Here's some shit to ponder

[poptart]

I mentioned in another unrelated thread that I've SEEN poor people ... in S. Korea, for example.
And you know what?
They ARE poor.
Dirt fucking poor.

The "poor" in America are fat.
And many/most of 'em have refrigerators, cell phones, and color/cable tv.

So you don't think the reduction of the middle & lower classes as spenders has any effect on the economy?

Of course, but it hasn't been caused by a failure of capitalism.

In the 50's, 60's and some of the 70's, most families had one bread winner.
Wives tended to stay home and take care of the family.

And people were pretty WELL off.

Now most familes have two bread winners and they still can't make ends meet.
Most families are in debt ... and a LOT of 'em up their ears.

Wft happened?

What caused it, simply put, is INFLATION and over-taxation of the people.

Why has there been inflation and over-taxation?
Two reasons.

1. Too much "funny" money -- not BACKED by anything, has been printed.
So the dollar just doesn't buy what it ought to be able to buy.
That's inflation.

2. Too much borrowing, so that the gov can continue to spend on idiotic programs which only work in the ponytailed professor's classroom dreams.
A lot of the liberal "program" ideas sound terrific if you're stoned out of your mind or under age 11.
The taxpayer takes it up the @ss while m0ronic progams produce even worse failure.



Capitalism WILL produce some down periods in an economy, but the overall trend remains upward.
You just suck it up during the "down" periods, with money that you have ... SAVED.
Wow, savings, what a novel concept.

What has happened is that the government (fed reserve in particular) has grabbed the economy by the balls.
They DEMAND that things continue on an upward trend.
They create "bubbles" of prosperity that are, for lack of a better word, fake.
When a fall off in a market occurs, they prop things up by printing fake money or borrowing money.

So you just get MORE inflation, a lower standard of living, and a greater debt passed on to your children.

The fed has been playing this game for a LONG time and it's why the economy is in shambles.


Wft do you think is going to happen to the standard of living when all this new funny money is pumped into the system?

Inflation x a WHOLE HELL OF A LOT.


This bill is NO answer.
It will make the situation worse, ... a LOT worse.
This "stimulus" is a joke.
Democrats hyped up a bad economy to push through spending spree that has very little to do with stimulating the economy and most everything to do with a social agenda.

[PSUFAN]

animals, people and systems evolve - always have, always will.

What drives that evolutionary process? The quest for survival. When an animal sees an opportunity to advance, it will take it - or soon be overtaken by one that will.

Ayn Rand idealizes capitalism, like others idealize socialism or communism.

[Tom In VA]

Well, PSUFAN, you have to admit Ayn Rand has more experience living under socialism than any ONE of the professors and indoctrinated "youth" coming out of our university system.

Based on that, she has more credibility in my view.

[Diego in Seattle]

pops;
First off, answer me this:

Why do you think the poor in America are fat? Take your time with this.

Second:
There is another factor in what has changed since the 50's & 60's: the size of the workforce exploded. The addition of women to the workforce had the effect of most other situations involving supply & demand. So wages went down.

Third;
I disagree that the ongoing shift of wealth hasn't had any effect on the economy. Again, fulfilling the needs of the many will always grow the economy more than the needs of the few.

Fourth;
For argument's sake let's say that overtaxation is a cause. We'll lower the taxation rate. How do you suppose that will help the lower & middle classes? More service industry jobs that don't pay shit? How will more maquiladoras help the middle & lower classes in America?

Or more to the point, what do you think corporate America would do with increased profits from lower taxes? Here's a hint: seen many store prices go down since fuel prices went back from criminal gouging to very high? Why do you think the stimulus bill has strings attached on executive compensation.....because the executives are so benvolent to their workers?

Lastly, I'll agree with you that the stimulus bill is as much a shit sandwich as the one Bush gave us. While this one appears to be more infrastructure-oriented than Bush's, it still rewards a lot of people for bad behavior. As someone who chose not to buy a house during what I knew was a huge bubble period, I'm still stuck with a huge tax bill for others & won't see any stimulus money in relation to the housing bailout from the rental company (see point four). The stimulus bill should have been directed only at infrastructure improvements & let the irresponsible fail.

[War Wagon]

Now most familes have two bread winners and they still can't make ends meet.
Most families are in debt ... and a LOT of 'em up their ears.

That's very true, which is what makes this next statement so contradictary.

You just suck it up during the "down" periods, with money that you have ... SAVED.
Wow, savings, what a novel concept.

For those living paycheck to paycheck, just trying to stay on top of their basic bills (as you noted) is sometimes more than they can handle. And that's even during supposedly good times. So how is it, exactly, that you expect these people to accomplish this "novel concept" of "savings"?

[H4ever]

After reading all this... I just want to say I don't care how irresponsible some of the working poor have been (with lots of help from greedy mf'ers handing out sub-primes like halloween candy), you have to respect them for getting up in the morning and punching in at work. Especially those who get off work, grab a bite, kiss the wife and kids and then go punch in at their second job.

They could just say fuck it and turn to living off the system and pumping out kids when needed. As 88 pointed out, someone's got to clean the toilets and dig the ditches. There is honor in those jobs. Why does corporate greed dictate that they earn such low wages? Cause they know some schmuck among the working poor needs the money. And same schmuck chose to work for a living rather than a life of crime. Perhaps his second job is to start a college savings account for one of his beloved kids he works so hard for....and only wants a better life for.

People need to hold the working poor in highest esteem instead of looking down their snooty noses as if they are amused by their struggles. Does the strife of the working poor make one's beef filets more savory? It would seem so after reading some of the hogwash on this thread.

[poptart]

Wagon, there is no contradiction.

If you're paying attention you'd see that the second statement you quoted me on there is my speaking about how capitalism OUGHT to be working ... WITHOUT continual government dickings.


But listen, ...

Have you ever heard of "paying yourself first?"

Even on a "barely getting by" income, one can practice this technique and have it work for them.
With all the bullshit our schools have in their curriculums, it's LONG past the time that basic personal finance management be included as part of our kid's schooling.
Most kids come out of school and are totally clueless when it comes to one of THE most important aspects of their life.

Aside from that, if your income is not enough, and you're living paycheck to paycheck, then you need to ... DO something.
The liberal solution is to hold your hand out so the "government" will drop something in it for you.

In America, opportunity STILL abounds.
If you're paycheck to paycheck, and you're not disabled, it's your own personal problem.

However, the steps the gov keeps taking which cause inflation and a decrease in the value of our dollar, make "getting ahead" much harder than it ought to be.

[Diego in Seattle]

Have you ever heard of "paying yourself first?"

Even on a "barely getting by" income, one can practice this technique and have it work for them.
With all the bullshit our schools have in their curriculums, it's LONG past the time that basic personal finance management be included as part of our kid's schooling.
Most kids come out of school and are totally clueless when it comes to one of THE most important aspects of their life.

Aside from that, if your income is not enough, and you're living paycheck to paycheck, then you need to ... DO something.
The liberal solution is to hold your hand out so the "government" will drop something in it for you.

In America, opportunity STILL abounds.
If you're paycheck to paycheck, and you're not disabled, it's your own personal problem.

Gee, I don't know why many people consider republicans to be "out of touch."

So are you saying that people contributing to society full time aren't worthy of a living wage? Or health benefits?

They say that crime doesn't pay, but the republicans are working to make it pays more than an honest day's work. Why do you hate hard working Americans?

[smackaholic]

pops;
First off, answer me this:

Why do you think the poor in America are fat? Take your time with this.

not pahtah, but, I'd like to take this one. I suspect you'll say it's because healthy fresh veggie are unaffordable to poo folk. So, they are forced to carbo load on ramen noodles and mac'n'cheese.

I got a different take on it. They are fat for the exact same reason they are poor. They are lazy and undisciplined. If they were out of the rack at 4:30 and riding their bike to work like I haven't been doing all winter, they'd be in shape, no matter what they eat. As for what they eat, oatmeal is a damned site cheaper than cap'n'crunch, but which one do you think you'll find in some poor fukk's cupboard? They could also buy beans by the 5 lb bag and eat extremely healthy and cheaply. But, you'll find them eating french fries and burgers instead.

Second:
There is another factor in what has changed since the 50's & 60's: the size of the workforce exploded. The addition of women to the workforce had the effect of most other situations involving supply & demand. So wages went down.

no arguement there. don't know why this isn't pointed out when the dems blame drops in union enrollment as the culprit.

Third;
I disagree that the ongoing shift of wealth hasn't had any effect on the economy. Again, fulfilling the needs of the many will always grow the economy more than the needs of the few.

whatever you say, comrade spock. so, who decides these needs, smart guy.

Fourth;
For argument's sake let's say that overtaxation is a cause. We'll lower the taxation rate. How do you suppose that will help the lower & middle classes? More service industry jobs that don't pay shit? How will more maquiladoras help the middle & lower classes in America?

Or more to the point, what do you think corporate America would do with increased profits from lower taxes? Here's a hint: seen many store prices go down since fuel prices went back from criminal gouging to very high? Why do you think the stimulus bill has strings attached on executive compensation.....because the executives are so benvolent to their workers?

Lastly, I'll agree with you that the stimulus bill is as much a shit sandwich as the one Bush gave us. While this one appears to be more infrastructure-oriented than Bush's, it still rewards a lot of people for bad behavior. As someone who chose not to buy a house during what I knew was a huge bubble period, I'm still stuck with a huge tax bill for others & won't see any stimulus money in relation to the housing bailout from the rental company (see point four). The stimulus bill should have been directed only at infrastructure improvements & let the irresponsible fail.

Lowering and simplifying taxes and regulations are the only way to keep jobs here other than oppressive protectionist tariffs. And smoot hawley out front will back me on that one.

[poptart]

So are you saying that people contributing to society full time aren't worthy of a living wage? Or health benefits?

They might be.
Or they might not be.

The Constitution doesn't grant people a living wage or health benefits.

If you want a "living wage" or health benefits, earn it.

Truth is that the government has been HINDERING people from earning a "living wage" by debasing the currency with it's tax, borrow & print more money policies.

If the gov was in it's correct place, more people would be able to earn a living wage, even in a "low" paying career.


As to why the "poor" are fat in America, I assume you're going to tell me it's because they are hungry.

Just as current severe winters and documented global COOLING are the result of global ... ummm warming?

LMAO

The liberal mind, such a precious thing.

[Diego in Seattle]

pops;
First off, answer me this:

Why do you think the poor in America are fat? Take your time with this.

not pahtah, but, I'd like to take this one. I suspect you'll say it's because healthy fresh veggie are unaffordable to poo folk. So, they are forced to carbo load on ramen noodles and mac'n'cheese.

I got a different take on it. They are fat for the exact same reason they are poor. They are lazy and undisciplined. If they were out of the rack at 4:30 and riding their bike to work like I haven't been doing all winter, they'd be in shape, no matter what they eat. As for what they eat, oatmeal is a damned site cheaper than cap'n'crunch, but which one do you think you'll find in some poor fukk's cupboard? They could also buy beans by the 5 lb bag and eat extremely healthy and cheaply. But, you'll find them eating french fries and burgers instead.

Second:
There is another factor in what has changed since the 50's & 60's: the size of the workforce exploded. The addition of women to the workforce had the effect of most other situations involving supply & demand. So wages went down.

no arguement there. don't know why this isn't pointed out when the dems blame drops in union enrollment as the culprit.

Third;
I disagree that the ongoing shift of wealth hasn't had any effect on the economy. Again, fulfilling the needs of the many will always grow the economy more than the needs of the few.

whatever you say, comrade spock. so, who decides these needs, smart guy.

Fourth;
For argument's sake let's say that overtaxation is a cause. We'll lower the taxation rate. How do you suppose that will help the lower & middle classes? More service industry jobs that don't pay shit? How will more maquiladoras help the middle & lower classes in America?

Or more to the point, what do you think corporate America would do with increased profits from lower taxes? Here's a hint: seen many store prices go down since fuel prices went back from criminal gouging to very high? Why do you think the stimulus bill has strings attached on executive compensation.....because the executives are so benvolent to their workers?

Lastly, I'll agree with you that the stimulus bill is as much a shit sandwich as the one Bush gave us. While this one appears to be more infrastructure-oriented than Bush's, it still rewards a lot of people for bad behavior. As someone who chose not to buy a house during what I knew was a huge bubble period, I'm still stuck with a huge tax bill for others & won't see any stimulus money in relation to the housing bailout from the rental company (see point four). The stimulus bill should have been directed only at infrastructure improvements & let the irresponsible fail.

Lowering and simplifying taxes and regulations are the only way to keep jobs here other than oppressive protectionist tariffs. And smoot hawley out front will back me on that one.

So go ahead & explain how lowering taxes (especially of the rich) would help. TIA.

[poptart]

When taxes are low, people have more discretionary income.
When they have more discretionary income, they spend more.
When people spend more, businesses do better.
When businesses do better, they can hire more employees, or expand.

It's all good for the economy.

[Diego in Seattle]

When taxes are low, people have more discretionary income.

In case you haven't noticed, there are a lot of people who work full time yet can't make ends meet. How much lower would you take taxes to where they could actually make ends meet (or even have such a thing as discretionary funds)? Especially when they already don't have that high of an income tax rate?

When they have more discretionary income, they spend more.

See above.

When people spend more, businesses do better.

Agreed. But how that money is spent is equally important. The republican attitude that "money spent is money spent" is what has partially gotten us into the current mess we're in.

When businesses do better, they can hire more employees, or expand.

Yes, they can add more employees earning the same low wage, or put it into executive bonuses, or into stock dividends. I don't have a problem with stock investors making profits off their investments, but notice that none of the above options include rewarding those who put out the product.

Several years ago the Board of Directors at General Dynamics laid off thousands of employees. Immediately afterward the BOD awarded themselves $10,000 bonuses for cost-cutting. Look at how Don Carty (former AMR CEO) lost his job. Again, how does a company doing better improve the lot for employees (other than keeping them in their low paying jobs)?

[poptart]

In case you haven't noticed, there are a lot of people who work full time yet can't make ends meet. How much lower would you take taxes to where they could actually make ends meet (or even have such a thing as discretionary funds)? Especially when they already don't have that high of an income tax rate?

Low taxes are only part of the equation in a healthy economy.

The MAIN reason many people don't have much discretionary income is because the dollar they hold isn't worth what it ought to be worth.

The governement policies have SERIOUSLY debased the currency.

They have caused SERIOUS inflation -- and this horrible bill which just passed will only exasperate that situation by a LOT.

I don't know that we could get back to a gold standard, but we seriously need to MOVE in that direction.

Again, how does a company doing better improve the lot for employees (other than keeping them in their low paying jobs)?

All employess are not in low paying jobs.

It depends on what kind of company it is, and what kind of business they are doing.

Many companies have a LOT of good paying positions to fill, and MORE of those positions can be available if a company is making more money.

Not every citizen is entitled to a high paying job.

Some people are meant to be bottom feeders.

You can't change reality.

Just like when the adults set up a no-scorekeeping soccer game so that wee egos are not damaged, and so that bottom feeding dweebs can be ... ok ... too.
The kids might play 30 minutes and have no tangible scoreboard to look at, but I can GUARANTEE you that almost all of them KNOW that one team kicked the shit out of the other to the tune of 8-1, if it went downt that way.

You can try to mask reality, but you can't run from it.

There will ALWAYS be bottom feeders.

[Diego in Seattle]

There will ALWAYS be bottom feeders.

True enough.

But the number of them is growing in an economic sense. The question is whether the republicans will pay attention to this before they repeat the mistakes of 18th century France.

[Diego in Seattle]

^^^^^ Speaking of bottom-feeders......

[poptart]

Btw, the first minute of this clip is appalling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df8vYTt_Vy4


"uuh, uhh ,, .. y'know, y'know ... uhh ...

Oh, that kooky Vice President.

He's a dipshit, folks, don't really listen to him.

"y'know, uhh ... y'know, ... uhh, uhh ..."



Funny how this @sshole can't ... REMEMBER ... half the important shit that goes on in his life.

Toss Joe under the bus.


What a fucking trainwreck.

[H4ever]

In America, opportunity STILL abounds.
If you're paycheck to paycheck, and you're not disabled, it's your own personal problem.

.

To a degree. But, it takes more than hard work and ambition to succeed and you know that. Do you honestly believe Tori Spelling would be anything more than an aging service industry worker with a 50% chance of being divorced and living paycheck to paycheck or thereabouts if it wasn't for who her father is? Based on what she was given as far as looks, intelligence, and talent as an actress? Odds are she wouldn't be much more than that and possibly less if it weren't for who she was born to. Look at all the sub-par actors and filmakers in Hollywood....Yeah....they did it all by themselves...mmhmm. Being Jewish didn't have shit to do with it...pure talent baby.....you bet!

For every success story in America, there are thousands who have failed and possibly worked at it harder than the mere one who succeeded. It take more than hard work and ambition in America and for you to think otherwise is delusional.

[poptart]

To a degree. But, it takes more than hard work and ambition to succeed and you know that. Do you honestly believe Tori Spelling would be anything more than an aging service industry worker with a 50% chance of being divorced and living paycheck to paycheck or thereabouts if it wasn't for who her father is? Based on what she was given as far as looks, intelligence, and talent as an actress? Odds are she wouldn't be much more than that and possibly less if it weren't for who she was born to. Look at all the sub-par actors and filmakers in Hollywood....Yeah....they did it all by themselves...mmhmm. Being Jewish didn't have shit to do with it...pure talent baby.....you bet!

For every success story in America, there are thousands who have failed and possibly worked at it harder than the mere one who succeeded. It take more than hard work and ambition in America and for you to think otherwise is delusional.

Is there some point to this rambling?

Yes, what you say is a given.

Blind FATE can grant one a lot of money in this lifetime.

So what?


Blind fate can also lead to some people being bottom feeders.

Tough shit for them.

They aren't entitled to someone else's cayesh.

[H4ever]

To a degree. But, it takes more than hard work and ambition to succeed and you know that. Do you honestly believe Tori Spelling would be anything more than an aging service industry worker with a 50% chance of being divorced and living paycheck to paycheck or thereabouts if it wasn't for who her father is? Based on what she was given as far as looks, intelligence, and talent as an actress? Odds are she wouldn't be much more than that and possibly less if it weren't for who she was born to. Look at all the sub-par actors and filmakers in Hollywood....Yeah....they did it all by themselves...mmhmm. Being Jewish didn't have shit to do with it...pure talent baby.....you bet!

For every success story in America, there are thousands who have failed and possibly worked at it harder than the mere one who succeeded. It take more than hard work and ambition in America and for you to think otherwise is delusional.

Is there some point to this rambling?

Yes, what you say is a given.

Blind FATE can grant one a lot of money in this lifetime.

So what?


Blind fate can also lead to some people being bottom feeders.

Tough shit for them.

They aren't entitled to someone else's cayesh.

Then why do you insist that, in America, living pay check to pay check is one's own fault? It's much more complex than that. And nobody is entitled to anyone else's "cayesh" unless they've earned it. Why isn't it tough shit for the fat cat recipients of all this bailout money? Or are they somehow more entitled than the bottom-feeders? Why the fuck should our grandchildren be bankrupted even prior to their conception?

Success is having the pride and work ethic to bust your hump for your family and youself. Where it takes you only time wil tell. A couple of breaks and a little bit of luck and the sky's the limit. If you end up in a trailer eating dog food, you can at least be proud of the fact that both were purchased with honest money.

Some people get dealt a shitty hand in life and that's just the way it goes I admire those who play out their cards the best they can. I despise those who try to stack the deck.

[Tom In VA]

Why isn't it tough shit for the fat cat recipients of all this bailout money? Or are they somehow more entitled than the bottom-feeders? Why the fuck should our grandchildren be bankrupted even prior to their conception?

Hey c'mon now, they paid for those politicans fair and square. Distribute some money to the D aisle - a lot of it, some to the R aisle, and you're set.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Btw, the first minute of this clip is appalling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df8vYTt_Vy4


"uuh, uhh ,, .. y'know, y'know ... uhh ...

Oh, that kooky Vice President.

He's a dipshit, folks, don't really listen to him.

"y'know, uhh ... y'know, ... uhh, uhh ..."



Funny how this @sshole can't ... REMEMBER ... half the important shit that goes on in his life.

Toss Joe under the bus.


What a fucking trainwreck.

Agreed. But that having been said . . .

McCain still managed to nominate a VP candidate who made Joe look like a Mensa (not in the Rome context of that word) by comparison.

Ponderous. Just ponderous.

[H4ever]

Then why do you insist that, in America, living pay check to pay check is one's own fault? It's much more complex than that.

No, it isn't. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, YOU have fucked up along the way somewhere. Again, not my problem.

I agree that some people living paycheck to pay check probably made some shit financial decisions along the way or would rather order 2 supreme pizzas with unexpected descretionary income instead of putting the 45 bucks into savings or the stock market.

But, how about the family that gets wiped out from a major medical deal and has shit insurance coverage from the place he's put 20 years into....only to watch his wage not keep pace with inflation and his health ins. premiums tripled and coverage halved with a huge deductible and 20% co-pay?

I know...he should of been a true American and started collecting aluminum cans 5 years ago and cashed them in when the scrap metal market peaked last year right? People like to monday morning quarterback shit all the time but the truth is it's getting harder to make it in America unless you have blind luck or connections. The deck is stacked.

A huge number are squeaking by and it's no wonder they voted the way they did this last election. They were much better off 10 years ago and their lifestyles, spending habits, and jobs pobably haven't changed much.

They said fuck this...let's get some socialists in Washington...no one else claims to give a fuck...let's shake this country the hell up and see what happens. Scary shit.

Now we got the current mental giants in Washington who are throwing money at problems and putting more money into the hands of incompetent corporate managers who helped fucked the economy to begin with. Same greedy fucks who will pad their bottom lines with taxpayer monies to secure more bonuses instead of helping the working schmucks like they were supposed to.

As more and more formerly wealthy go down the shitter with the rest of America, I suppose then they will consider looking out the windows of their white castles. Probably about the time they hear the beats of feet and see the torch weilding mobs coming up the hill.

[GOSD]

Probably about the time they hear the beats of feet and see the torch weilding mobs coming up the hill.

Except that those torch wielding fat bodies will be panting in exhaustion and say, "Fuck it. Let's go watch TV." halfway up the hill.

A Jamaal Jackson Brat isn't a handle on an elliptical you dumbfuck! It isn't getting you to a point where you have the right to talk fat smack. The protein you take in a day alone has made you look like a Dreidel.

[Diego in Seattle]

mvidiot;
Why didn't you go to law or medical school? Since you didn't make this correct choice shouldn't you be left to starve or die from an untreated medical condition?

[GOSD]

Wagon, there is no contradiction.

If you're paying attention you'd see that the second statement you quoted me on there is my speaking about how capitalism OUGHT to be working ... WITHOUT continual government dickings.


But listen, ...

Have you ever heard of "paying yourself first?"

Even on a "barely getting by" income, one can practice this technique and have it work for them.
With all the bullshit our schools have in their curriculums, it's LONG past the time that basic personal finance management be included as part of our kid's schooling.
Most kids come out of school and are totally clueless when it comes to one of THE most important aspects of their life.

Aside from that, if your income is not enough, and you're living paycheck to paycheck, then you need to ... DO something.
The liberal solution is to hold your hand out so the "government" will drop something in it for you.

In America, opportunity STILL abounds.
If you're paycheck to paycheck, and you're not disabled, it's your own personal problem.

However, the steps the gov keeps taking which cause inflation and a decrease in the value of our dollar, make "getting ahead" much harder than it ought to be.

Also, never discount the fact that the greedy fucking idiots in the banking industry didn't give a shit about whether the people they were loaning money to could pay their loans back. They signed the loan collected their commissions and never looked back. Then the middle class has to pay for these dumbfucking idiots (lender and buyer), by having our economy collapse from it and the vast majority of college grads in the midwest getting put out of jobs every day.

My government should have policed this shit. They police against robberies, drugs, mvscal prostitution and George Bush, the fucking cocksucker, failed to have any of this economy regulated.

Now we have college educated workers, who did what they were supposed to do, all over the midwest having to steal jobs away from the slack jawed yokel fucks that originally got us into this mess voting for Bush and getting these loans.

You dumbfucks are narrowminded with your blame. I know what is wrong with this country and it's right here on this board. :wink: While I was traveling around the country I should have shit on all of your porches and hoped one of you weak hipped faggots would have slipped on it.

[Dinsdale]

Insurance was once extremely affordable... and then, the government decided who needed to insure who -- the æffects were nearly immediate. Prices skyrocketed (and the number of uninsured Americans ROSE after government tried to "fix" the uninsured "problem."


Health care was once the cheapest in the wotrld, even though it was the best and most technologically advanced -- then the government decided to take over portions of the billing cycle. Costs rose dramatically.


Again, the federal government already controls 2/3rds (that's 67%) of all medical transactions in this country. What has happened to those costs during their 35 year reign of "fixing" things?


Fucking'A, this country is getting what it deserves. Stupid people are ripe for abuse -- and frankly, we, as a people, are really fucking stupid.


HELLO?


Where's the incentive for competition when the government d8ictates how the companies compete?


Answer: All incentive has been removed.

Any new innovation in how health insurance can be offered is illegal. Buy "single-incident" insurance for a given medical procedure? Nope, it's illegal (although it would drive the cost of the doctor's malpractice insurance through the floor).



Costs will continue to increase as long as the government dictates market competition... crack a history book sometime, idiots.


Again, if putting 67% of the medical finances in the fed's hands was a disaster, please explain the logic in gambling on placing the last 33% in the hands of an insitution that's proven over and over again to be an abject failure?

Answer: There is no logic whatsoever.


Medicare is bankrupting this country, due to its very nature of eliminating competition.


Repeal the HMO Act. Repeal Medicare. Repeal every stupid fucking law that tells employers how to spend their money. Make benefits part of an employer's arsenal to entice the best and brightest, which creates competition. Make insurance companies COMPETE to get a group plan into a company.


Requiring all this bullshit all-but-removes the competition in the marketplace, and costs skyrocket as a result...


And BTW-the stats agree with ME, not with the socialists.

[GOSD]

Insurance was once extremely affordable... and then, the government decided who needed to insure who -- the æffects were nearly immediate. Prices skyrocketed (and the number of uninsured Americans ROSE after government tried to "fix" the uninsured "problem."


Health care was once the cheapest in the wotrld, even though it was the best and most technologically advanced -- then the government decided to take over portions of the billing cycle. Costs rose dramatically.


Again, the federal government already controls 2/3rds (that's 67%) of all medical transactions in this country. What has happened to those costs during their 35 year reign of "fixing" things?


Fucking'A, this country is getting what it deserves. Stupid people are ripe for abuse -- and frankly, we, as a people, are really fucking stupid.


HELLO?


Where's the incentive for competition when the government d8ictates how the companies compete?


Answer: All incentive has been removed.

Any new innovation in how health insurance can be offered is illegal. Buy "single-incident" insurance for a given medical procedure? Nope, it's illegal (although it would drive the cost of the doctor's malpractice insurance through the floor).



Costs will continue to increase as long as the government dictates market competition... crack a history book sometime, idiots.


Again, if putting 67% of the medical finances in the fed's hands was a disaster, please explain the logic in gambling on placing the last 33% in the hands of an insitution that's proven over and over again to be an abject failure?

Answer: There is no logic whatsoever.


Medicare is bankrupting this country, due to its very nature of eliminating competition.


Repeal the HMO Act. Repeal Medicare. Repeal every stupid fucking law that tells employers how to spend their money. Make benefits part of an employer's arsenal to entice the best and brightest, which creates competition. Make insurance companies COMPETE to get a group plan into a company.


Requiring all this bullshit all-but-removes the competition in the marketplace, and costs skyrocket as a result...


And BTW-the stats agree with ME, not with the socialists.

If the stats agree with you, you fucking shit bag, then why don't you link some stats. I don't take "fucking idiot on a piece of shit message board" as a good source of reference.

[LTS TRN 2]

C'mon you Capitalist Cock Whores, step up and defend your philosophy. Because here's yet another example of the highest level of Capitalist operator--the most talented and cleverest financier who's not circumcised, G Allen Stanford....a total slimeball crook. Sure, you know the story...lobbying hard for deregulation, and running a huge Ponzi scam, etc. A sociopath, really.

But in addition to angry clients, Stanford, like Madoff, has many friends in Washington.

Stanford's business is headquartered on the Caribbean island of Antigua. In the last decade, Stanford and his companies have spent more than $7 million on lobbyists and campaign contributions in efforts to loosen regulation of offshore banks.

Among the top recipients: Senator Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Congressman Pete Sessions (R-Texas), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), one of the members who took a trip to Antigua where he was entertained by Stanford.

Sen Cornyn's office has said the trip "was strictly a fact-finding trip," and at the time, "there was nothing untoward or unseemly" about Stanford Financial.

[poptart]

Straight out of the "Wow, who knew?" files, ... LAWYERS likely to get first stimulus jobs.

LOL

Shit you just can't make up.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29296796

[poptart]

I read now where B.O. says he's going to cut the federal deficit ... in HALF ... by 2012.

Hmmmm ....

And what better way to begin accomplishing that then to to go another 800 billion into the tank establishing government social prog ... errr ... a stimulus program?


But let's see ...

Massive new government programs established.
Amnesty for illegals, and an unsecured border which allows a continual flood of service-sucking "newbies" into the land -- see California's fiscal mess.
"Free" *winky* *winky* health care for everyone.

And we're going to actually CUT the deficit in HALF on this path?

There are two ways I see that as being possible.

1. Taxes are jacked WAY ... I mean ... WAY up.

But B.O. promised that wouldn't happen. LOL


2. Money falls from heaven, like manna, into our loving government's hands.



Yes he can't!

[smackaholic]

Insurance was once extremely affordable... and then, the government decided who needed to insure who -- the æffects were nearly immediate. Prices skyrocketed (and the number of uninsured Americans ROSE after government tried to "fix" the uninsured "problem."


Health care was once the cheapest in the wotrld, even though it was the best and most technologically advanced -- then the government decided to take over portions of the billing cycle. Costs rose dramatically.


Again, the federal government already controls 2/3rds (that's 67%) of all medical transactions in this country. What has happened to those costs during their 35 year reign of "fixing" things?


Fucking'A, this country is getting what it deserves. Stupid people are ripe for abuse -- and frankly, we, as a people, are really fucking stupid.


HELLO?


Where's the incentive for competition when the government d8ictates how the companies compete?


Answer: All incentive has been removed.

Any new innovation in how health insurance can be offered is illegal. Buy "single-incident" insurance for a given medical procedure? Nope, it's illegal (although it would drive the cost of the doctor's malpractice insurance through the floor).



Costs will continue to increase as long as the government dictates market competition... crack a history book sometime, idiots.


Again, if putting 67% of the medical finances in the fed's hands was a disaster, please explain the logic in gambling on placing the last 33% in the hands of an insitution that's proven over and over again to be an abject failure?

Answer: There is no logic whatsoever.


Medicare is bankrupting this country, due to its very nature of eliminating competition.


Repeal the HMO Act. Repeal Medicare. Repeal every stupid fucking law that tells employers how to spend their money. Make benefits part of an employer's arsenal to entice the best and brightest, which creates competition. Make insurance companies COMPETE to get a group plan into a company.


Requiring all this bullshit all-but-removes the competition in the marketplace, and costs skyrocket as a result...


And BTW-the stats agree with ME, not with the socialists.

Rack.

Any of you fukks old enough to remember something called hospitalization?

Hospitalization was a forrm of health insurance that acted just like insurance was 'sposed to act. It was there to protect you in the case you were fukked up enough to need to be hospitalized.

Even in the good old days, being hospitalized wasn't cheap, so you bought insurance against it, just as you buy insurance for other unexpected things which you couldn't afford if they happen to you.

Somewhere along the way, somebody, the gubmint I believe, said, hey lets just have health insurance cover everything. So fukking what if there are no other types of insurance that work this way.

What do you 'spose a run of the mill doctor visit ought to really cost? You know, just walk into an office, have a seat and say "high doc, it hurts when I do this". No filling out paperwork ahead of time, no being weighed/measured/prodded by some fukking medical assistant. Just you, talking to the doc for maybe 10 minutes.

I'm guessing that a doc without an army of paper pushers on staff would be satisfied making $100/hr gross. So, he could see you for 10 minutes and charge you 20 bucks.

This is the way it used to work. And it workked pretty fukking well.

[poptart]

I read some more on B.O.'s paln to cut the deficit ... in half.

He says he's going to "streamline" government.

L O L

Yes, gimme "Things that are full of total shit" for $500, Alex.


If he's serious about improving the deficit, he could begin by making sure his cabinet pays ... their taxes.

Prolly chop about 1/16 off that pesky deficit with that one single move.

[poptart]

...where's KC Scott when you need him?

Probably laughing at the naysayers that refused to believe him when he warned them that the shit was about to hit the fan.

Unemployment fell to 4.5% and we had a strong Q2. Our overall economy is quite healthy.

Peddle your ignorant bullshit somewhere else, tard.

The housing market, which has kept the U.S. economy afloat for the past 10 years, hasn't exactly collapsed.

Sure, it's down compared to the past few years incredible numbers, but it's not out. It should rebound by Feb or Mar at the latest.

Bode Scott and anyone that listened to him.

Oh sure, and Scott posted THIS on October 6 of '08 when the Dow had dropped to 9800.

I can only hope this is the full on capitulation needed to flush everything.

I Just bought another 25% position in the SP500 and Nasdaq

How's that working out right about now?

[KC Scott]

Oh sure, and Scott posted THIS on October 6 of '08 when the Dow had dropped to 9800.

I can only hope this is the full on capitulation needed to flush everything.

I Just bought another 25% position in the SP500 and Nasdaq

How's that working out right about now?

Took my 7% Stop Loss and lived to fight another day -
It's now clear with today's new low that this market ain't coming back anytime soon.
This new 1997 low will have to be tested again - probably again in April, before we even see a base form.

Of course the hypocaracy of Tart - The quenessential buy and hold forever guy posting anything like this is beyond suck.

Seriously Dave - are you ever going to own up and be honest with yourself about shit, or just keep playing pivot in a never ending circle jerk of threads?

Enjoy whatever you may gleen from that.

[poptart]

Seriously Dave - are you ever going to own up and be honest with yourself about shit, or just keep playing pivot in a never ending circle jerk of threads?

I stuck a nerve.

Otis bowed down to you, and all I am doing is pointing out that while you did call a major drop in the markets (VERY early, albeit -- and therefore losing out on some very big gains that came before the crash), you also bought back in when you thought the market had reached it's low point ... Dow at 9800.

Dow is now at 7000.

I'd reckon you missed that bottom ... by a BUNCH.


It's all good, Scott.

But just remember, you are the guy who came in and began pimping YOURSELF as a market guru of sorts.

You hit some and you miss some, that's my point.



About this thread, if you're not fond of me trashing Obama for his idiotic policies, that's fine.
You can feel free to offer takes of your own.

In your "humble" opinion, is he handling the economy well?

[Cuda]

æffects .

The RACKS for this are long overdue

[Dinsdale]

the hypocaracy of Tart - The quenessential buy and hold forever guy

This is what you saw fit to bold?


Uhm... I don't think those words mean what you think they mean...


And they sure as fuck ain't spelled how you think they're spelled.

[KC Scott]

Otis bowed down to you, and all I am doing is pointing out that while you did call a major drop in the markets (VERY early, albeit -- and therefore losing out on some very big gains that came before the crash), you also bought back in when you thought the market had reached it's low point ... Dow at 9800.

Dow is now at 7000.

And this is the perfect circle jerk example I mentioned.

Yea, I missed a top and a bottom, but let's compare it to you - You've lost well over 50% or more of whatever you had banked beacuse you're in it for the "long haul". I crack up at the thought of you taking shots at me when you've taken this kind of hit, unless of course you want to try and gloss it that you suddenly abandoned that "Buy and Hold, it will come back" mantra you spouted on many occassions.

I've never felt the need to lie or try and misdirect in order to prove a point. Right or wrong I'll take the lumps and move on.
You should give this a try -

[Dinsdale]

You've lost well over 50% or more of whatever you had banked beacuse you're in it for the "long haul".

Crackin' up over here.

But rather than explaining it (because I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who's cracking up over it), I'll let you twist in the wind and see if you can figure it out all by your lonesome.

Fucking hilarious from a self-proclaimed "financial guru," or whatever it is you like to consider yourself.