration, thanks to his mortgage ponzi scheme, and the national debt was $9.6 trillion before the subprime crisis hit...back in 2002, george bush personally assured americans that the national debt would be paid down to $3 trillion, and the US federal budget would have an annual $500 billion surplus...after all that, wouldn't you blame george bush?

here's george bush promising the pay the national debt down to $3 trillion by 2011, reducing the debt to GDP ratio to 7%:
A Blueprint For New Beginnings -- 1. Pay Down the Federal Debt (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbudget/blueprint/bud01.html)



"I am no fan of Bush myself but you seem eager in ALL YOUR POSTS, to point blame at this man."

- bush is the man in charge, with dangerous policies, signing dangerous legislation that led to this mess, and submitting budgets with dangerous deficits...i see you posted a link blaming clinton...clinton hasn't been around for 8 years and you're defending the guy who is actually in power when this crisis happened...bush is going to get away with it!



"You give Bush too much credit if you think he was able to do all this. "

- and your link gives clinton way too much more credit for causing the mortgage meltdown...i never said that bush did ALL this...the federal reserve helped by reducing rates to 1%...and the banks are most responsible for issuing all those bum mortgages...the government is supposed to protect the public interest, and george bush is the head of the government...he not only failed to protect the public interest, but he actively undermined the public interest with his spending and tax cuts and unsustainable homeowner policies

[daihashi]

Honestly.. there's no point in debating this with you. Your mind is made up. Continue talking to yourself as you were :thumbsup:

[maladroit]

"You're also excluding heavy taxation in canada."

- what does that have to do with national debt? canada has lower corporate tax rates than the usa:
The Tax Foundation - U.S. States Lead the World in High Corporate Taxes (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22917.html)

[maladroit]

i am willing to reconsider my opinion if you prove my facts to be wrong as i have proved your facts to be...aren't you willing to reconsider your opinion, or is your mind made up based on erroneous information?

[maladroit]

increase in the national debt from september 15 to october 2: $515 billion...that doesn't include the $700 billion bailout bill signed on october 3

interest expense on the national debt for fiscal year ending september 30, 2008: $451 billion

[killerweed420]

There is only one politician in America who has tried to do anything about the national debt and thats Ron Paul. Bush has never tried to get the national debt. His buddies are making too much money off of it. If we truely want to do something with the national debt we will need libertarian leadership. The other parties just don't care. What we need is a president that would just say "No more foreign aid except for humanitarian causes and then just say we're going to default on all outstanding loans". We would be on firm financial ground the first year.

[GoldenBoy812]

Maladroit, as i have explained in a previous post; the national debt is not as bad as it has been in previous times (as a percentage of GDP). I believe in the late 1940's, early 1950's, the deficit was 120% of GDP. That is a testament as to how things can or will change. What is your argument in regards to treasury deficit?

Secondly, using gross domestic product per capita is skewing the information a tad bit, and i will explain.

When a person makes say $100,000 per year, they do not at all have that nominal value at their disposal. Instead, the majority (sadly) of Americans have to pay a series of direct and indirect factors of taxation. An example of direct taxation would be social security tax, which was 7.65% of the first $97,500 of gross earnings in a given year. An indirect tax for example, is 7% tax on all goods sold in the state of Indiana. The rest of the money after taxation is called disposable income, of which only two options present themselves as far as action goes. You can spend, or save disposable income.

I am not an expert on Canadian economics, but i am inclined to believe that Canadians have much less of a disposable income. That means less for spending, less for saving. This is also an indication of the balancing mechanisms used to analyze situations such as these.

Being that Canadians, as a whole pay a higher % of their earnings to taxes, their governmental deficit is going to be lower. The question remains, does a low governmental deficit effect the standard of living of its citizens? Of course, the answer is absolutely NO. One of the reasons their deficit spending seems small is because there is less disposable income allocated towards their citizenry. Other factors to consider are population, income transfer rates, national defense, and of course net tax money collected. Does Canada get a free ride when taking national defense expenditures into consideration? I mean, they are neighbors and trading partners to the worlds hegemon. Without the presence of the US, i am also inclined to believe that Canada and all of our allies would have to pump a considerable amount into national defense.

With that being said, i again ask what is your point? Are you saying that having a high deficit reduces the standard of living in a respective country? Or, are you saying that having a high deficit is bad? If it is the second conclusion, you will have to do much more than state the problem; you are going to have to offer some hypothesis as to why it is bad.

In closing, i want to clear something up. The national debt tracker you used as a source takes into account the national debt as of now in 2008, yet 2008 GDP figures have yet to be released because.... it is still 2008. While i do applaud you for taking the time to calculate such figures, your final result is subject to change, and therefore incorrect.

[GoldenBoy812]

There is only one politician in America who has tried to do anything about the national debt and thats Ron Paul. Bush has never tried to get the national debt. His buddies are making too much money off of it. If we truely want to do something with the national debt we will need libertarian leadership. The other parties just don't care. What we need is a president that would just say "No more foreign aid except for humanitarian causes and then just say we're going to default on all outstanding loans". We would be on firm financial ground the first year.

A couple things to note:

Ron Paul (my write in vote this year) calls for a heavy transition into sound government spending, as well as a constitutional tax policy.

The majority of tax money is spent on income transfers, ie, unemployment, welfare, social security etc... The next biggest chunk is national defense. Dr. Paul calls for the removal of US military bases around the world. This is estimated to save over $300 billion annually. He also proposes the removal of several governmental programs, such as the department of education.

Yet Dr. Paul is a man of principle. He would not just cut social security, cut unemployment benefits, and put people into the shiter. Instead, it would require a lengthy transition (ten years IMHO) to reestablish the economy and market psychology.

On the downside. American withdraw from foreign lands will require those sovereign nations to put up more money for their own national defense. By doing so, the production possibilities frontier would shift, therefore cutting consumption for citizens. The effects would probably lead to a short world wide recession, of which America would be partially shielded due to low taxes, and stable monetary policy. One thing is for sure, you would see a whole new fucking world:jointsmile:

[maladroit]

i'll let your man ron paul explain why he thinks national debt is a threat to the united states...i have a lot to add to his simplistic analysis, but in fairness to mr paul, he probably had to dumb it down to avoid being labelled an egghead elitist:

Government Debt- The Greatest Threat to National Security (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst102504.htm)

Unlike ordinary debts, however, government debts are not repaid by those who spend the money-- theyâ??re repaid by you and future generations.

The federal government issues U.S. Treasury bonds to finance its deficit spending. The largest holders of those Treasury notes-- our largest creditors-- are foreign governments and foreign individuals. Asian central banks and investors in particular, especially China, have been happy to buy U.S. dollars over the past decade. But foreign governments will not prop up our spending habits forever. Already, Asian central banks are favoring Euro-denominated assets over U.S. dollars, reflecting their belief that the American economy is headed for trouble. Itâ??s akin to a credit-card company cutting off a borrower who has exceeded his credit limit one too many times.

Debt destroys U.S. sovereignty, because the American economy now depends on the actions of foreign governments. While we brag about our role as world superpower in international affairs, we are in truth the worldâ??s greatest debtor. Like all debtors, we are not truly free. China and other foreign government creditors could in essence wage economic war against us simply by dumping their huge holdings of U.S. dollars, driving the value of those dollars sharply downward and severely damaging our economy. Desmond Lachman, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, states that foreign central banks â??Now have considerable ability to disrupt U.S. financial markets by simply deciding to refrain from buying further U.S. government paper.â?� Former Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers warns about â??A kind of global balance of financial terror,â?� noting our dependency on â??the discretionary acts of what are inevitably political entities in other countries.â?�

Ultimately, debt is slavery. Every dollar the federal government borrows makes us less secure as a nation, by making America beholden to interests outside our borders. So when you hear a politician saying America will do â??whatever it takesâ?� to fight terrorism or rebuild Iraq or end poverty or provide health care for all, what they really mean is they are willing to sink America even deeper into debt. Weâ??re told that foreign wars and expanded entitlements will somehow make America more secure, but insolvency is hardly the foundation for security. Only when we stop trying to remake the world in our image, and reject the entitlement state at home, will we begin to create a more secure America that is not a financial slave to foreign creditors.

[maladroit]

"i am inclined to believe that Canadians have much less of a disposable income."

- i am inclined to believe that you don't know, and i'm not going to look it up for you


"That means less for spending, less for saving. "

- according to the federal reserve, canadians have had a higher personal saving rate than americans for decades...that adds up:
FRBSF: Economic Letter - What's Behind the Low Personal Saving Rate? (03/29/2002) (http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2002/el2002-09.html)



"Does Canada get a free ride when taking national defense expenditures into consideration? "

- free ride? HA! canada was fighting in WWII for two years before uncle sam developed a spine...canada fought in the korean war...despite it's tiny military, canada has provided a lot more peacekeeping man-hours for united nations missions than the usa but you don't hear anyone accusing the usa of getting a free ride on canada's peacekeeping coat tails...on a per capita basis, more than twice as many canadian troops have died in afghanistan than US troops have died in iraq...we're not getting a "free ride", especially when you take into consideration that we're not constantly making enemies by smashing defenseless countries against the wall to show the rest of the world we mean business (that is not a worthwhile military expenditure)...canada did not request nor need the usa to protect it from vietnam, cambodia, laos, nicaragua, panama, grenada, haiti, cuba, guatemala, libya, and iraq



"Being that Canadians, as a whole pay a higher % of their earnings to taxes, their governmental deficit is going to be lower."

- it also helps that we don't spend $621 billion on the military, and $451 billion on interest on the national debt, and $400 million on a presidential election campaign...we pay higher taxes, but we don't pay anything for health care....i am inclined to believe that if you added in the per capita cost of US heath insurance to US per capita taxes, canadians would come out ahead


"Are you saying that having a high deficit reduces the standard of living in a respective country?"

- ABSOLUTELY YES! in canada's case, a high deficit would affect the government's ability to provide social programs to support lower and middle class (about half of canadian social program spending benefits the middle class whose economic well being is essential to the strength of the general economy)...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund universal health care which is an important contributor to standard of living...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund education, research and development, science and technology which contribute to a skilled workforce, productivity, and competitives...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund civilian infrastructure maintenance like highways and airports which facilitate economic activity...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to enforce regulations such as workplace health and safety, food safety, pollution, etc...all these things affect our standard of living


"While i do applaud you for taking the time to calculate such figures, your final result is subject to change, and therefore incorrect."

- fair enough...go back to dec 31 2007 when the national debt was $9.2 trillion and the GDP was $13.8 trillion to get a 67% debt to GDP ratio....the national debt has increased by $1 trillion since then, but the GDP certainly has not, so the debt to GDP ratio is going to shoot up in 2008

[GoldenBoy812]

- i am inclined to believe that you don't know, and i'm not going to look it up for you

I really have no idea what the Canadian tax rates encompass. Being as you are the expert of Canada, maybe you can fill us all in:thumbsup: You can start with net budget outlays.


- according to the federal reserve, canadians have had a higher personal saving rate than americans for decades...that adds up:
FRBSF: Economic Letter - What's Behind the Low Personal Saving Rate? (03/29/2002) (http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2002/el2002-09.html)

Old data, on top of that you are attempting to skew statistics. Maybe it is because you do not know any better. Tell me, does your "source" account the massive annuities/401k/mma that Americans are heavily invested into? Of course not because the US BEA excludes investment accounts. Investment accounts make up the majority of US savings.


- free ride? HA! canada was fighting in WWII for two years before uncle sam developed a spine...canada fought in the korean war...despite it's tiny military, canada has provided a lot more peacekeeping man-hours for united nations missions than the usa but you don't hear anyone accusing the usa of getting a free ride on canada's peacekeeping coat tails...on a per capita basis, more than twice as many canadian troops have died in afghanistan than US troops have died in iraq...we're not getting a "free ride", especially when you take into consideration that we're not constantly making enemies by smashing defenseless countries against the wall to show the rest of the world we mean business (that is not a worthwhile military expenditure)...canada did not request nor need the usa to protect it from vietnam, cambodia, laos, nicaragua, panama, grenada, haiti, cuba, guatemala, libya, and iraq

You miss my point completely, and then go on a rant. If the US were to cut out its massive military infrastructure built throughout the world, other nations might just have to take more of an initiative in providing for there own defense. My original statement was based on a production possibility frontier, and nothing else.


it also helps that we don't spend $621 billion on the military, and $451 billion on interest on the national debt, and $400 million on a presidential election campaign...we pay higher taxes, but we don't pay anything for health care....i am inclined to believe that if you added in the per capita cost of US heath insurance to US per capita taxes, canadians would come out ahead

No, instead you "free ride" on the coat tails of the American armed forces. Besides, your reply is a logical fallacy, more specifically a red herring. You bring up a trying subject in regards to US health care. That is because you are in essence, trying to compare an apple to a t-bone steak. Yes they are both health care systems, but given the immense complications in regards to governmental intervention in our health care system, and the priorities of certain individuals, your comparison must encompass much more than per capita analysis.


ABSOLUTELY YES! in canada's case, a high deficit would affect the government's ability to provide social programs to support lower and middle class (about half of canadian social program spending benefits the middle class whose economic well being is essential to the strength of the general economy)...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund universal health care which is an important contributor to standard of living...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund education, research and development, science and technology which contribute to a skilled workforce, productivity, and competitives...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund civilian infrastructure maintenance like highways and airports which facilitate economic activity...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to enforce regulations such as workplace health and safety, food safety, pollution, etc...all these things affect our standard of living

Where you calling yourself a capitalist in another thread? If so, im going to call your bluff and correctly label you a socialist as i did before.

That is not the point. You obviously need to touch up on infrastructure funding methods in the US. The highway system was created in the US as logistics terminal for potential invasion. Our highway system is quite genius really, and it is completely funded through fuel taxes.

In a neo-liberal/socialist sense, what you are saying would be true. But the fact of the matter is governmental failure is far more prevalent than market failure. An example would be your health care system, where waiting lists and casualties resulting form them increase as the years pass.

Question for you. Has our massive deficit crippled our ability to provide these social services you deem necessary? I believe it has not, as we were able to pump the entire GDP of Canada into our economy as a "primer" in the span of 1 year. That really says something of the power and magnitude of the United States.



fair enough...go back to dec 31 2007 when the national debt was $9.2 trillion and the GDP was $13.8 trillion to get a 67% debt to GDP ratio....the national debt has increased by $1 trillion since then, but the GDP certainly has not, so the debt to GDP ratio is going to shoot up in 2008

Most likely it will. You have failed to prove or show that a high US deficit will lower our standard of living. At best, you might be able to correlate a currency debasement, yet such instances are cyclical as capital flows in and out based on supply and demand.

The bottom line: If the US suffers, everyone else will suffer even more.

[maladroit]

"Where you calling yourself a capitalist in another thread? If so, im going to call your bluff and correctly label you a socialist as i did before."

- labels are strawmen (read: ANOTHER of your logical fallacies)...i am not a socialist...a socialist is someone who thinks the government should take control of the means of production - like president george w bush who nationalized half of wall street! have you correctly labeled george bush a socialist?



socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

[GoldenBoy812]

You need to read into the context of what i was saying in that particular segment.


Where you calling yourself a capitalist in another thread? If so, im going to call your bluff and correctly label you a socialist as i did before.

That is not the point.

Getting right down to the nitty gritty, my calling you on your so called capitalist intent is allowed based on two points.

1.) You did in fact call yourself a capitalist, therefore you have played the label game rendering my further labeling of you contentious.

2.) That was not the thesis of my statement (calling you a socialist).

Barak Obama is IMHO a socialist, more so what i would call a neo-socialist. Reason be, he desires to implement more governmental intervention with respects to all facets of American life. Equity, education, and health care are primary strangle holds based on socialist innuendo. Furthermore, there are many socialist aspects at work such as universal health care, in that most, if not all devoted socialists believe it to be superior to a localized free market alternative. Better has yet to be defined by acceptance universally.

I was implicating that you are a bit confused as to what a pro market orientated person believes as opposed to what a socialist (pro government) orientated person does. If you are a capitalist, you have to believe that markets take care of things by way of invisible hand. On the contrary, if you believe that markets are not self correcting, than you are a new aged socialist (neo-socialist).

[killerweed420]

Listen Some of you are trying to over complicate the national debt. Its just the US government borrowing money from foreign banks. And that means a lot of interest is being paid out for interest that could be used for our benefit. No different than a household that's stupid enough to use credit cards for there day to day expenses. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that a lot of your money gets pissed away on interest rates that could be used for neccesities for the household. Credit is ALWAYS bad but sometimes a neccesity. There is no reason why tour government could not live off the tax money it receives, it just chooses not to so it can make other rich people richer for a few favours here and there.

[maladroit]

that's a mighty fine two step...i can label myself without it being a strawman fallacy because i know myself...you don't know me, so you cannot correctly label me a socialist or a somnabulist

obama isn't a socialist either (more strawmannery)...george bush just took control of the means of production on wall street so you could correctly label that policy socialist, but i think even george bush still has more capitalist than socialist in him...by itself, government intervention is not socialist...the US government and other governments around the world intervene in the free market all the time, but private property still exists in america, and american capitalists retain control of the means of production (until last month anyway)


this is an interesting observation:
"Furthermore, there are many socialist aspects at work such as universal health care, in that most, if not all devoted socialists believe it to be superior to a localized free market alternative. Better has yet to be defined by acceptance universally."

- are you saying universal health care is not superior unless it is accepted universally? most of the developed countries in the world have publicly funded healthcare systems, and the US health care system lags behind a few dozen universal health care systems of other countries...better has been defined, and universally accepted outside of the usa

US health care system ranked 37th in the world:
WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems (http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html)

US health care system scores low marks compared to other countries:
Health Scorecard Ranks U.S. on Lower Rungs -- AAFP News Now -- American Academy of Family Physicians (http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/publications/news/news-now/health-of-the-public/20060925scorecard.html)

[maladroit]

i agree killer

sometimes deficits are a neccessity...usually that neccessity is invoked during times when there is a recession, and the resulting debt is paid down with surpluses generated while the economy is doing well...that hasn't been happening for decades...in his first budget, george bush promised to pay down the national debt to $3 trillion by 2011, but it looks like it's going to be closer to $12 trillion by then...deither mccain nor obama have a plan to deal with that, and large deficits are projected to continue for years


McCain, Obama tax plans to boost U.S. debt: tax group - Boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/11/mccain_obama_tax_plans_to_boost_us_debt_tax_group/)

McCain, Obama tax plans to boost U.S. debt: tax group

June 11, 2008

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Tax breaks proposed by both presidential hopefuls John McCain and Barack Obama would increase the U.S. national debt by trillions of dollars over 10 years, but Obama's plan would hike taxes for the wealthiest Americans, a tax policy group said on Wednesday.
more stories like this

In an analysis of how the candidates' tax proposals would affect federal revenues, the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute said McCain's plans would cut receipts by $3.72 trillion from 2009-2018 compared with current tax law. Obama's plans would cut revenues by $2.73 trillion over the same period.

Including added interest costs, McCain's plan would add $4.5 trillion to the national debt, while Obama's would add $3.3 trillion -- and that's before spending proposals are considered.

"It seems really unlikely that they're going to be balancing the budget," said Leonard Burman, director of The Tax Policy Center run by Brookings and the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C.

The group sought to quantify revenue costs for the tax break proposals articulated on the campaign trail but assumed flat spending for each candidate based on this year's budget.

*snip*



"You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won the midterms. This is our due."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, overriding objections to budget deficits from US treasury secretary Paul O' Neil, and who personally fired Paul O'Neil one month later

[GoldenBoy812]

that's a mighty fine two step...i can label myself without it being a strawman fallacy because i know myself...you don't know me, so you cannot correctly label me a socialist or a somnabulist

obama isn't a socialist either (more strawmannery)...george bush just took control of the means of production on wall street so you could correctly label that policy socialist, but i think even george bush still has more capitalist than socialist in him...by itself, government intervention is not socialist...the US government and other governments around the world intervene in the free market all the time, but private property still exists in america, and american capitalists retain control of the means of production (until last month anyway)


First off, the bailout was authorized by congress.

I have not misrepresented your position. You stated that you believe in capitalism, yet you revealed a great deal in:
ABSOLUTELY YES! in canada's case, a high deficit would affect the government's ability to provide social programs to support lower and middle class (about half of canadian social program spending benefits the middle class whose economic well being is essential to the strength of the general economy)...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund universal health care which is an important contributor to standard of living...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund education, research and development, science and technology which contribute to a skilled workforce, productivity, and competitives...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund civilian infrastructure maintenance like highways and airports which facilitate economic activity...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to enforce regulations such as workplace health and safety, food safety, pollution, etc...all these things affect our standard of living

That above is socialist innuendo...

Maybe it would be wise to understand what a straw man fallacy is.



- are you saying universal health care is not superior unless it is accepted universally? most of the developed countries in the world have publicly funded healthcare systems, and the US health care system lags behind a few dozen universal health care systems of other countries...better has been defined, and universally accepted outside of the usa

US health care system ranked 37th in the world:
WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems (http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html)

US health care system scores low marks compared to other countries:
Health Scorecard Ranks U.S. on Lower Rungs -- AAFP News Now -- American Academy of Family Physicians (http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/publications/news/news-now/health-of-the-public/20060925scorecard.html)

The WHO is subjective, and therefore cannot (IMHO) be taken seriously...

Something to ruffle your feathers:


As they tack left and right state by state, the Democratic presidential contenders can't agree on much. But one cause they all support â?? along with Republicans such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and California's own Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger â?? is universal health coverage. And all of them are wrong.

What these politicians and many other Americans fail to understand is that there's a big difference between universal coverage and actual access to medical care.

Michael Tanner is director of health and welfare studies and Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies. They are authors of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It (2005).
More by Michael D. TannerMore by Michael F. Cannon

Simply saying that people have health insurance is meaningless. Many countries provide universal insurance but deny critical procedures to patients who need them. Britain's Department of Health reported in 2006 that at any given time, nearly 900,000 Britons are waiting for admission to National Health Service hospitals, and shortages force the cancellation of more than 50,000 operations each year. In Sweden, the wait for heart surgery can be as long as 25 weeks, and the average wait for hip replacement surgery is more than a year. Many of these individuals suffer chronic pain, and judging by the numbers, some will probably die awaiting treatment. In a 2005 ruling of the Canadian Supreme Court, Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin wrote that "access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare."


Everyone agrees that far too many Americans lack health insurance. But covering the uninsured comes about as a byproduct of getting other things right. The real danger is that our national obsession with universal coverage will lead us to neglect reforms â?? such as enacting a standard health insurance deduction, expanding health savings accounts and deregulating insurance markets â?? that could truly expand coverage, improve quality and make care more affordable.

Source: Universal Health Cares Dirty Little Secret (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8172)

[maladroit]

socialist innuendo is another way of saying socialist insinuation...you are insinuating that i am a socialist...that is attributing a position to me that is not really my position, which is the meaning of straw man fallacy:
Fallacy: Straw Man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)

the world health organization health care ranking and the commonwealth report are both based on health care outcome figures, not subjective opinions...are you suggesting those two organizations fabricated data to make the usa look bad?

you dismiss the WHO data because it is 'subjective', and then provide a link to an opinion piece from the cato institute whose mission statement reads:
"The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace."

i think i detect a possible subjective bias in that brief cato commentary on universal health care's dirty secret...that cato article mentioned only three facts about the 3 countries that have universal health care, and only ONE fact about the US health care system...the commonwealth report measured 37 different indicators of health care outcomes across 23 countries...the WHO report involved more analysis than 4 snippets of data in a single page article

[GoldenBoy812]

socialist innuendo is another way of saying socialist insinuation...you are insinuating that i am a socialist...that is attributing a position to me that is not really my position, which is the meaning of straw man fallacy:
Fallacy: Straw Man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)

Pay attention:
ABSOLUTELY YES! in canada's case, a high deficit would affect the government's ability to provide social programs to support lower and middle class (about half of canadian social program spending benefits the middle class whose economic well being is essential to the strength of the general economy)...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund universal health care which is an important contributor to standard of living...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund education, research and development, science and technology which contribute to a skilled workforce, productivity, and competitives...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to fund civilian infrastructure maintenance like highways and airports which facilitate economic activity...a high deficit would affect the government's ability to enforce regulations such as workplace health and safety, food safety, pollution, etc...all these things affect our standard of living

Did you say this? If so, you lean towards socialism... Socialist


the world health organization health care ranking and the commonwealth report are both based on health care outcome figures, not subjective opinions...are you suggesting those two organizations fabricated data to make the usa look bad?

The point system favors UHC countries.


you dismiss the WHO data because it is 'subjective', and then provide a link to an opinion piece from the cato institute whose mission statement reads:
"The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace."

It was my intention to provide an opinion piece, to give you an idea what free market capitalists believe. It is not surprising that you disagree with it:thumbsup:


i think i detect a possible subjective bias in that brief cato commentary on universal health care's dirty secret...that cato article mentioned only three facts about the 3 countries that have universal health care, and only ONE fact about the US health care system...the commonwealth report measured 37 different indicators of health care outcomes across 23 countries...the WHO report involved more analysis than 4 snippets of data in a single page article

Possibly, but i was not the one claiming one system was better than the other. Only that i would prefer a free market orientated system. You lose again...:jointsmile:

[maladroit]

how did this turn into a discussion about me?

i don't know where you get your definition of socialism, but whatever you're talking about isn't it...funding social programs is not the same as controlling the means of production...if you're so eager to label socialism, why aren't you labelling the US government which just nationalized some of the largest financial corporations in the world? the us government isn't just funding AIG, fannie, and freddie: YOU own them so if anyone is a socialist here, it's YOU


are you enjoying your socialist control of the capital and means of production on wall street? it must be like playing monopoly with your grandchildren's money, except your socialist masters are rolling the dice for you


The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Second Edition, 2008

A society may be defined as socialist if the major part of the means of production of goods and services is in some sense socially owned and operated, by state, socialized or cooperative enterprises. The practical issues of socialism comprise the relationships between management and workforce within the enterprise, the interrelationships between production units (plan versus markets), and, if the state owns and operates any part of the economy, who controls it and how.

[GoldenBoy812]

how did this turn into a discussion about me?

You attempted to call a straw man on me, when in fact i have yet to put one forth.

The United States, for better or worse is a mixed economy. Certain aspects of life such as police, fire rescue, national defense, and roads/ highways are more efficiently provided via government programs. I have yet to argue to the contrary, as i am not an anarcho-capitalist. Yet i do not believe health care should be funded by means of federal taxation to the populace. I also do not believe schooling should be controlled and regulated via Washington.

Therefore i am a pro marketed capitalist.

There is a new trend emerging throughout Europe where socialism is becoming increasingly accepted. Universal health care paved the way for such a possibility.

If the current crisis was not as severe as it currently is, i would in no way be calling for a bailout. But it is a potentially devastating situation, and as i have said numerous times, instant change will bring forth chaos, which will usher even stronger government strangleholds across the board. This has to be avoided, and because government intervention IMHO caused this mess, i do expect them to fix it.

Political psychology of the populace changes as situations and crisis emerge. Prior to the '29 crash, government was only beginning to manipulate markets, and such occurrences faced backlash when they would show their head. Once a crisis such as that erupted on the scene, neo socialists (FDR) used government as a means of fear reduction. This in itself played a serious role, as citizens of this time period became heavily reliant on government. They had children (baby boomers), and to a point these ideals were passed on. As we speak, the baby boom generation is losing power daily; their idea's and actions have serious consequences which we are seeing today. Ron Paul and his ideals are very much so represented by todayâ??s youth; who will be tomorrow's leaders. Obama is the flip side of Dr. Paul, in that he is trying to offer equity by which Americans will be forced to give up personal freedoms to achieve such goals.

I believe Obama will win the election. I also believe his administration will spark a fire under the asses of the sons and daughters of liberty. Just as all aspects in life naturally attempt to balance out, a new leader will emerge to answer the call against neo socialists. Who this leader will be is still in question, but i do believe it is very close.

Under the right administration, the deficit can begin to fall. It will take a major decrease in spending, which will need to be accompanied by an increase in worker productivity as well as a production possibilities shift to the right.


if you're so eager to label socialism, why aren't you labelling the US government which just nationalized some of the largest financial corporations in the world? the us government isn't just funding AIG, fannie, and freddie: YOU own them so if anyone is a socialist here, it's YOU


This has more to do with monetary policy, then it does with control. I have yet to make any excuses for what has happened, nor will i. Instead, you have made a handful of assumptions that are fatally flawed. While i do believe there are many faults with my government, we still possess the greatest piece of legislation ever to be written: The US Constitution.

If i was a socialist, i would have opinions much like the ones you possess.

You have failed to respond to some of my points:


Question for you. Has our massive deficit crippled our ability to provide these social services you deem necessary? I believe it has not, as we were able to pump the entire GDP of Canada into our economy as a "primer" in the span of 1 year. That really says something of the power and magnitude of the United States.

You failed to answer that above


You miss my point completely, and then go on a rant. If the US were to cut out its massive military infrastructure built throughout the world, other nations might just have to take more of an initiative in providing for there own defense. My original statement was based on a production possibility frontier, and nothing else.

You failed to address this point
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Its time to step up or step down :jointsmile:

[daihashi]

http://boards.cannabis.com/politics/162760-ron-paul-glenn-beck-you-were-right-9-18-a.html#post1918424

There is all the information I posted on canada vs the US.

Please note that the information posted in that thread came from the last known census and officially documented information in comparison to our own. I could not find information for 2007 and 2008 is not over yet therefore you cannot really source that as information because it would be inaccurate to say that how a current fiscal year will end.

Even with the outdated information much of what I posted is still legitimate. Feel free to read.

I will say this.. someone in this thread is grasping at straws while another is giving some basic economic lessons

It's been entertaining to read to say the least and I am still impressed with Goldenboy's explanations. I never get tired of reading his posts. :thumbsup:

[maladroit]

"Certain aspects of life such as police, fire rescue, national defense, and roads/ highways are more efficiently provided via government programs."

- that sounds like socialist innuendo...will you correctly label yourself a SOCIALIST? of course not! fire and police are essential services...so is health care...you wouldn't expect people to buy private fire/police service insurance to protect them in the event of an emergency, so what supports your opposition to universal health care besides dogmatic capitalist ideology?



"we still possess the greatest piece of legislation ever to be written: The US Constitution."

- if it is the greatest piece of legislation, why was it amended 27 times? surely the greatest piece of legislation would not have allowed slavery...BTW: i think the constitution is not technically a piece of legislation...it's more of an outline for government's legislative body to write legislation, and executive body to implement legislation, and judicial body to judge disputes/crimes based on legislation, in accordance with the principles outlined in the constitution



"This has more to do with monetary policy, then it does with control."

- the government (read: you) owns a majority of shares in AIG, fannie, and freddie...the monetary policy is control of those formerly private corporations



"You miss my point completely, and then go on a rant. If the US were to cut out its massive military infrastructure built throughout the world, other nations might just have to take more of an initiative in providing for there own defense."

- i neither missed your point, nor failed to address your question...you asked if *canada* was getting a "free ride" on the coat tails of US national defense spending, and i provided a specific examples of US defence spending that has nothing to do with canada...apparently my rant was too brief because you turned that question into an IF-THEN compound statement, so i am happy to add some more details...*ahem*...in addition to the $6 trillion (2008 dollars) in defense spending i listed earlier, canada does not benefit from the:
- $100 billion star wars orbital missile defense program
- many of the CIA covert operations
- US nuclear weapons arsenal capable of destroying the earth many times
- $500 hammers and $500 toilet seats

it isn't just about wasteful US spending - that appalls everyone except military contractors...US foreign policy (which is mostly military) is the reason why the usa has to spend more money on defense and homeland security...your government drags you into war with american jingoism - you (as in we-the-people) brought this upon yourselves, and then you (goldenboy) point fingers at neutral countries and accuse them of getting a free ride...guess what? for the past few decades, we usually haven't going in the same direction, so thanks for the offer of a free lift, but we're not headed that way



"Has our massive deficit crippled our ability to provide these social services you deem necessary?"

- YES! of the $10.2 trillion national debt, $4.2 trillion is intragovernmental holdings, primarily in the form of money borrowed from social security trust fund, which has to be paid back somehow if people are going to collect social security...a few years ago, president bush stood on the steps of the social security department, and declared that the social security program (which is still generating a profit) was basically bankrupt because the SS trust fund was made up of worthless IOU's from the treasury department...that's just one example: as ron paul explained, foreign banks might stop lending money to the world's greatest debtor, which leaves the US gov't and it's social programs dependent on the whims of foreign, and often unfriendly countries...they are less likely to extend more credit after uncle sam's recent binge that crashed the global economy...credit is getting tight ya know

Bush: Social Security trust fund â??just IOUsâ??
President says, â??There is no trust fundâ??:
Bush: Social Security trust fund ââ?¬Ë?just IOUsââ?¬â?¢ - Politics - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7393649/)

[GoldenBoy812]

that sounds like socialist innuendo...will you correctly label yourself a SOCIALIST? of course not! fire and police are essential services...so is health care...you wouldn't expect people to buy private fire/police service insurance to protect them in the event of an emergency, so what supports your opposition to universal health care besides dogmatic capitalist ideology?

Fire, police, roads, national defense etc... are essential services. Health care on the other hand is not. You must have me confused with an anarchist.

Why is it perfectly acceptable to buy a new car valued at $30,000, but it is completely invalid to expect a person to pay $30,000 for a surgery that will save their life?:wtf: Health care is a matter of personal responsibility, as nobody can force you to live in a healthy manner.


if it is the greatest piece of legislation, why was it amended 27 times? surely the greatest piece of legislation would not have allowed slavery...BTW: i think the constitution is not technically a piece of legislation...it's more of an outline for government's legislative body to write legislation, and executive body to implement legislation, and judicial body to judge disputes/crimes based on legislation, in accordance with the principles outlined in the constitution

It allows for amendment, though a democratic process. Yet the first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) cannot be voided, although democracy seems to be roaring its ugly head. Slavery is a touchy issue because in reality, slaves were not considered to be citizens of the US, not that i am condoning it.

The US constitution was the original legislation enacted.


the government (read: you) owns a majority of shares in AIG, fannie, and freddie...the monetary policy is control of those formerly private corporations

Had AIG, Fan and Fred been allowed to fail, the entire global economy would have went under rather fast... Due to the fact that government basically allowed monopoly power for these giants, they are responsible, and in fact should/will clean up their mess.


i neither missed your point, nor failed to address your question...you asked if *canada* was getting a "free ride" on the coat tails of US national defense spending, and i provided a specific examples of US defence spending that has nothing to do with canada...apparently my rant was too brief because you turned that question into an IF-THEN compound statement, so i am happy to add some more details...*ahem*...in addition to the $6 trillion (2008 dollars) in defense spending i listed earlier, canada does not benefit from the:
- $100 billion star wars orbital missile defense program
- many of the CIA covert operations
- US nuclear weapons arsenal capable of destroying the earth many times
- $500 hammers and $500 toilet seats

Modus tollens is required to gain understanding of the situation. Canada is an ally, as well as the neighbor to the worlds most powerful military in the history of the world. Take Japan for example... If Japan did not have US protection, then they would in fact have to allocate resources currently used for their consumption, towards national defense. Japan does have the protection of the US. Therefore they will not allocate more resources towards national defense. The same can be said about all US allies. Which brings us back to the production possibilities frontier. You might wanna google again:thumbsup:


it isn't just about wasteful US spending - that appalls everyone except military contractors...US foreign policy (which is mostly military) is the reason why the usa has to spend more money on defense and homeland security...your government drags you into war with american jingoism - you (as in we-the-people) brought this upon yourselves, and then you (goldenboy) point fingers at neutral countries and accuse them of getting a free ride...guess what? for the past few decades, we usually haven't going in the same direction, so thanks for the offer of a free lift, but we're not headed that way

Again, see production possibilities frontier...


YES! of the $10.2 trillion national debt, $4.2 trillion is intragovernmental holdings, primarily in the form of money borrowed from social security trust fund, which has to be paid back somehow if people are going to collect social security...a few years ago, president bush stood on the steps of the social security department, and declared that the social security program (which is still generating a profit) was basically bankrupt because the SS trust fund was made up of worthless IOU's from the treasury department...that's just one example

This still does not prove that a $10 trillion deficit will curtail government ability to provide those social programs you enjoy... I will explain why in a second.


as ron paul explained, foreign banks might stop lending money to the world's greatest debtor, which leaves the US gov't and it's social programs dependent on the whims of foreign, and often unfriendly countries...they are less likely to extend more credit after uncle sam's recent binge that crashed the global economy...credit is getting tight ya know

It would be a good idea to understand what exactly is government debt. A US savings bond is in fact the most common form, known more a US Treasury Certificates. The current swing in the economy has pushed a rather large amount of money into government guaranteed securities. Reason be, its guaranteed. I have all of my investments out of the markets, and in T-Bills (almost one year ago). A good friend of mine has lost a little over 30% on his entire portfolio because he was going to "ride it out". He did not believe the economy could tank the way it did, and now is paying the price. In fact i am making money while others are losing. Although it is very little gain, it is much better than a loss:jointsmile:

This is why foreign governments and banks buy T-Bills. It is guaranteed!!!!! They will never stop, and if they do, it will be because the world is coming to an end.


Bush: Social Security trust fund â??just IOUsâ??
President says, â??There is no trust fundâ??:
Bush: Social Security trust fund ââ?¬Ë?just IOUsââ?¬â?¢ - Politics - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7393649/)

Read the statement above...

[phatsesh101]

im a commy and i think we should line up all the elites in the world and just burn them alive rockefellers morgans u get the pic and completely eliminate a the central banking crap

[maladroit]

"Fire, police, roads, national defense etc... are essential services. Health care on the other hand is not."

- no personal offense intended but that's messed up


"You must have me confused with an anarchist."

- what does that have to do with health care being designated as an essential service? most developed countries in the world designate health care as an essential service and they have formal leadership hierarchy in government and health care systems



"Why is it perfectly acceptable to buy a new car valued at $30,000, but it is completely invalid to expect a person to pay $30,000 for a surgery that will save their life?"

- i can't believe i have to explain this: people don't die if they can't afford a $30,000 car...they might be wistful, or maybe even resentful, but they will survive



"Health care is a matter of personal responsibility, as nobody can force you to live in a healthy manner."

- what happened to your life saving surgery example? we're not talking about eating right, exercising, and taking your vitamins...that's not essential health care



"Due to the fact that government basically allowed monopoly power for these giants, they are responsible, and in fact should/will clean up their mess. "

- you make a good point there...fannie and freddie's assets and mortgage backed securities added up to about $5 trillion in 2007...but their share of the subprime market was less than 20%...over 80% of the risky mortgages were made outside of freddie and fannie...should the us taxpayer have to clean up that too? the us gov't took over fannie and freddie and is now using them to buy nearly worthless mortgage backed securities from banks on behalf of the US taxpayer (i think that's what they're doing)



"If Japan did not have US protection, then they would in fact have to allocate resources currently used for their consumption, towards national defense. Japan does have the protection of the US. Therefore they will not allocate more resources towards national defense."

- you don't know that if-then relationship is a fact (sorry, i don't know latin for "pulling the consequent out of your ass" haha?)...technically, all nations enjoy pooled military resources under the united nations...when iraq illegally invaded kuwait in 1991, the united nations kicked hussein's ass back into iraq....the entire cost of the first gulf war was around $60 billion, but it only cost the usa about $9 billion...that was cheaper than enforcing the unilateral no fly zones between wars...if canada was located in europe instead of north america, it would probably spend about the same on it's military thanks to the shared defense committments...but what if canada didn't have friendly relations with the usa? looks at russia: it is currently on the usa's superpower shit list and they allocated only $40 billion for defense in their 2008 budget, or about 2.2% of it's GDP (a tiny fraction of US military spending)...canada set aside $18 billion for defense in 2008, or about 1.5% of it's GDP (and that is twice as large as russia's military budget on a per capita basis)...IMO canada would not be compelled to spend a lot more on defense if the usa reduced it's military budget because canada doesn't have a lot of enemies as a result of constantly invading countries...canada doesn't run roughshod over the rest of the planet, bullying countries to join the so-called drug war...canada doesn't overthrow democratically elected governments because they aren't capitalist enough...canada doesn't need hundreds of military bases around the world...canada has the second largest oil reserves on the planet so it doesn't need to control middle east oil and politics...the usa's belligerant foreign policy costs a lot, and creates a lot of enemies, which creates the need for more money to defend the homeland...the usa isn't spending all that military money to defend the rest of the countries in the world - it's spending it to attack more countries than it defends



"This is why foreign governments and banks buy T-Bills. It is guaranteed!"

- they are not fully guaranteed...foreign governments take a loss when their low interest t-bills depreciate on the foreign exchange markets...foreign governments get nervous about lending increasing amounts of money to a government that cannot control its own finances...banks get skittish when the treasury secretary writes a letter to congress informing them, "unless the debt limit is raised or the Treasury Department takes authorized extraordinary actions, we will be unable to continue to finance government operations":
FOXNews.com - Snow: Congress Needs to Help U.S. Pay Bills - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180133,00.html)



"Read the statement above..."

- what statement? that you think T-bills are guaranteed? maybe the treasury secretary, the president, and congress should read the above statement cuz they aren't so sure

[GoldenBoy812]

what does that have to do with health care being designated as an essential service? most developed countries in the world designate health care as an essential service and they have formal leadership hierarchy in government and health care systems

Another logical fallacy, and ill refrain from using latin; bandwagon fallacy.


i can't believe i have to explain this: people don't die if they can't afford a $30,000 car...they might be wistful, or maybe even resentful, but they will survive

People who cannot afford $30,000 surgery should get health insurance. You did take my statement out of context. I am willing to bet the majority of sub prime lendee's do not have private health insurance. Yet they can afford or attempt to afford to make big ticket purchases?

The real question is, why has health care costs skyrocketed? Insurance regulation via states, and malpractice prevalence are big contributors.


what happened to your life saving surgery example? we're not talking about eating right, exercising, and taking your vitamins...that's not essential health care

What about smoking or even extreme sports? If you eat McDonalds for breakfast, lunch and dinner, you most likely develop medical complications over time.



you make a good point there...fannie and freddie's assets and mortgage backed securities added up to about $5 trillion in 2007...but their share of the subprime market was less than 20%...over 80% of the risky mortgages were made outside of freddie and fannie...should the us taxpayer have to clean up that too? the us gov't took over fannie and freddie and is now using them to buy nearly worthless mortgage backed securities from banks on behalf of the US taxpayer (i think that's what they're doing)

Kinda, but not really. The treasury, with collaboration with the Federal Reserve will be identifying and then purchasing desired liabilities. I am not positive as to the pricing mechanism used to facilitate trade.


you don't know that if-then relationship is a fact (sorry, i don't know latin for "pulling the consequent out of your ass" haha?)...

Does Japan have a military that compares to their Asian counterparts?


technically, all nations enjoy pooled military resources under the united nations...when iraq illegally invaded kuwait in 1991, the united nations kicked hussein's ass back into iraq....the entire cost of the first gulf war was around $60 billion, but it only cost the usa about $9 billion...that was cheaper than enforcing the unilateral no fly zones between wars...if canada was located in europe instead of north america, it would probably spend about the same on it's military thanks to the shared defense committments...but what if canada didn't have friendly relations with the usa? looks at russia: it is currently on the usa's superpower shit list and they allocated only $40 billion for defense in their 2008 budget, or about 2.2% of it's GDP (a tiny fraction of US military spending)...canada set aside $18 billion for defense in 2008, or about 1.5% of it's GDP (and that is twice as large as russia's military budget on a per capita basis)...IMO canada would not be compelled to spend a lot more on defense if the usa reduced it's military budget because canada doesn't have a lot of enemies as a result of constantly invading countries...canada doesn't run roughshod over the rest of the planet, bullying countries to join the so-called drug war...canada doesn't overthrow democratically elected governments because they aren't capitalist enough...canada doesn't need hundreds of military bases around the world...canada has the second largest oil reserves on the planet so it doesn't need to control middle east oil and politics...the usa's belligerant foreign policy costs a lot, and creates a lot of enemies, which creates the need for more money to defend the homeland...the usa isn't spending all that military money to defend the rest of the countries in the world - it's spending it to attack more countries than it defends

US military spending is not the premise of my argument, it is the alliances. The existence of the UN actually encourages free riding because there is not to my knowledge a military mandate enforced. Therefore some members might neglect on military spending due to anticipatoin of protection from the stronger allies. Our protecting of the world allows other nations to have a farther right shift on the PPF.


they are not fully guaranteed...foreign governments take a loss when their low interest t-bills depreciate on the foreign exchange markets...foreign governments get nervous about lending increasing amounts of money to a government that cannot control its own finances...banks get skittish when the treasury secretary writes a letter to congress informing them, "unless the debt limit is raised or the Treasury Department takes authorized extraordinary actions, we will be unable to continue to finance government operations":
FOXNews.com - Snow: Congress Needs to Help U.S. Pay Bills - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180133,00.html)

US Treasury Certificates are ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEED!!!!!
They have yet to default, and act as the worlds reserve currency. If by chance they do default, we will be living in the stone age...




what statement? that you think T-bills are guaranteed? maybe the treasury secretary, the president, and congress should read the above statement cuz they aren't so sure

Have they ever defaulted? If not then your point is moot.:jointsmile:

[maladroit]

"Another logical fallacy, and ill refrain from using latin; bandwagon fallacy."

- fair enough...so what does anarchism have to do with health care being designated as an essential service, and who are the anarchists within/behind the essential health care system?



"People who cannot afford $30,000 surgery should get health insurance."

- i agree they should, but as the recent history of wall street has demonstrated, even the richest people make stupid money decisions...should we let them die because they wanted a home to raise a family without putting aside a nest egg for life saving surgery? what if the predatory lender led them to believe that the money for the life saving surgery was guaranteed by the future increase in the value of their home that they could access with a second mortgage (at attractive introductory interest rates)? should we bum mortgage holders and out of work investment bankers die because they didn't keep $30,000 lying around for a rainy aneurysm day? suckers and losers are people too...



"What about smoking or even extreme sports? If you eat McDonalds for breakfast, lunch and dinner, you most likely develop medical complications over time."

- i am not sure how to respond...are you saying that smoking, extreme sports, and mcdonalds are part of essential health care? or that those activities should exclude participants from essential health care, or what?



"Does Japan have a military that compares to their Asian counterparts? "

- japan's military spending is much higher than it's asian counterparts despite the american protection...their total military budget is about the same as britain, and higher than every asian nation except china (which has to maintain a superpower budget)



"Therefore some members might neglect on military spending due to anticipatoin of protection from the stronger allies."

- YES! pooling our resources spreads the defense spending burden, and facilitates governments' stability and ability to protect the public interest....butter instead of guns and ploughshares instead swords...it's like essential defense insurance, with shitty coverage because the underwriters are assholes (with veto power)



"Have they ever defaulted? If not then your point is moot."

- debt is like russian roulette...it's exciting until you blow your brains out...ever hear of credit default swaps on US treasury notes? thanks to the all knowing invisible hand of the free markets, CDS are big business these days:


U.S. Treasury Credit-Default Swaps Increase to Record, CMA Says :
Bloomberg.com: Worldwide (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aTuV9vbFtYu4&refer=home)

[GoldenBoy812]

fair enough...so what does anarchism have to do with health care being designated as an essential service, and who are the anarchists within/behind the essential health care system?

You were calling me a socialist (like yourself) because i am in favor of roads, police, and national defense sponsored by the government.


that sounds like socialist innuendo...will you correctly label yourself a SOCIALIST? of course not! fire and police are essential services...so is health care...you wouldn't expect people to buy private fire/police service insurance to protect them in the event of an emergency, so what supports your opposition to universal health care besides dogmatic capitalist ideology?

Only an anarchist would deem any form of government unnecessary...


i agree they should, but as the recent history of wall street has demonstrated, even the richest people make stupid money decisions...should we let them die because they wanted a home to raise a family without putting aside a nest egg for life saving surgery? what if the predatory lender led them to believe that the money for the life saving surgery was guaranteed by the future increase in the value of their home that they could access with a second mortgage (at attractive introductory interest rates)? should we bum mortgage holders and out of work investment bankers die because they didn't keep $30,000 lying around for a rainy aneurysm day? suckers and losers are people too...

That is the whole point for insurance, so you do not have to pay severe out of pocket expenses.


i am not sure how to respond...are you saying that smoking, extreme sports, and mcdonalds are part of essential health care? or that those activities should exclude participants from essential health care, or what?

It was to show you that Health insurance is only a factor in overall health. Ones health is ones own responsibility. That includes how you pay for it. My mothers health insurance is almost $800 per month because she has a pre existing condition. $9,600 per year is nothing compared to the treatment she receives. But her health insurance is shit unless she invokes a lifestyle that allows her to live a normal life. She cannot smoke, eat fast food etc...


japan's military spending is much higher than it's asian counterparts despite the american protection...their total military budget is about the same as britain, and higher than every asian nation except china (which has to maintain a superpower budget

Hmmm... Britain, France, Japan, Germany, South Korea, Australia, Canada, Italy, Mexico..... have two very distinct things in common. 1.) They are allies of the United States. 2.) Spend on average more than $1,000/ capita less than the US. Try to stay with me here, because you seem to wander off a bit. On a production possibilities frontier curve, the less available resources you allocate towards defense, the more of you are able to allocate towards consumption. Without the US as supreme protector, these nations would have to shift left on the production possibilities frontier. Without the US as a stabilizing factor, threat from aggressive nations such as Russia and China would inevitably increase. This has very little to do with nominal value of spending. Basically, we allocate more of our own resources towards military spending so that you do not have to.


YES! pooling our resources spreads the defense spending burden, and facilitates governments' stability and ability to protect the public interest....butter instead of guns and ploughshares instead swords...it's like essential defense insurance, with shitty coverage because the underwriters are assholes (with veto power)

??? What are you talking about? This was your response towards my statement of:


Therefore some members might neglect on military spending due to anticipatoin of protection from the stronger allies

Which is describing free riding of the US military.


debt is like russian roulette...it's exciting until you blow your brains out...

US debt is 100% secure. There has yet to be a default...


ever hear of credit default swaps on US treasury notes? thanks to the all knowing invisible hand of the free markets, CDS are big business these days:

CDS's are intended as a risk mitigating factor...

Whats your point though?


U.S. Treasury Credit-Default Swaps Increase to Record, CMA Says :
Bloomberg.com: Worldwide (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aTuV9vbFtYu4&refer=home)

Do you honestly believe that by finding some obscure article negates my previous comment that US Treasury Certificates are 100% guaranteed? I cannot understand for the life of me why you would try to argue against this point, or use a worthless article such as the one above as a tool to weaken my original point. Who gives a rats ass if issuers are raising the price to insure US debt, its actually quite uncommon to do so. IMHO, it would be a complete waste of money because if the US ever did default, the entire world would go to hell in a hand basket totally devaluing the nominal payout value via hyperinflationary scenarios that would creep up in such a situation.

[maladroit]

"That is the whole point for insurance, so you do not have to pay severe out of pocket expenses."

- and if you can't afford health insurance, you have to pay severe out of pocket expenses with your life? going back to your $30,000 car analogy; your life would be a steep price to pay if dying was the only alternative to replacing your transportation when you've fallen on hard times...very dickensian - a great time to be alive...let's bring back debtor's prisons for the mortgage bums while we're at it:
Debtors' prison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtor%27s_prison)



"Do you honestly believe that by finding some obscure article negates my previous comment that US Treasury Certificates are 100% guaranteed? I cannot understand for the life of me why you would try to argue against this point, or use a worthless article such as the one above as a tool to weaken my original point."

- that article is not obscure...bloomberg is a respected media organization, and i could easily throw up a half dozen links to other media organizations carrying that report...besides, it's a real statistic so dispute the statistic, not the reporter...the risk of default on US treasury notes is at an all time high, even if that high is not as bad as the default risk on countrywide...the point is that there isn't supposed to be ANY risk on us treasury notes, but the media has been reporting about the increasing risk for at least six months:

U.S. Treasuries' debt protection costs jump to record | Markets | Markets News | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1121920080711)

For First Time, Treasury Notes Are Riskier Than German Bunds - March 12, 2008 - The New York Sun (http://www.nysun.com/business/for-first-time-treasury-notes-are-riskier-than/72740/)

[GoldenBoy812]

and if you can't afford health insurance, you have to pay severge out of pocket expenses with your life? going back to your $30,000 car analogy, your life would be a steep price to pay if dying was the only alternative to replacing your transportation when you've fallen on hard times...very dickensian...great time to be alive...let's bring back debtor's prisons for the mortgage bums while we're at it:
Debtors' prison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtor%27s_prison)

No, you do not have to make payments with ones life, you could work with the hospital to figure out a payment plan; just like if you were to purchase a car. And since your life is more valuable (hopefully) than some object, there is all the more incentive to do so. I would love nothing more to see a sample survey of people who do not have health insurance, and the things they buy instead. Some people do slip between the cracks, but that is few and far between. Negligence IMHO and from what i see here, plays a very big role.


that article is not obscure...bloomberg is a respected media organization, and i could easily throw up a half dozen links to other media organizations carrying that report...besides, it's a real statistic so dispute the statsitic, not the report...the risk of default on US treasury notes is at an all time high, even if that high is not as bad as the default risk on countrywide...:

U.S. Treasuries' debt protection costs jump to record | Markets | Markets News | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1121920080711)

For First Time, Treasury Notes Are Riskier Than German Bunds - March 12, 2008 - The New York Sun (http://www.nysun.com/business/for-first-time-treasury-notes-are-riskier-than/72740/)

During WWII, the debt/GDP ratio was 12/10. Comparing it to now where it is around 8/10, there is not nearly as much risk as before. That was a time of even greater uncertainty, and there were 0 defaults on US issued debt. Why is it you refuse to accept certainties. If 1 note issued on behalf of the US government defaults, in essence it is the same as all defaulting because it would cause a world wide panic in EVERY financial market. It would cause hyperinflation of the dollar, yet deflation to all other foreign currencies as the US is the biggest importer of goods in the world.

Insurance on US guaranteed debt is like insurance on the world ending. It will not matter, therefore your point does not matter. Yields are still relatively low, hence it does not matter. Why have yields declined?

Red herring arguments only weaken your stance. You are trying to come up with any possible way to discredit the guarantee of US guaranteed debt, and fail miserably. Its guaranteed, end of story, and time for you to move on...


the point is that there isn't supposed to be ANY risk on us treasury notes, but the media has been reporting about the increasing risk for at least six months

There is always risk. Nuclear war, aliens, huge comets colliding with the earth, etc... pose a risk to US debt defaulting. There was still "risk" in the form of which you are bringing up in 1998, when the Economy was at an all time high (adjusting for inflation).

It is now all to obvious you really do not know what you are talking about...

[daihashi]

It is now all to obvious you really do not know what you are talking about...

You're too kind/give too much credit, I thought it was obvious from the first post in the thread :hippy:

[thcbongman]

I think some form of Universal health care, like the expansion of medicaid is something the US should look at to supplement the current private industry health care. There are far more benefits to private health care than universal health care. With private health insurance, you get more than the essential services, no waiting lists and you have more options for treatment. Canada total expenditure on health per capita as GNP is 9.7% vs 15.2% in the US with no universal health care. 21.8% of government expenditure vs 17.5 for Canada goes to Health Care.

Core Health Indicators (http://www.who.int/whosis/database/core/core_select_process.cfm?strISO3_select=ALL&strIndicator_select=nha&intYear_select=latest&fixed=country&language=english)

Something has to be done to control the escalating costs on health care. It's not a problem to ignore and every avenue for a solution should be looked at. Personal responsiblity for health is a good start, but people need to be more inclined to go to the doctors in order to prevent 30,000 surgeries. Policies should be revised so the system becomes less complicated due to overwhelming regulation.

[Tokerx]

"[quote=maladroit]socialist innuendo is another way of saying socialist insinuation...you are insinuating that i am a socialist...that is attributing a position to me that is not really my position, which is the meaning of straw man fallacy:
Fallacy: Straw Man (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html)"

Hmmm, socialist talk. I like it. It brings out the best in people. FR you do lean that way sorta kinda as you do seem to think that government should play a large role in our lives. History has been erased, but my memory has not. Seems a lot of "socialist" talk is pointed at Obama too, and not much at bushy, who just signed on to buying stakes in US banks making the US government part owner of said banks. Couple that with the buying of wall street, and then add in mcsocialist mccains plan to buy up everyones home morgages with tax payers money and what do you call the neo-cons? Socialists! Personally, I would benifit from nationalized health care. Thats not really a bad thing unless its run like the economy is, and it most likely would be run that way. If we are to waste money though, at least let it be for a good cause, and not so some fat cat wallstreet greedy somebitch that created his own problems can get some relief from his companys debt that he created. Paying off all this bad debt, and giving the rich bastards that created this problem with greed and foolishnes a huge bail out so they can continue this foolishnes on the backs of the tax payers doesn't have a political term as of yet. It needs a new term for that one. A capitalist society, a true capitalist society, would never prop up failed companys, or failed anything. They would be let sink and a new, better run, company would take over its position. The idea that we can fix a failed market by throwing more money into the fire is retarded.

Somewhere in this thread part of the blame goes to the foolish people that took loans they could not afford, and I agree. If you did this, then its called tough shit for you. If I go take a car loan, and then lose my job, or w/e, and can't pay for it, I lose it. If I loan money to someone that defaults and leaves me hanging with a home that is worth less then the loan, it is the risk I took when loaning the money. Point is, if my greed caused me to lose my ass, tough shit for me. I should not expect to be bailed out by tax payers for my mistakes. The system we have does not work very good. It failed us how many times now? Putting a couple band aids on a festering and infected gun shot wound and hoping it will heal its self over time ain't very bright.

First things first, end the wars. Thats 10 billion a month or more right there. Then, pull the hell out of every other country. I don't buy the theory that our troops have to be all over the world to keep other countrys running. I am of the opinion that they can do just fine without US spending who knows how much on keeping troops in country. Bloated agencys, needless spending, world wide welfare, all needs to stop. The evidence is all around that we can not continue to spend abroad the way we do. It took a long to time to create this mess, and it will not be fixed over night by printing more money. It is going to take some serious sacrifices in spending to get our country back in the condition it should be in. Right now we are disscussing wealth redistribution and no one seems to see it or care. We are taking from the many of which most are not rich, and giving to the few, of which most are rich.

The fact is that both sides did this to US. The people that want to try to say bushy and mcsocialist are some how innocent in all this can't think for themselves. Same goes for those that say the left is innocent. Its just more of the same finger pointing to often repeated to show how "smart" we are. He did it! No, he did it! Naww, it was that guy right there. Nope, it was that one over there. mcsocialist/nobama = same team...... Funny thing, you never hear either one talk much about protecting our Freedoms.

Toker

[Tokerx]

It is now all to obvious you really do not know what you are talking about...

Actually, he looked kinda like he spanked you. You seemed to just blow a lot of hot air around and try to act like you know what your saying while screaming socialist. Having to make a statement like you just made there more then likely means you're not exactly correct in you observation of FR's talking points. Seems nothing he says or shows you can change your closed mind at all anyway. Hmmm, now where did we hear something about that before?

So, do you support a bail out package that rewards failure? If so, how is that not socialism if the government buys the banks, wall street, and my home? LOL, your worried about health care when there are way worse things going on atm. If the car companys can't pay back the "loan", or the banks, or who ever, what happens then? Who owns what then? The real question about socialism is where is all this going to end? How much will our government buy up? If they can adjust the price of my house down for bad times, will they then adjust it up for good times? You are crying for the government to help you while screaming socialist? Does that really make sense to you? It makes no sense to me at all. Maybe you could explain it a little for me.

Toker

[Tokerx]

"I would love nothing more to see a sample survey of people who do not have health insurance, and the things they buy instead."

Well here ya go. I have no health insurance. I buy food and pay my rent with all the extra money I have from not buying insurance. I then get hookers every night with all my saved insurance money, and do drugs until dawn. You act as if there would be some great expenditure on foolishness from a poor guy that can't pay for insurance. I run a small biz of my own, and guess what, I can't afford it. I went to the doc once last year, cost me 300 bucks. Makes no sense to pay 400 a month for that. Now if I was already paying taxes for foolish things like wars, and world wide welfare, why would wasting a little of that so I can get covered for major medical expenses from those taxes I pay be such a bad thing? What is socialist about that, but not socialist when banks are taken over by governments? No one is saying you have to have government help with your insurance, but it would be nice to have if it was needed. Lets see, I need a little help with my health insurance, and they need help because of bad biz decisions, but I would be a bad guy socialist for wanting help to stay alive when I have to pay taxes to keep fat cats fat? Something is fundimentally wrong with the idea that it is ok to bail out greedy bankers but not ok to help the poor if they are sick. I would be willing to bet these same bail out fans call themselves christians too. Are you a fan of this bail out?

Toker

[GoldenBoy812]

Actually, he looked kinda like he spanked you. You seemed to just blow a lot of hot air around and try to act like you know what your saying while screaming socialist. Having to make a statement like you just made there more then likely means you're not exactly correct in you observation of FR's talking points. Seems nothing he says or shows you can change your closed mind at all anyway. Hmmm, now where did we hear something about that before?

So, do you support a bail out package that rewards failure? If so, how is that not socialism if the government buys the banks, wall street, and my home? LOL, your worried about health care when there are way worse things going on atm. If the car companys can't pay back the "loan", or the banks, or who ever, what happens then? Who owns what then? The real question about socialism is where is all this going to end? How much will our government buy up? If they can adjust the price of my house down for bad times, will they then adjust it up for good times? You are crying for the government to help you while screaming socialist? Does that really make sense to you? It makes no sense to me at all. Maybe you could explain it a little for me.

Toker

Opinions vary:jointsmile:

The government bailout is a little too encompassing to consider US actions socialist. The world markets are collapsing. The US is not in as bad of a position then other countries (the UK has higher leveraged ratio defaults). Thursday night (Friday in Japan), the Nikki dropped nearly 10%. This is all very bad, therefore government intervention is needed because it is their actions that have led us to this field. Had markets been allowed to fall and rise at their own speed and way, a massive bubble such as the one we now all face would not exist. One of the contributing factors of the great depression was the fact that world wide market collaboration did not exist.

In almost any other scenario, i would loath government intervention, but the cost is just to great at the present time. I do not want to see mass people starving, living in the slums, mass suicides etc... By not having Universal Health Care, the scenario described will not take place.

[Tokerx]

Opinions vary:jointsmile:

The government bailout is a little too encompassing to consider US actions socialist. The world markets are collapsing. The US is not in as bad of a position then other countries (the UK has higher leveraged ratio defaults). Thursday night (Friday in Japan), the Nikki dropped nearly 10%. This is all very bad, therefore government intervention is needed because it is their actions that have led us to this field. Had markets been allowed to fall and rise at their own speed and way, a massive bubble such as the one we now all face would not exist. One of the contributing factors of the great depression was the fact that world wide market collaboration did not exist.

In almost any other scenario, i would loath government intervention, but the cost is just to great at the present time. I do not want to see mass people starving, living in the slums, mass suicides etc... By not having Universal Health Care, the scenario described will not take place.

Opinions may vary, but facts remain the same. Nationalizing the banking industry and making the US government the worlds largest bank is not socialist? Interesting! So if we help the poor a little with their medical insurance we have completely changed our system to a socialist nightmare, but a government take over of US industrys and banking is not socialist? I guess what is needed is a definition of socialism. You're kinda right I guess, its not really socialism, its something completely different, but just as disgusting as it only serves to make the problem worse and then of course, more government intervention and government ownership of industry. Thats socialism of sorts. Or is it fascism? Its kinda blurry atm because hey, we don't know what the ^%*& they are doing do we? No bank is going to loan another bank a dime unless the US backs it now. In effect it will have its hand in almost every aspect of banking. That leaves open room for all sorts of underhanded politicaly motivated BS from lenders and who ever is in charge of the government. Knowing that we have a VP choice that is said to have abused her power to punish on a personal level gots to make ya wonder at what could become of banks that are liberal, or conservetive, when the other has the power. If bank a will not loan bank b money because it is scared of bank b failing, then bank a loans money to the government who in turn then loans it to bank b. If bank b fails after said dealings, then who owns bank b? The US government and the newly created banking agency thats attached to the federal reserve??? Naw, they would never do that, right?

"The world markets are collapsing."

Yes, they are. Throwing money onto the bonfire will put out the flames? In the end it will just be fuel for the fire. You have to know that just printing a bunch of money will not help do anything but deflate the dollar. Trillion dollar packages or not, we are hosed. We can not buy our way outa this, so why keep making it worse? We could learn from mother nature. The weak are disposed of and replaced, they are not propped up artificially.

"The government bailout is a little too encompassing to consider US actions socialist."

No it is not. It is easy to see wealth distribution in governments buying houses and settling loans for people. That one lump of people with bad loans gets a bonus, a huge hand out while others get nothing, or they get higher taxes.

"The US is not in as bad of a position then other countries (the UK has higher leveraged ratio defaults)."

Its all tied together anyway. Really its still pretty bad though, and looks like it will get worse even if other economys are worse then ours.

"This is all very bad, t[B]herefore government intervention is needed because it is their actions that have led us to this field."

The best way to get control of people, to get them to give up their rights, or to accept things they normally wouldn't from government, is to create conditions that force people to accept those things. Some things are not created so much as siezed upon and used as it comes up. We had to have it right then and there, it was an emergency, and yet we have no clue as to what was even passed. We were warned it would be way worse not to let the government take control. They knew long before this that it was a problem, and did nothing. All of a sudden its this huge emergency that need to be delt with over night. 800 billion spent in such a willy nilly manner is just as disgusting as the greed that created the need for it in the first place.

"Had markets been allowed to fall and rise at their own speed and way, a massive bubble such as the one we now all face would not exist"

So why artificially prop it up some more? Are we not just blowing another huge bubble with this "bail out"? Government control of healthcare is just as bad as government control of banking. Check this out, you can't die from losing stocks.

"In almost any other scenario, i would loath government intervention"

Good for you. You fail here though, and thats the kind of thinking and isolationism that led to the rise of hitler and.................LOL!

"but the cost is just to great at the present time."

Oh yeah, we must have government intervention. Why? Because they told us we need it? Give them all the power they ask for my friend, because the cost is to high and they can fix this mess they created. Wait a sec, you want a reality market, right? So why give the people that screwed it up the power to screw it up even more?

"I do not want to see mass people starving, living in the slums, mass suicides etc..."

Nor do I. Can you tell me how this "package" is going to stop that?

"By not having Universal Health Care, the scenario described will not take place."

All or nothing, right? Lets think about these people you don't want to see, and what thier life will be like when they are sick and in a soup line. How many will jump when they can't afford to have their child seen and the child dies for lack of insurance or money to pay with? Helping a few poor people get insurance is not " Universal Health Care". Try to live in reality. Extremes are not reality, and only serve to create fog. Not in my mind, but in your own mind. You sorta propagate yourself with that kinda stuff.

Toker

[GoldenBoy812]

Opinions may vary, but facts remain the same. Nationalizing the banking industry and making the US government the worlds largest bank is not socialist? Interesting! So if we help the poor a little with their medical insurance we have completely changed our system to a socialist nightmare, but a government take over of US industrys and banking is not socialist? I guess what is needed is a definition of socialism. You're kinda right I guess, its not really socialism, its something completely different, but just as disgusting as it only serves to make the problem worse and then of course, more government intervention and government ownership of industry. Thats socialism of sorts. Or is it fascism? Its kinda blurry atm because hey, we don't know what the ^%*& they are doing do we? No bank is going to loan another bank a dime unless the US backs it now. In effect it will have its hand in almost every aspect of banking. That leaves open room for all sorts of underhanded politicaly motivated BS from lenders and who ever is in charge of the government. Knowing that we have a VP choice that is said to have abused her power to punish on a personal level gots to make ya wonder at what could become of banks that are liberal, or conservetive, when the other has the power. If bank a will not loan bank b money because it is scared of bank b failing, then bank a loans money to the government who in turn then loans it to bank b. If bank b fails after said dealings, then who owns bank b? The US government and the newly created banking agency thats attached to the federal reserve??? Naw, they would never do that, right?

I am impressed that you realize the difference between facisism and socialism. Keep going, you will find your truth soon enough:thumbsup:


Yes, they are. Throwing money onto the bonfire will put out the flames? In the end it will just be fuel for the fire. You have to know that just printing a bunch of money will not help do anything but deflate the dollar. Trillion dollar packages or not, we are hosed. We can not buy our way outa this, so why keep making it worse? We could learn from mother nature. The weak are disposed of and replaced, they are not propped up artificially.

Interest rates were lowered in an artificial fashion 6 years ago, yet i doubt you even noticed or had an opinion at the time. You are highly mistaken if you believe this is throwing money into "a fire". If government is able to manipulate interest rates, and their so called regulation could not see this coming (with 12,000 + employees), it is in fact their mess to clean up. They have the tools, as their pockets are unlimited so to speak. It will improve eventually!


No it is not. It is easy to see wealth distribution in governments buying houses and settling loans for people. That one lump of people with bad loans gets a bonus, a huge hand out while others get nothing, or they get higher taxes.

Its more of a facist measurement, as opposed to a socialist measurement. The treasury is not buying houses, i have no idea where you got that idea from... Higher taxes or lower spending are the natural reaction to high deficits.


Its all tied together anyway. Really its still pretty bad though, and looks like it will get worse even if other economys are worse then ours.

Its called the bust of a business cycle.


The best way to get control of people, to get them to give up their rights, or to accept things they normally wouldn't from government, is to create conditions that force people to accept those things. Some things are not created so much as siezed upon and used as it comes up. We had to have it right then and there, it was an emergency, and yet we have no clue as to what was even passed. We were warned it would be way worse not to let the government take control. They knew long before this that it was a problem, and did nothing. All of a sudden its this huge emergency that need to be delt with over night. 800 billion spent in such a willy nilly manner is just as disgusting as the greed that created the need for it in the first place.

:what: The bailout is not all at once, which brings me to question your knowledge of the current situation. Its not even set that they will need $700 billion, its just a psychological factor if the markets call for it.


So why artificially prop it up some more? Are we not just blowing another huge bubble with this "bail out"? Government control of healthcare is just as bad as government control of banking. Check this out, you can't die from losing stocks.

The choice is, free up credit or world markets crumble. In a time like this, where we have many more people chasing even fewer available resources, the consequences could be much more grave as opposed to the great depression. You have failed to analyze this, and therefore your opinion has very little substance...


Good for you. You fail here though, and thats the kind of thinking and isolationism that led to the rise of hitler and.................LOL!

It is false indoctrination such as this that sets many people up to not only become government dependent, but to underachieve...


Oh yeah, we must have government intervention. Why? Because they told us we need it? Give them all the power they ask for my friend, because the cost is to high and they can fix this mess they created. Wait a sec, you want a reality market, right? So why give the people that screwed it up the power to screw it up even more?

Again, you have little knowledge of the current situation, and fail to recognize your history... A RTC (Resolution Trust Corporation) was enacted in the late 1980's and early 1990's following the Savings and Loans Crisis. I recommend you study the situation a little more before running your mouth.


Nor do I. Can you tell me how this "package" is going to stop that?

The freezing of credit will undoubtedly halt a rather large percentage of production. Halting production will force companies to downsize, therefore creating massive unemployment. I do not have to explain to you what happens during periods of massive unemployment, or do i?


All or nothing, right? Lets think about these people you don't want to see, and what thier life will be like when they are sick and in a soup line. How many will jump when they can't afford to have their child seen and the child dies for lack of insurance or money to pay with? Helping a few poor people get insurance is not " Universal Health Care". Try to live in reality. Extremes are not reality, and only serve to create fog. Not in my mind, but in your own mind. You sorta propagate yourself with that kinda stuff.

Currently, if you have children and do not make enough money, you are eligible for medicaid here in the US. Since you are not in the US, i have little doubt you were unaware of this. Your ignorance is has become apparent...

There is something familiar to your response style. Why not use the quotation tools? :wtf:

[Psycho4Bud]

If you two want to debate an issue, great but leave the petty name calling for another site. Consider this a verbal warning.

Have a good one!:s4:

[GoldenBoy812]

Why was my post deleted?

[Psycho4Bud]

If you two want to debate an issue, great but leave the petty name calling for another site. Consider this a verbal warning.

Have a good one!:s4:

I covered that in the last post. We can debate without insults; "personal attacks not allowed"...that's been part of the guidelines on this site for a long time.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

[GoldenBoy812]

I covered that in the last post. We can debate without insults; "personal attacks not allowed"...that's been part of the guidelines on this site for a long time.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

I understand that petty name calling is not allowed. But is telling someone that they posted out of pure ignorance an insult? If so, then i will refrain from the future, but i put about 35 minutes in that last post, of which the majority was in fact relevant, and central to my debate.

It would have been helpful to actually view what is not allowed, that way i can make a mental note to refrain in the future.

I have the last post saved in Microsoft office, so could i know what is considered offensive, that way i may remove it and repost?

[daihashi]

I understand that petty name calling is not allowed. But is telling someone that they posted out of pure ignorance an insult? If so, then i will refrain from the future, but i put about 35 minutes in that last post, of which the majority was in fact relevant, and central to my debate.

It would have been helpful to actually view what is not allowed, that way i can make a mental note to refrain in the future.

I have the last post saved in Microsoft office, so could i know what is considered offensive, that way i may remove it and repost?

I don't believe it is; but then again I'm not a moderator. The word ignorant or ignorance is not insulting as it simply means having a lack of knowledge or education. That is not an insult nor may it necessarily be the person's fault. However by posting information you are trying to inform/educate them.

It seems to always been the mod's stance that this is name calling (I've had a number of my posts with the word "ignorant" in them removed) and i'd probably just refrain from using it in the future.

Too many people on this site are hyper sensitive and I can understand the mess it may cause for mods.

[Psycho4Bud]

I understand that petty name calling is not allowed. But is telling someone that they posted out of pure ignorance an insult? If so, then i will refrain from the future, but i put about 35 minutes in that last post, of which the majority was in fact relevant, and central to my debate.

If you'd like, I'll e-mail you your post but what for? After the nice post that was left by your counter part he won't be returning.



Too many people on this site are hyper sensitive and I can understand the mess it may cause for mods.

EXACTLY! This type of wording is a precursor for a flame war and considered by many as being a personal attack. On forums like these people will reply with a "screw you asshole" but in real life it could end up with somebody dusting the pavement with their ass. Either way, it's NOT allowed in here.

IF people are posting out of ignorance or are ignorant, it shouldn't need to be pointed out during a debate for obvious reasons.

Have a good one!:s4:

[GoldenBoy812]

Understood!:jointsmile: