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

[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 Reviewed by JaggedEdge on 03-20-2009. Someone explain how putting our country $800 billion in the hole will help us. 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 Rating: 5

[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...