Someone explain how putting our country $800 billion in the hole will help us.

[40oz]

Ok, so I am a bit of an economic retard. I don't know much about the economy or finances or all that jazz. What I do know however, is that the value of our currency is directly related to the amount of currency in circulation.

I also know that the value of our currency is slipping.

From what I have heard, the purpose of Obama's stimulus package is to save the banks and thus the entire economy from collapsing. So now here is my question. Actually it is a series of questions.

Where the hell is this $800 billion coming from? Are we just gonna hit up the federal reserve bank to create that money and hand it out, or is it going to be coming from money already in circulation? If it is money already in circulation, then what the hell is the government doing sitting on $800 bil? We got problems that said money could have been fixing for years now. If the money needs to be created, won't that extra $800 billion in our currency system cause our dollar's value to plummet? What then? Our money will be worthless and our economic problems will be just beginning. The government can't just go around making new money to cover its financial problems whenever they arise, thats just not how it works.

So please, if there is someone who understands all this stuff better than me, can you please explain how this $800 billion stimulus package is supposed to help our country? thanks

[cannakeeper]

The ones that are retarded is the Govt, that being said, pick what you think is the most retarded answer that makes no sense what so ever and that is likely to be the answer.

[killerweed420]

It will end up a combination of the 2. We'll be borrowing billions from China and plus the federal reserve will be printing more worthless paper. And then the fun starts. After they print more worthless paper thats when inflation starts kicking in along with the devalued dollar. Nobody's bothering to talk about that because its a year or so down the road.

[Markass]

It will end up a combination of the 2. We'll be borrowing billions from China and plus the federal reserve will be printing more worthless paper. And then the fun starts. After they print more worthless paper thats when inflation starts kicking in along with the devalued dollar. Nobody's bothering to talk about that because its a year or so down the road.

and they rely on American's not thinking about that aspect...intelligent people, however, do think about that, which is why it doesn't make sense to any logical thinking person..the people we borrow money from already know they're not going to ever see it again..which is why I'll bet most of it comes right out of thin air...

If the federal reserve counterfits it's okay, but if we were to do it ourselves we'd go to prison for it..

[luciddreamer]

The government can't just go around making new money to cover its financial problems whenever they arise, thats just not how it works.

I'm sorry, they can and it is.

Cannakeeper - That was f'ing hilarious LMAO

[40oz]

I'm sorry, they can and it is.



Well sure, they can print the money, but that's not how the system works. Printing more money won't solve our financial problems, it will just create new, most likley more devastating ones. What do we do when it costs us $100 US to buy a roll of toilet paper in mexico?

[McDanger]

It will end up a combination of the 2. We'll be borrowing billions from China and plus the federal reserve will be printing more worthless paper. And then the fun starts. After they print more worthless paper thats when inflation starts kicking in along with the devalued dollar. Nobody's bothering to talk about that because its a year or so down the road.

Just today it was announced by the labor dept. an increase of .8% for January when it was predicted to be .2%. Hope and Change

[Dream of the iris]

Not necessarily trying to defend the 800 Billion stimulus package, but you do realize the government understands the the problem with creating money. Then why are they doing this? The purpose of the 800 billion stimulus package isn't to just fix the economy and go on with our lives. It's more of an ad hoc to the problem and they know this which is exactly why they did this. The stimulus package is meant to buy more time for them so that they can come up with a more effective plan for the long term. Creating money does in fact de-value the dollar but this stimulus package is literally just a dent in regards to inflation. I don't expect future stimulus packages. Maybe one more but other than that I expect them to find results with the time that they just bought themselves.

You see, if we didn't "kick start" the economy then it would all come crumbling down very fast and very hard. The stimulus package is artificially propping up the industries which of course everyone knows isn't good as a long term solution but it does allow the crash to be significantly more pleasant than simply letting it all fall down. Even though we are de-valuing the dollar the de-value isn't as significant of a change as it would be if the economy just completely collapsed. Now even with the stimulus package we're going to crash but it will be much more pleasant.

What Obama is talking about now is increasing the taxes and looking at the budget to see what cut backs need to be made. Right now he's considering international cut backs which is a great idea but he's also looking into the national system and finding out where the most money is being wasted. Increasing taxes while making cut backs that is the least damaging to citizens is the best way to come crashing. So as absurd as a stimulus package may seem its much better than the alternative of letting everything crash while trying to manage raising taxes and decreasing spending. The government is establishing breathing room for themselves.

Kind of sucks being in charge sometimes....

[40oz]

thank you iris, thats what i wanted to hear.

however, i still don't see how that can help us much, but i guess obama's plan is better than mine. which is nothing.

[GoldenBoy812]

Ok, so I am a bit of an economic retard. I don't know much about the economy or finances or all that jazz. What I do know however, is that the value of our currency is directly related to the amount of currency in circulation.

I also know that the value of our currency is slipping.

From what I have heard, the purpose of Obama's stimulus package is to save the banks and thus the entire economy from collapsing. So now here is my question. Actually it is a series of questions.

Where the hell is this $800 billion coming from? Are we just gonna hit up the federal reserve bank to create that money and hand it out, or is it going to be coming from money already in circulation? If it is money already in circulation, then what the hell is the government doing sitting on $800 bil? We got problems that said money could have been fixing for years now. If the money needs to be created, won't that extra $800 billion in our currency system cause our dollar's value to plummet? What then? Our money will be worthless and our economic problems will be just beginning. The government can't just go around making new money to cover its financial problems whenever they arise, thats just not how it works.

So please, if there is someone who understands all this stuff better than me, can you please explain how this $800 billion stimulus package is supposed to help our country? thanks

Here is the deal. The value of all assets (their prices) have been falling since the end of August, signaling a massive decline in overall wealth. Such assets can include real estate, equities (stocks and options), securities (various loans), and commodities (until gold recently). As the prices of everything begin to fall, the next big leap down will be wages. Since the majority of purchases are sticky because hey require finance to pay for them (property/autos), a fall in wages translates to a decrease in disposable income (income left after paying bills/necessities). This is a recipe for disaster, because prices in goods will rise much faster than wages will, which will cause even more pain to the consumer.

The problem is, a stimulus package as poorly put together as the one enacted by Obama is not really what it seems. Yes it is a big number, but only something like $130 billion will be released into the economy by this year. The majority of the money is expected to be released by 2012, which IMHO is far too late. On top of the time laggard, the majority of this bill is in the form of tax cuts. I believe they should have been building new science facilities, labs, transportation, nuclear power plants, etc.... By doing this, they would be creating new jobs, and with it a new cycle of spending by the workers who earn a paycheck. After the infrastructure is finished, businesses and individuals will benefit by the efficiency offered by such an investment.

Instead, they decided to give tax money back to promote consumption. Yes there is some stimulus for education included, but i expected much much more, and zero to little tax incentives.

The money comes from those who purchase treasury securities. Don't get confused by the fear mongers, China will not finance our entire stimulus. They lack the liquidity to pay for both our stimulus, and the one they enacted last November which rivals ours in quantity and quality.

[yokinazu]

i like what nader said about it:

5000 trillion dollars worth of stock are traded eveery year on the market TAX FREE, a .1% tax would generate somethin like 500 billion dollars a year.theres your stimulis package.

[GoldenBoy812]

i like what nader said about it:

5000 trillion dollars worth of stock are traded eveery year on the market TAX FREE, a .1% tax would generate somethin like 500 billion dollars a year.theres your stimulis package.

There is no way $5 quadrillion is traded every year, because there does not exist that total sum of wealth on the planet, let alone in equity markets. Which goes to show Nader is a moron. The US stock markets alone would be lucky to eclipse $50 trillion, and if you combine all forms of securities maybe, a big maybe, a grand total of $100 trillion. Of course, that does not assume $100 trillion in wealth, only that the same $10 trillion or so is traded 10 times per year on average.

The point of a stimulus package is to push aggregate demand towards full employment GDP, which in the US is around 4%. To do so, we are going to need an instant injection of 4% of total US GDP to have that possibility (assuming the multiplier is in fact 2).

[Rusty Trichome]

From what I have heard, the purpose of Obama's stimulus package is to save the banks and thus the entire economy from collapsing. That's what he say's, but take a look at those he placed in the position of authority over commerce, finance and banking. The same morons that got our policy to be so subversive to our nations interests in the first place. (ACORN's pressure to demand loans to indigents, for instance (an Obama affiliate)) Best way to avoid investigation, is to place those that broke the public's trust, in charge of enforcing monetary law. Crooks and tax evaders.
There will be a backlash...there always is.



Where the hell is this $800 billion coming from? Fiat valuation (http://www.kwaves.com/fiat.htm) Running on the fiat system of currency valuation...apparently it doesn't really need to come from anywhere...it's just numbers. (ones and zeros) But since they (the numbers) are so subjective, I can't wait to see next-years state of the union address, where he says he already cut the deficit in half. (yet all he has done was to spend 2 trillion dollars on community reindoctrination projects and fish farms) If you can't fix their ills, tell them you are on the verge...ought to keep the liberal sheep in line till just before the next election cycle, when he will introduce a new-deal czar (Sen. Byrd) chock-full of infrastructure projects and buy-offs, lol. :thumbsup:

[yokinazu]

5000 that was a type o it was suposed to be 500, and no there ist that much wealth but a stock can be traded multiple times. a dollar is worth a dollar but if you trade 10 times thats 10 dollars bein traded. also my numbers may be scewed some but it is a shit load of money that can be generated. it was a long time ago i seen that and im goin from memory

[jonquest]

the idea is that printing/borrowing money and giving it to people for building bridges/roads and other crap will stimulate the economy. it's not a good idea, but that's the idea.

[JaggedEdge]

The stimulus package is meant to buy more time for them so that they can come up with a more effective plan for the long term. Creating money does in fact de-value the dollar but this stimulus package is literally just a dent in regards to inflation. I don't expect future stimulus packages. Maybe one more but other than that I expect them to find results with the time that they just bought themselves.



It doesn't sound like a good idea to spend that much money in order to buy more time for these morons in office to "figure something out." Also, there is no defending the vast number of earmarks in these bills.

You admit they don't have a solution yet! Why spend this kind of money in order to make things worse when these dim wits can't come up with a reasonable solution. That is like your 60 in' tv breaking, you bringing it to the repair man and him saying, "Well sir, I'm not exactly sure how to fix this darn thing, but if your willing to pay $500,000 I'm fairly sure I will be able to figure something out before your bankrupt."

[JaggedEdge]

What Obama is talking about now is increasing the taxes and looking at the budget to see what cut backs need to be made. Right now he's considering international cut backs which is a great idea but he's also looking into the national system and finding out where the most money is being wasted. Increasing taxes while making cut backs that is the least damaging to citizens is the best way to come crashing. So as absurd as a stimulus package may seem its much better than the alternative of letting everything crash while trying to manage raising taxes and decreasing spending. The government is establishing breathing room for themselves.

Kind of sucks being in charge sometimes....

Sorry I can't believe I forgot to comment on this little gem.

Tax increases and budget cuts!!? How about not spending a trillion dollars? Than they even discuss cutting the military budget in the middle of two wars, not to mention the growing tensions with China, N. Korea, and the growing conflicts between Israel and Gaza.

They gave out billions to organizations like ACORN. It pisses me off you have the nerve to talk about cutting spending in the same post you defend spending a trillion dollars.

You want another possible solution. Don't spend trillions and instead simply make spending cuts. Leave the market alone for a while and see if the American people can fix it themselves. We don't need these schmucks meddling in every little problem. We don't need to micromanaged.

[5thHorseMan]

considering that american consumers were taken in by all the subprime lenders, and allowed their long term savings to used to buy stock, rather than sit and earn interest. I'd say that leaving the situation to them isn't any better, than whats happening.

[MPLSweedman]

the ONLY thing obama knows how to do is spend money

he FORCES bills through, doesnt give ANYONE time to read them

ive said it before and ill say it again, its all being done on purpose to make EVERYONE under the middle class line so that EVERYONE wants government in their lives

obama is a huge socialist, ive been saying it for 6 months, no one listened, here's where we are


FYI LIBS

only 23% of the 800bil is being spent in 2009

the rest.... after 2011, so there, stimulus???? try spendulus

[VapedG13]

Bail out the banks... give them billions...then some of those same banks who issued credit cards to people are screwing them over left and right after recieving the money. http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/106716/How-to-Blow-Your-Credit-Limit-Without-Spending;_ylt=AgwnYl84M27gmpH7lDmVvhUazJV4

[40oz]

I got this feeling last night while watching the news about the $165 mil. AIG bonuses that what is happening now could be the beginning of the end of capitalism. Everything is just too stupid to keep on going on like it is.

Some lady was blabbing about how the government in some states has a large tax on bonuses like that. So it ends up working out like this, the government prints out billions of monopoly dollars to give to banks, banks get it, give their executives huge bonuses, and the government takes a large percentage of that monopoly money back in taxes. Is it just me or does something not seem right here.

[psychocat]

It's very much a "rob Peter to pay Paul" type of solution.
The bonuses for the wankers who made this mess are a slap in the face for the public that saved thier arses.

The strange thing to me is that people don't see that this whole charade is a case of the priveleged few getting caught with thier pants down and carrying out a damage limitation exercise .
A few minnows will get thrown to the sharks , a couple of well timed "falling on thier swords" and the old boys network will continue to make sure , "never to give a sucker an even break".

The public are the biggest suckers ever.

[Coelho]

Well... if i remember well (as i used to sleep in the history classes), not long ago (maybe less than 100 years ago), the gold was the standard to measure one countrys wealth, so as more gold it had stored, more wealthy it was.

Then the usa entered an economic crisis (i think it was the great depression), and its amount of gold (and consequently its wealth) decreased noticeably. So, what they did? They found a way to convince the world to adopt a new standard to measure the countries wealth: the dollar. So, a countrys wealth wasnt measured by how much gold it had anymore, but by how much green-painted paper (dollar) it had.

And... as the usa was the country which made this green-painted paper, of course it made a LOT of it, far more than its amount of gold, and so it became "wealthy" again, because now wealth was measured by how much green-painted paper one had, and now it had plenty of it.

Now the same thing is happening... this green-painted paper is losing its value, and so the usa is becoming poorer. How long it will take until they try to convince the world to adopt a new standard to measure wealth (and thus increase artificially its wealth again) ?

Im sure they will try to do this, and probably the new standard will be something electronic, like credit cards with chips, or just chips, or something like this... so, using the excuse of "promoting new technologies" they will put this new "electronic money" to use, while artificially creating a lot of it and thus getting wealthy again.

PS. I almost forgot... one good way to decrease the govt spending is to stop the drug war... but surely they prefer to let the countrys economy crash than let all the potheads smoke their weed in peace without being bothered (or arrested).

[jonquest]

I got this feeling last night while watching the news about the $165 mil. AIG bonuses that what is happening now could be the beginning of the end of capitalism. Everything is just too stupid to keep on going on like it is.

Some lady was blabbing about how the government in some states has a large tax on bonuses like that. So it ends up working out like this, the government prints out billions of monopoly dollars to give to banks, banks get it, give their executives huge bonuses, and the government takes a large percentage of that monopoly money back in taxes. Is it just me or does something not seem right here.

Hopefully people will realize capitalism is what we need before it's too late.

[40oz]

Hopefully people will realize capitalism is what we need before it's too late.

not necessarily disagreeing with you, but why is capitalism what we need?

[5thHorseMan]

capitalism creates competition, companies have to compete to get or retain customers. Look at microsoft and apple, In the beginning microsoft had the better more user friendly product, and apple was over complicated and largely outdated. Now the tables reverse. Perfect example of competition creating a better product or service.

And while I think we need capitalism, I think we also need a certain degree of socialism. Healthcare for instance does not benefit much from capitalism, since most insurance companies charge as much as they can, while providing as little care as possible, theres not much competition there to create value for consumers. And it's not like those consumers can do without the good and services they provide and so are forced to pay whatever fixed price the companies and providers determine.

[40oz]

capitalism creates competition, companies have to compete to get or retain customers.


unless of course the government decides to come in and bail a failing business out. Then its just sit back and let the dough roll in while everyone else struggles to earn money.



And while I think we need capitalism, I think we also need a certain degree of socialism. Healthcare for instance does not benefit much from capitalism, since most insurance companies charge as much as they can, while providing as little care as possible, theres not much competition there to create value for consumers. And it's not like those consumers can do without the good and services they provide and so are forced to pay whatever fixed price the companies and providers determine.


So then maybe capitalism isnt the answer, huh. People's health and well being should be more of a priority than competing businesses. Humans are competitive by nature, we don't need a system that causes us to be cut throats to survive.

[FreshNugz]

Yes but...without capitalism, we'd have to resort to another political theory..problem there is, the US hates all of them except capitalism.

I think it's sad how much of a kick the Russians must be getting out of this. Marx is chuckling in the grave.

[JaggedEdge]

unless of course the government decides to come in and bail a failing business out. Then its just sit back and let the dough roll in while everyone else struggles to earn money.




So then maybe capitalism isnt the answer, huh. People's health and well being should be more of a priority than competing businesses. Humans are competitive by nature, we don't need a system that causes us to be cut throats to survive.

Actually capitalism would work just fine if the government would stay out of things. And the high cost of health care is the perfect example of capitalism working. No everyone can't be covered, but this isn't a perfect world. The reason American scientists are working on cures for cancer's and the reason they have had some success with ovarian cancer treatment and others is because they are compensated very well for these discoveries.

Socialized healthcare will just mean horrible care for all Americans rather than a few. Scientists will stop releasing cures because they won't get paid enough for doing so. Why exactly to people travel from all over the world to get treated in America?

[40oz]

Actually capitalism would work just fine if the government would stay out of things. And the high cost of health care is the perfect example of capitalism working. No everyone can't be covered, but this isn't a perfect world.

Wouldn't denying an individual health care be the same as denying the right to life and liberty? Isn't that what our country was founded on? Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all?



The reason American scientists are working on cures for cancer's and the reason they have had some success with ovarian cancer treatment and others is because they are compensated very well for these discoveries.


Ok, but then you run into problems when that cure for cancer is discovered. Don't you think the people who discovered it would want to be compensated for it? If that's the case, which it defiantly will be under capitalism, then we will have a cure that only the wealthiest individuals in our society could afford. We can't just give the treatment away, because then the life work of all those scientists would have no gain (besides helping people). We can't charge outrageous sums to the upper class and smaller sums to the lower class for treatment, because that's not fair...and it's not capitalism

Plus look where capitalism has gotten us in the pharmaceutical industry. We have doctors and psychiatrists doubling as drug dealers. I believe you will have a hard time finding a family that doesn't have at least one of its members caught up in some kind of "legal" drug addiction. Humans got along decent throughout the course of history without man made pain killers and anti depressant pills, and now they are a part of everyday life.




Socialized healthcare will just mean horrible care for all Americans rather than a few. Scientists will stop releasing cures because they won't get paid enough for doing so. Why exactly to people travel from all over the world to get treated in America?

I don't believe that, look at Canada. Lots of healthy people up there.

[40oz]

Yes but...without capitalism, we'd have to resort to another political theory..problem there is, the US hates all of them except capitalism.


Thats true, i mean after a country goes all military conquest mode on the rest of the world to protect and spread capitalism, its hard to say "right,maybe we fucked up"

[JaggedEdge]

Wouldn't denying an individual health care be the same as denying the right to life and liberty? Isn't that what our country was founded on? Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all?

Yes, we have a right to to life and liberty, however it does not say the government must provide it equally to everyone. Everyone has an equal right to go to school or get a minimum wage job that offers health coverage. What your talking about is like saying its unconstitutional to die.




Ok, but then you run into problems when that cure for cancer is discovered. Don't you think the people who discovered it would want to be compensated for it? If that's the case, which it defiantly will be under capitalism, then we will have a cure that only the wealthiest individuals in our society could afford. We can't just give the treatment away, because then the life work of all those scientists would have no gain (besides helping people). We can't charge outrageous sums to the upper class and smaller sums to the lower class for treatment, because that's not fair...and it's not capitalism

The wealthy would not be the only ones able to afford the new cure. That is why we pay for insurance. The majority of Americans would be able to get treatment and in a timely manner. Working 40 hours a week at Wal-mart is hardly wealthy, yet those employee's have have the option of being insured.

I would support SCHIP, however a 28 year old still living with mommy is no longer a child... Children should be insured, but SCHIP is a very bad program in that it covers more than just children.



Plus look where capitalism has gotten us in the pharmaceutical industry. We have doctors and psychiatrists doubling as drug dealers. I believe you will have a hard time finding a family that doesn't have at least one of its members caught up in some kind of "legal" drug addiction. Humans got along decent throughout the course of history without man made pain killers and anti depressant pills, and now they are a part of everyday life.

Where does personal responsibility come in? People have problems with all kinds of addictions: porn, illegal drugs, beer, pharmaceutical drugs, cigarettes. The dangers of medications are readily available. It is common knowledge that pain killers are highly addictive. So were exactly does personal responsibility enter in to your equation?

Not to mention, it isn't a "legal" addiction if you are getting pills from a friend. Yes, if a doctor gives you a prescription for pills you don't need, I suppose it would be "legal," but how many people do you know with these addictions who go to their pharmacy to get their fix. Most of them buy from friends or dealers.

I will however agree that many drugs are over prescribed in order for those in the medical profession to make a quick buck. ADD medications are ones that instantly come to my mind.





I don't believe that, look at Canada. Lots of healthy people up there.

By that argument our health care system works fine as well. There are a lot of healthy people here too.

If you feel waiting months for surgery, have your medical problems reviewed by bureaucrats and them deciding whether you "really" need treatment, and being told you can't receive cancer treatment because your to old and no longer contribute to society, than yes, socialized medicine is wonderful.

John Stossel : Socialized Medicine Is Broken and Can't Be Fixed - Townhall.com (http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2007/09/19/socialized_medicine_is_broken_and_cant_be_fixed?pa ge=full&comments=true)

A little research will show even more problems with socialized medicine, in particular, the number of Canadians and Europeans who pay to travel to America to get medical treatment.

I read in one article that in England it is required you go blind in one eye before you qualify for medical attention to cure a particular ailment. It hardly seems like an improvement.

If people want health coverage they can get a fucking job. The system is never going to be perfect, people need to stop being so idealistic. Yes, our current system could certainly use some improvements, but universal healthcare sure as hell is not the answer.

[JaggedEdge]

Thats true, i mean after a country goes all military conquest mode on the rest of the world to protect and spread capitalism, its hard to say "right,maybe we fucked up"

Capitalism is an economic idea, not political. Politically, our founding fathers set this country up on the political principles of a Republic. If you want to argue that our military aggressions are for spreading our ideals than we would be trying to spread democratic principles, not capitalistic ones.

[psychocat]

Hopefully people will realize capitalism is what we need before it's too late.
Capitalism is the cause of the current problem.

[5thHorseMan]

first off American health care is a wretched fucking joke. It's not healty and not caring. Insurance companies are able to deny treatment for some of the most absurd bullshit reasons out there. Secondly your average american will live a shorter lifespan than people in other countries, despite the fact that for all the fat and unhealthy shit in their diet, they still drink and smoke less, and still have less fat in their diet than other non european countries.

I would rather die waiting for care, than commit suicide despairing over being wholly unable to receive said care.

[JaggedEdge]

Secondly your average american will live a shorter lifespan than people in other countries, despite the fact that for all the fat and unhealthy shit in their diet, they still drink and smoke less, and still have less fat in their diet than other non european countries.

Can I see sources regarding life-spans? The fat and unhealthy shit in our diet causes many health risks. I would also like to see sources on where we rank with smokers compared to other nations. The Europeans were making things smoke-free and trying to eliminate smoking long before America did. In Ireland they have big stickers on the packs saying things like, "Smoking this could cause death," "Smoking Kills Babies," and "Smoking Kills People You Love." They may not be exact quotes, but you get the idea. You can't smoke anywhere, not even in bars.

My point is, I don't think our population actually drinks or smokes less than other nations.


I would rather die waiting for care, than commit suicide despairing over being wholly unable to receive said care.

Why? Dying while waiting for care is the government saying, "Your life is not important enough, but we'll save you if we have time." I'd rather commit suicide. Assuming I had a terminal illness and was in serious pain. That or I would look on the black market for what I need. You can find the pain medication, livers, spleens, blood transfusions, etc right there on the streets. It may not be safe, but if your dying anyway, what difference does it make.

Sometimes life deals shitty hands, but the tax payers should not be responsible for paying it.

[5thHorseMan]

In a country like ours that throws tax dollars away on some very futile shit, the lest they could do, would be to spend that money on something worthwhile, like my health. If you care so little about dying, go ahead and do yourself in. But some of us have better things to do, than sit around and commit suicide.

French drinking
The French Paradox, Health and Alcohol Use in France (http://www.marininstitute.org/alcohol_policy/french_drinking.htm)

French smoking
http://gofrance.about/com/cs/travelbyinterest/a/smoking.htm



World Expected Lifespans. Notice that France and Canada both clock in with an average of over 80, we're stuck just below that.

en.wikipeida.org [5] (http://en.wikipeida.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared )

Aside from being less effective at just keeping us alive, the US on average spends significantly more on healthcare than other countries. Yes that's right you can even though you'll die earlier, have no insurance, on average more money was spent on you than a canadian. The US system has few if any advantages, moeny for research is the same as Canada, and wait times while shorter are still existence in the US. So for all the money spent on you, you get away with a shorter life, slightly less time waiting, denials of service, and dealing with your jackass insurance companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_health_care_systems_compared

And you only get the benefits of those shorter wait times, if you can actually get coverage. If you have a chronic condition prior to applying for insurance, your fucked. When I turn 25 my current plan will run out, because of my antiphospholipid syndrome, no one will cover me, I will either be forced to pony up 5000 dollars a month for lovanox, get declared disabled and hope that medicare helps with some of the cost, and even then I will likely still be paying an exuberant price. Or I can go to Canada, pay slightly higher taxes, and learn to deal with a fucking line. Look at that, hmm, give up all sense of dignity and beg for care, or deal with a line in country that thinks living in one of the wealthiest nations should come with some kind of benefit.

Oh and Lovanox, the primary drug I'm on, made from pig intestines. Now you tell me why a drug produced from a throw away animal byproduct product, harvested millions of times a year in the US, costs 100 dollars per 1 mili liter.

[Stemis516]

first off its not the idea of capitalism itself that got us in this mess, its a few terrible people under this system who ruined things for everyone and why would marx and the russians be turning over in their graves and laughing? their idea to compete with capitalism failed miserably years ago and has been proven not to be effective at all for long term economic growth

for all those bashing capitalism, i would sure like to hear your proposal for a better economic system

in my opinion capitalism with a minimal amount of government oversight is ideal but i mean you cant expect the government to control the free wills of everyone making economic decisions each day unless you advocate socialism

thats the problem its that with capitalism comes a degree of freedom for businesses and individuals alike and with freedom you will have a percentage (albeit not the majority in my opinion) of bad people making bad decisions and thats just a consequence of the system we live in...the government has to decide how much or how little oversight to provide without undermining the system

[FreshNugz]

why would marx and the russians be turning over in their graves and laughing? their idea to compete with capitalism failed miserably years ago and has been proven not to be effective at all for long term economic growth

for all those bashing capitalism, i would sure like to hear your proposal for a better economic system

you cant expect the government to control the free wills of everyone making economic decisions each day unless you advocate socialism

..the government has to decide how much or how little oversight to provide without undermining the system

1. Because Marx was not all that far off sometimes. We do have class struggle. We have oppression of the poor - causes negativity between classes. And chill before you say I'm not advocating capitalism. I'm saying someday they argued, the US and its greed and capitalism would squander itself because of internal struggle. What's happening now....and in every form - political, social, economic.
2. Nobody is proposing a better solution. Other than how about living without money. Everything still happens...goes on..
every part of the day. Just no money. You go get your groceries, and leave. You drive for free. everything is free.
One might say, well we can't do that because then we can't fund production of goods...or fund the drilling of oil..if there is no price..blah blah. Well you don't need it cause there is no money.
3. The government is controlling the free will of the people economically. And nobody is advocating socialism, but the bailouts and the complete government intervention in the economy is socialist. Just they haven't called it that. They just say you need it. Although you seem to think it isn't?
4. The government shouldn't be telling us how to run everything, you should be telling it how. For the people, by the people, of the people...remember any of that?

[Stemis516]

yes, the bailouts were socialist, as is this idea of universal healthcare im not denying that....any form of government oversight then can be labeled as socialist in nature....thats fine, i said in my first post that in my opinion SOME, albeit very little, government oversight is needed....bailout out companies when the market says they should fail is TOO MUCH oversight and too socialist in my opinion


and your whole idea about "no money" is at its core socialism....because either people will just take as many groceries from the store as they want in which case we will run out, or some form of government as to regulate how many groceries we can take and there you have socialism which has been proven to be unsuccessful in the long run

so yes, let us agree that there is much much grey area here....pure capitalism would basically be the free markets and im not advocating that but im just saying in 97% (just a high number but you get my point) of the circumstances the markets should be allowed to run thier course which includes (in my opinion) that bear stearns, aig, and the american automakers should FAIL

and in response to numbers 3 and 4, im not gonna argue with you much there except to say that those arent problems with capitalism per se, but instead with the people running and/or participating in the system

in a perfect world, everyone in a capitalist economic system would make ethical and sound economic decisions everytime and things would be fine...but there are bad greedy people out there who like to ruin it for everyone else

[40oz]

Everyone has an equal right to go to school or get a minimum wage job that offers health coverage. What your talking about is like saying its unconstitutional to die.

No Im saying its unconstitutional for the government to let a person who needs medical help or they will die be denied because of money. What is the government protecting if they are not protecting our health and well being?





The wealthy would not be the only ones able to afford the new cure. That is why we pay for insurance. The majority of Americans would be able to get treatment and in a timely manner. Working 40 hours a week at Wal-mart is hardly wealthy, yet those employee's have have the option of being insured.


I wanna hear you tell that to all the folks waiting for that surgery or medication that their health insurance won't cover. The goal of an insurance agency is to take as much money as they can from their clients while giving them as little as possible when they might need it back. That is how they make money. That is capitalism.




Where does personal responsibility come in? People have problems with all kinds of addictions: porn, illegal drugs, beer, pharmaceutical drugs, cigarettes. The dangers of medications are readily available. It is common knowledge that pain killers are highly addictive. So were exactly does personal responsibility enter in to your equation?



I think personal responsibility is the most important thing of all. It is hard to make informed personal choices however when your therapist tells you that you need to take a 50mg dose of Prozac everyday to be happy. At the same time your school nurse is telling your mom that your little brother has ADD and needs a large dose of Amphetamines everyday to preform normally. Meanwhile your dad is still popping those incredibly addictive opium pills known as Oxycontin he got prescribed for his back pain years ago.

Don't even get me started on all the bullshit meds they try to stuff down the throats of cancer patients. That is disgusting, taking advantage of a person in their most desperate state to sell them your astronomically priced miracle pills which do nothing but burn a hole in the patients wallet. All they really need is a puff of the herb.



Yes, if a doctor gives you a prescription for pills you don't need, I suppose it would be "legal," but how many people do you know with these addictions who go to their pharmacy to get their fix.

Yes that is what i was talking about. Maybe not necessarily what you don't need, but come on, the government dishes out dangerous man made medications like it is candy and then they demonize natural medications like marijuana and mushrooms. Something isn't right there, and it all has to do with the fact that there is no money in selling plants and fungus that anyone can grow. At least no money for the pharmaceutical companies that need to manufacture their drugs.








If people want health coverage they can get a fucking job. The system is never going to be perfect, people need to stop being so idealistic. Yes, our current system could certainly use some improvements, but universal healthcare sure as hell is not the answer.


I really don't know enough about the implications of universal healthcare to be able to defend or attack it. I agree with you however that there is little room for idealism in the real world and people need to be responsible and not rely on the government to fix all their problems. I see something wrong though when people who need treatment to survive are denied because they can't afford it. That's bullshit.

If you want to know my opinion, I think we are all fucked. I think we have been fucked since the industrial revolution when consumerism and human populations sky rocketed. There is no need for a currency system in society, you might as well just call money survival tickets.

You might think that is crazy, but that is just because life with a currency system is all we know. The way of life we know with money is so ingrained into us that many people cant see any other possible way of how to run things. Money hinders our freedom, it enslaves us. Unfortunately I don't think society will be open for any change like that until there is a drastic decrease in the human population, whether it be by war, disease, famine or natural disaster. I just think there are too many people in the world, we are over populated and we are running into problems that go along with having such huge populations trying to be run by huge governments with a single ideology.

[40oz]

If you want to argue that our military aggressions are for spreading our ideals than we would be trying to spread democratic principles, not capitalistic ones.

Hell no I don't want to say our military aggressions are for spreading our ideals. You don't spend billions of dollars to invade a country for your ideas. You spend billions of dollars to invade a country for your finances.





in a perfect world, everyone in a capitalist economic system would make ethical and sound economic decisions everytime and things would be fine...but there are bad greedy people out there who like to ruin it for everyone else

But as we know it isn't a perfect world, that's the whole reason why communism failed. Looks like its gonna be the same reason why capitalism failed too.

[psychocat]

The lack of goverment control is what allowed the situation to develop to the extent it did.
The deregulation of banks was the cause of them getting out of control, laws put in place after the wall street crash of the last century were relaxed and we now face the consequences of those "freedoms" in the financial sector.

[jonquest]

not necessarily disagreeing with you, but why is capitalism what we need?

right now companies are failing and the government is bailing them out. it essentially survival of the un-fittest. capitalism works because it promotes success and allows failure. the less the government does, the better it is for the economy. every problem we have is really caused from government intervention. for example, we need sound money. right now the Fed controls the money supply. in a true free market, the private market would decide the currency through competing currencies. the currency that would win out would be the one that was the best at retaining its value. we also need lower taxation and less government spending, therefore more spending in the private sector, increasing production. government kills production.

[jonquest]

Capitalism is the cause of the current problem.

how so?

[Stemis516]

sorry 40oz but until you can show me how a system without currency DOESNT degrade to socialism at its core i cannot really take anything you say seriously

[Coelho]

If you want to know my opinion, I think we are all fucked. I think we have been fucked since the industrial revolution when consumerism and human populations sky rocketed. There is no need for a currency system in society, you might as well just call money survival tickets.

You might think that is crazy, but that is just because life with a currency system is all we know. The way of life we know with money is so ingrained into us that many people cant see any other possible way of how to run things. Money hinders our freedom, it enslaves us. Unfortunately I don't think society will be open for any change like that until there is a drastic decrease in the human population, whether it be by war, disease, famine or natural disaster. I just think there are too many people in the world, we are over populated and we are running into problems that go along with having such huge populations trying to be run by huge governments with a single ideology.

I agree whole-heartedly! :thumbsup:

Did you read anything about this here (http://cyber.eserver.org/unabom.txt)?


sorry 40oz but until you can show me how a system without currency DOESNT degrade to socialism at its core i cannot really take anything you say seriously

Well... i think he means something like small free and separate comunities instead a large and organized society... something anarchist-like...

[yokinazu]

ok you know what i like is the fact that people seem to beleive here that capitlism is the greastest form of society we can have, how can one degrade to socialism? socialism is NO worse or NO better than captilism. the problem lies with the propaganda that has be fed to us thru years of conditioning. it not the form of govt that is bad but those who are in charge. socialism can be a effective form of govt so long as those in charge do not try to " keep the man down" and are only concerned with their own ends.

i could point out the many problems with socialism but i could give the same number just differant problems for capilism, feudalism, communism, imperialism, facisism, etc., etc.

[jonquest]

ok you know what i like is the fact that people seem to beleive here that capitlism is the greastest form of society we can have, how can one degrade to socialism? socialism is NO worse or NO better than captilism. the problem lies with the propaganda that has be fed to us thru years of conditioning. it not the form of govt that is bad but those who are in charge. socialism can be a effective form of govt so long as those in charge do not try to " keep the man down" and are only concerned with their own ends.

i could point out the many problems with socialism but i could give the same number just differant problems for capilism, feudalism, communism, imperialism, facisism, etc., etc.

i'm a complete free market/capitalism guy, but i agree with you. i think socialism does work in certain places. for example, france couldn't go to capitalism right now, the people would riot. i think we should give more power to the states and each state can decide its own economy. if one state wants socialism, they can have it, if another wants capitalism they can have it. it isn't really up to the system for how productive a people are, but more up to the people themselves.

[40oz]

sorry 40oz but until you can show me how a system without currency DOESNT degrade to socialism at its core i cannot really take anything you say seriously






Well... i think he means something like small free and separate comunities instead a large and organized society... something anarchist-like...


Yea that is what I meant. It is in human nature to form into clans and tribes, and only in smaller communities run by leaders who actually come into contact with the people they lead will humans find a system that allows them to be free and protected. Humans, like most animals, are communal. We are not meant to be individualistic, which is how American society is. While having an individualistic society is beneficial in some aspects, it works against our nature to be part of the herd. basically. It forces us to set up currency and keep currency systems which have been used since medieval times to keep peasants in debt to their lords so they would be forced to slave their life away.


Of course, I don't see anything changing too drastically anytime soon (unless the mayans were right about 2012). We will continue to use money because honestly, with all the people in the world and how it is set up, that is the only way things can work presently.

Stemis, you can not take me seriously if you want, I don't care. People like you who blindly enforce capitalism are a dime a dozen. I agree with you that in theory capitalism is pretty legit, but as you even admitted we live in a world of greed and corruption. When that greed and corruption throws the system out of whack and threatens the well being of my family, as it currently is, I think it is time to explore other options.

And coelho, I actually purchased the unibomber manifesto but I have only read to about chapter 8, I can't remember anymore. Im sure I was influenced by that a lot, but most of my influence came from reading about economists like malthus (i know, i know, he is outdated but his work makes you think) and philosophers like Marx, Darwin, and Hume. People who deal a lot with human nature. The conclusions I have come to are just the ones that make the most sense to me based on what I know. Not saying I'm right or anything, but I think you will agree that the only truth in the world is the truth that you feel inside yourself.

[JaggedEdge]

No Im saying its unconstitutional for the government to let a person who needs medical help or they will die be denied because of money. What is the government protecting if they are not protecting our health and well being?

It isn't the government who will be supplying it, it's the tax payers. In my opinion forcing tax paying citizens to cover healthcare for non-tax payers, illegal immigrants(non-tax paying non-citizens), and those insured with crappy HMO's like myself. It isn't Constitutional to force citizens to pay for another citizens healthcare. It is the individuals right to decide where he or she wants to donate their money and to whom, not the governments.



wanna hear you tell that to all the folks waiting for that surgery or medication that their health insurance won't cover. The goal of an insurance agency is to take as much money as they can from their clients while giving them as little as possible when they might need it back. That is how they make money. That is capitalism.

I'm not going to say our health care system doesn't need some reforming, however, universal healthcare is absolutely not the answer to our problems.

As it stands today, we currently don't have enough Americans in the medical profession. I have to drive an hour if I want to see a doctor because the doctors around me who accept my insurance aren't taking on any new patients. Imagine how bad it will be when the influx of new patients begins, thee doctors are forced to take them, and their pay goes down because the government is paying their bill. Do you really think all these doctors are going to continue in their current profession out of a love for helping people. The will be doing more work, their pay will most likely decrease, and their overall quality of care will decrease for all patients.

You have already said our problems with healthcare are bad, do you really think this solution will make it better? It may make it slightly better for you, but your in the minority. The majority will suffer due to this change, yet the majority will be paying the bill for their degraded healthcare...

That isn't fair to those people.



Don't even get me started on all the bullshit meds they try to stuff down the throats of cancer patients. That is disgusting, taking advantage of a person in their most desperate state to sell them your astronomically priced miracle pills which do nothing but burn a hole in the patients wallet. All they really need is a puff of the herb.

I won't argue with you on that front, however I will propose a much better solution to all these problems at the end of this post.




Yes that is what i was talking about. Maybe not necessarily what you don't need, but come on, the government dishes out dangerous man made medications like it is candy and then they demonize natural medications like marijuana and mushrooms. Something isn't right there, and it all has to do with the fact that there is no money in selling plants and fungus that anyone can grow. At least no money for the pharmaceutical companies that need to manufacture their drugs.

I agree with you here as well, but like above, I will address it at the end.


If you want to know my opinion, I think we are all fucked. I think we have been fucked since the industrial revolution when consumerism and human populations sky rocketed. There is no need for a currency system in society, you might as well just call money survival tickets.

I don't think we're completely fucked assuming we revolt soon. I disagree though, the industrial revolution was positive by todays standards, it could be argued it was bad for the people living at the time. I'm not exactly sure I understand your logic here. I feel consumerism is a positive thing. The Industrial Revolution paved the way for our current technology boom, granted everything coming from it is not good, but nothing in life is 100% positive.

I would say our current problems here in America began with The Civil War, were exacerbated by the New Deal, as well as forced segregation in the South. I don't disagree the institution of slavery is fundamentally evil, however, killing your countrymen and infringing on their constitutional rights as a sovereign nation is not the answer. Industry would have eliminated slavery anyway, the South would have began eliminating the institution on their own, it would have taken a little longer, but the overall outcome would most likely have been more positive.

You may disagree, but the Civil War was the catalyst for many of today's problems. It set into motion the powerful Federal system we have today.

In today's world there is an absolute need for currency, I will agree however that the need originated because of industry. If we continued to live in rural areas and were mostly farmers and craftsmen than bartering would be enough. But in today's day and age currency is needed although I firmly believe ours SHOULD BE BACKED BY SOMETHING! The elimination of the gold standard was fucking idiotic.


You might think that is crazy, but that is just because life with a currency system is all we know. The way of life we know with money is so ingrained into us that many people cant see any other possible way of how to run things. Money hinders our freedom, it enslaves us. Unfortunately I don't think society will be open for any change like that until there is a drastic decrease in the human population, whether it be by war, disease, famine or natural disaster. I just think there are too many people in the world, we are over populated and we are running into problems that go along with having such huge populations trying to be run by huge governments with a single ideology.


A decrease in population is not a positive thing. We learned that from the dark ages after the fall of the Roman Empire. Over 50% of the European population was eliminated because of the plague and as a result the economy crumpled, poverty was rampant , and we lost technologies like indoor plumbing, architecture, engineering, roads, military advancements (which wasn't a good thing because there were still soilders they were just really bored... Bored killers is not a good thing), trade, art, and currency was eliminated.

If you grow corn on your commune great, but if you run out of water, a neighboring commune may not want your corn. Than what are you left with: corn and dehydration. However, they will likely be willing to trade you water for some currency.


Now to my main point:

I have already said it is unfair for those who are covered to pay for healthcare for those who aren't. I agree with you that weed and shrooms have medical benefits and that a lot of pharmaceutical drugs cause more harm than good.

The solution?

States Rights.

Eliminate the Federal Government. I have been saying this for a while now, but the Federalists should have never gotten their way at the start of this nation. We began as sovereign and independent nations. We created the Federal Government for protection and order, which I feel, they clearly are incapable of doing.

We can have a Union between states without the federal government.

Also, you can't implement policies that are good for the entire nation. If California wants illegal immigration, a welfare state, and legal pot, they should be allowed.

If Louisiana want to ban weed, arrest illegals, and eliminate all social programs they should have the right as well. If you are unhappy with one Republics policies you have 49 others to choose from.

The Federal Government only fucks people over, they need to be destroyed.

It is far easier to bring change about on the state level than petitioning these fuckers in Washington act on the benefit of the people. We are a "melting pot," so general policies for the whole nation will never work.

This is to long and I have to work, I don't have time to edit. I just hope its understandable.

[JaggedEdge]

The lack of goverment control is what allowed the situation to develop to the extent it did.
The deregulation of banks was the cause of them getting out of control, laws put in place after the wall street crash of the last century were relaxed and we now face the consequences of those "freedoms" in the financial sector.

No the Federal Government demanding banks give home loans to people who can afford them is the reason. Government control is the problem.

[40oz]

You have already said our problems with healthcare are bad, do you really think this solution will make it better? It may make it slightly better for you, but your in the minority. The majority will suffer due to this change, yet the majority will be paying the bill for their degraded healthcare...


Actually I am not even worried about my own health care. I come from a not affluent but not at all poor background. I will probably not have to worry about my own health care for the rest of my life, I will always be covered. I am only trying to see the problem through the eyes of the working class slaves who struggle with this kind of thing. God forbid people who can afford treatment have to drive a couple hours from where they live to get treated. Some people can't even do that. I think everyone should be entitled to health care. If the government or tax payers won't help, at least lets get some private organizations that will. Isn't that what the republicans push for? Privatized charity organizations? Where are they?










I disagree though, the industrial revolution was positive by todays standards, it could be argued it was bad for the people living at the time. I'm not exactly sure I understand your logic here. I feel consumerism is a positive thing. The Industrial Revolution paved the way for our current technology boom, granted everything coming from it is not good, but nothing in life is 100% positive.

Im not speaking about just U.S. history here. Yes on the face of things the industrial revolution is very positive. With industrialization everyone could afford to buy the little trinkets their heart desired and eat exotic foods that would otherwise be unavailable. As you said it also paved the way for the technology boom. The problem with all this is overpopulation.

Industrialization throws our civilization into a cyclic existence of consumption and production. Industrialization produces an abundance of resources which increase the population, which increases consumption, which increases production, which increases the population...and the cycle continues. With human survival nearly a guarantee (whenever a young person dies it is such an unforeseen tragedy, nobody can believe it.) it is getting harder for our environment to sustain such huge populations. We need to rely on our technology to be able to maximize and get the most efficient use of our natural resources. There is going to be a time though when the environment can no longer support the populations living off it and our technology stalls. That is where industrialization starts to cause problems. Humans are no longer existing in harmony with nature, we are living against nature, we are exploiting it.





In today's world there is an absolute need for currency, I will agree however that the need originated because of industry. If we continued to live in rural areas and were mostly farmers and craftsmen than bartering would be enough. But in today's day and age currency is needed although I firmly believe ours SHOULD BE BACKED BY SOMETHING! The elimination of the gold standard was fucking idiotic.

I agree, there is no way we can go back to some kind of non monetary system today. Industrialization pushed us past the line of no return. A drastic intellectual and societal change is required for something like that.




A decrease in population is not a positive thing. We learned that from the dark ages after the fall of the Roman Empire. Over 50% of the European population was eliminated because of the plague and as a result the economy crumpled, poverty was rampant , and we lost technologies like indoor plumbing, architecture, engineering, roads, military advancements (which wasn't a good thing because there were still soilders they were just really bored... Bored killers is not a good thing), trade, art, and currency was eliminated.


Yea but look what the dark ages birthed into existence, the renaissance. That is what I believe we need now-a-days. A new renaissance. The road there might be rocky, but that is just how it has to be.




If you grow corn on your commune great, but if you run out of water, a neighboring commune may not want your corn. Than what are you left with: corn and dehydration. However, they will likely be willing to trade you water for some currency.


You raise a good point here, but all it proves is that under today's standard and style of living, money is needed. I agree 100% with that. What I say we need is a change in the way we think and live. Don't ask me what exactly what that change needs to be, I'm not a nobel prize winner or anything.






The solution?

States Rights.

Eliminate the Federal Government. I have been saying this for a while now, but the Federalists should have never gotten their way at the start of this nation. We began as sovereign and independent nations. We created the Federal Government for protection and order, which I feel, they clearly are incapable of doing.

We can have a Union between states without the federal government.


It is far easier to bring change about on the state level than petitioning these fuckers in Washington act on the benefit of the people. We are a "melting pot," so general policies for the whole nation will never work.



Ok, everything you said here I agree with 100%. I too believe the central government has too much power. Our country is the United STATES of America. I believe it was meant to be exactly that, states that are united under the same flag to protect each other and help each other prosper. The federal government in giving itself too much power, much more than it needs. It is only supposed to be there to oversee relationships between states and possibly trade between states (i admit, my civics knowledge is lacking). The great thing about this idea is that it is something we can fight for to make a reality in our life time. It is also necessary if USA wants to remain top dog much longer.

[psychocat]

No the Federal Government demanding banks give home loans to people who can afford them is the reason. Government control is the problem.

That statement makes no sense at all.

You should do a bit of research and you will realise that the problem with home loans was not because of people who could pay but those who couldn't.

The historical references are there for all to see , the consequences of the wall street crash were tighter regulation, whilst the regulations were in place all was reasonably well.
The relaxing of those rules to stimulate economic growth led to less oversight and the whole circus got out of hand , deregulation of banks leaves them to oversee themselves and they made a complete balls up of it.

FACT ! :thumbsup:

[JaggedEdge]

That statement makes no sense at all.

You should do a bit of research and you will realise that the problem with home loans was not because of people who could pay but those who couldn't.

The historical references are there for all to see , the consequences of the wall street crash were tighter regulation, whilst the regulations were in place all was reasonably well.
The relaxing of those rules to stimulate economic growth led to less oversight and the whole circus got out of hand , deregulation of banks leaves them to oversee themselves and they made a complete balls up of it.

FACT ! :thumbsup:

Haha, your right, that statement didn't make sense. I meant to type "to people who can't afford them. Obviously extending credit to people who have reasonable income to pay the debt should be extended credit.

I intended to say government intervention helped cause this problem by demanding banks extend home loans to people who can'T afford to pay it back. At the same time though it's the consumers fault for signing on the line.

How stupid do you have to be to sign for a fluctuating mortgage if your living paycheck to paycheck. Agree to a fixed rate you can afford to pay every month. Owning a home is a privilege not a right.

You can't blame the problem on the banks alone though. It's the fault of the people who took out the loans, the politicians forcing the banks to extend loans to high risk people, as well as the executives of many of these banks participating in corrupt practices.

The Feds can't even oversee corruption in their own ranks, are we really supposed to trust them with enforcing these "tighter regulations." All we would have are the corrupt overseeing the corrupt.

[Stemis516]

40oz get over yourself bro

i have an MS in economics...complete socialism doesnt work....period

ill counter that and say complete capitalism probably isnt ideal either but in terms of a scale with both ideas on opposite ends, our economic system should lean significantly towards capitalistic


now if your only answer to this is really to devolve into small family based tribes of 100 people or less than i really have nothing to say to that, but that would require reversing hundreds of years of technology, ideas, and thought....i just really dont see how that argument applies here because its so completely unrealistic, but ill agree with you to the extent that your idea would solve the currency problem if it could, in some alternate reality, be implemented


for the last time people, it's not capitalism thats the problem, it's the bad politicians, lobbyists, and greedy CEOs who ruin it for the rest of us...the solution should be more focused on ousting these people and this way of thought from society, not the underlying system


even in your example of small tribes, do you really think there wouldnt be cases of people trying to lead and gain a higher position in that society? do you really think there would be bad people in that system who would try to take advantage of it and others?

capitalism is the result of years of thought, trial and error, and technological innovation....can it be improved? o god yes, but looking to the past is not the way to do so

[Coelho]

for the last time people, it's not capitalism thats the problem, it's the bad politicians, lobbyists, and greedy CEOs who ruin it for the rest of us...

Indeed, but all this people are byproducts of the capitalism itself... they only exist because of it... i would even say that, being the human nature as it is, they are a "natural" byproduct of capitalism, and thus, there isnt real-life capitalism (instead the theoretical classroom capitalism) without them... like you yourself said:


even in your example of small tribes, do you really think there wouldnt be cases of people trying to lead and gain a higher position in that society? do you really think there would be bad people in that system who would try to take advantage of it and others?

[Stemis516]

i dont follow your logic because if we were under socialism instead of capitalism the same greedy people would still try to use the system to their advantage...they would just have to go about it in different ways

they exist independent of the system in place, so wouldnt u rather have the best system in place while trying to deal with these people?

[yokinazu]

first i would like to point out that nowhere and i mean absolutly nowhere in the constitution does it say that the fed gov't has to provide health care so it can not be unconstitutional that some one is denied medical care

No Im saying its unconstitutional for the government to let a person who needs medical help or they will die be denied because of money.

so with that said lets go on to socialism, of cousre on papaer ALL forms of gov't are perfect. on paper, was it plato or arstotle who said that in perfection communism is the absolute perfect form of gov't but as we can all tell that when you add the human eliment there is no perfect form of gov't. human nature, no nature itself will not allow it. dont squirrels hord nuts, is that not a form of greed? only society in the known world to be controled by and to absolutly thrive in a socialst enviroment are insects, ants, bees, termites, etc. but the only thing we can do is try and make the changes in our immediate enviroment be to our liking.

now to states rights. well this is a no brainer of course the feds need to give my state its rights back ( wich by the way louisianna absolutly SUCKS) then we can get back to governing ourselves

so the absolute most important thing any american can do is vote. thats the only way to change things. well and bring to other peoples attention the things that are wrong. dont bitch about pot being illegal to your buddies while burnin one, thats preachin to the choir. go to granmas church choir and tell them why its not right. protest, get the word out. what ever it takes.

[Coelho]

i dont follow your logic because if we were under socialism instead of capitalism the same greedy people would still try to use the system to their advantage...they would just have to go about it in different ways

they exist independent of the system in place, so wouldnt u rather have the best system in place while trying to deal with these people?

I agree that this people exist in any society/system, and thats one of the reasons why socialism didnt work... instead progressing to comunism, that was its original goal (socialism being only an intermediate step), the revolution stopped in the socialism which allowed the existence of an "elite" ruling class... cause, of course, which elite in the world would willingly abandon its own power?

Anyway, while this people will exist in every society, i think in small groups of people (tribes, clans, small comunities) the damage this people are able to do is FAR smaller, cause its limited to one (or only a few) group of people.
One thing is the despotic village leader that eats twice (or thrice) the amount of food that his companions eat... another thing is a great banks CEO who gets in one month more money that many people wont get working their entire lives...

[JaggedEdge]

Jonestown was a small commune.

When you isolate people from the larger society they are more susceptible to the will of a crazy but charismatic leader. Not exactly a positive thing.

Than again, most of Germany believed in Eugenics and Hitlers belief in eradicating the Jews and other undesirables in order to benefit a fictional "aryan" race.

So maybe people are susceptible to that in large groups as well...

My point is, I doubt small social structures are really any better.

I will agree they wouldn't be able to amass the army Germany was able to and cause as much havoc and destruction.

[hanayama]

it is really easy when your not pissing away your own money.

[GoldenBoy812]

The repeal of a "anti conflict of interest" regulation on financial institutions such as the Glass Steagall Act, allowed an insurance company (AIG) to act like a bank. Not a Fed regulated bank, but an investment bank.

So they write insurance policies against sub prime mortgage loans, and do exactly what with the premiums??? INVEST IN SPMBS, that they insured against!!!!

This caused a crunch, as they did not have the assets to pay out the credit default swaps, which required government action to save bond holders. Saving bond holders is critical, as they provide a liquid market for paper debt, thereby allowing credit to flow.

[GoldenBoy812]

I agree that this people exist in any society/system, and thats one of the reasons why socialism didnt work... instead progressing to comunism, that was its original goal (socialism being only an intermediate step), the revolution stopped in the socialism which allowed the existence of an "elite" ruling class... cause, of course, which elite in the world would willingly abandon its own power?

Anyway, while this people will exist in every society, i think in small groups of people (tribes, clans, small comunities) the damage this people are able to do is FAR smaller, cause its limited to one (or only a few) group of people.
One thing is the despotic village leader that eats twice (or thrice) the amount of food that his companions eat... another thing is a great banks CEO who gets in one month more money that many people wont get working their entire lives...

Government intervention in the economies, to save major corporations is a hybrid socialist/fascist procedure. Actually, we live in a corporatist society, with a corporatist policy:smokin: