30 Apr 09
Originally posted by eamon oIt covers a lot of different issues. Here's an interesting excerpt:
Oh come on, lets have an executive summary and save us all some time here
"THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
So how do you — how do we deal with it?
..."
30 Apr 09
Originally posted by Palynkabefore you answer that question categorically, I'd like to hear what folks think the proper method for dealing with the cost of caring for the aged may be.
It covers a lot of different issues. Here's an interesting excerpt:
"THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
So how do you — how do we deal with it?
..."
do we set a dollar amount as a cutoff? an age limit? or do we put the burden on the Doctors or insurance companies or gov't officials to decide whether it is worthwhile to continue treatment or elect a high cost alternative?
there are a host of other options, of course, including families opting to pay out of pocket all or a portion of the costs; or we could use the number crunchers to determine the cost ratio of caring for elderly people at certain ages and for certain conditions and compare that to a societal affordability index arrived at by various means. You can calculate how much each person has contributed over their lifetime and cut them off after a certain point -- as we have to take account of the fact there are a larger proportion of aging people compared with the number of people paying into the system now.
anyone an insurance expert?
01 May 09
Originally posted by Palynkathe europeans used to use big ole hammers.
It covers a lot of different issues. Here's an interesting excerpt:
"THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
So how do you — how do we deal with it?
..."
01 May 09
Originally posted by zeeblebotObama's pro-capitalist views:
the europeans used to use big ole hammers.
Barack Obama
Other quotes by Barack Obama.
http://www.aim.org/wls/we-must-build-on-the-wealth-that-open-markets-have-created/
"This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. "
and some of you will love this one and not hate capitalism while you read it:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/25/obama_responsible_capitalism_vs_crony_capitalism/
01 May 09
1 edit
The White House is still occupied by a moron.
Raising capital gains hurts both the economy and tax revenue and hurts the middle class the most... Taxing 250 000$ or more companies hurts the people who create 74% of the new American jobs. But who cares, we need "change". Aww.
Actually inflation destroys the poor and middle class. And this guy will create plenty of it. Now, why would someone invest in the US? Does Obama treats any of the sound economy aspects?
-overpriced stocks with low dividend yields.
-overpriced housing with small rents related to their buying cost
-lots of regulation
-really high taxes
-huge budget deficit
-78.8 trillion of unfunded obligations
No wise person would start a business there, which actually produces things. And as China and Japan will stop financing your extravagant social programs, you will be forced to default on the debts. You need a smaller government, not a bigger one, and Obama was a crappy choice. Not that McCain was terrific. And wtf, benefits are shared. If you work for a company, you get the benefits that you produce.
I do have a question for Obama. If I'd have a small company with 3-4 employees, and make around 250-300 000$, what would be the point in keeping it? I mean, my profit from it would be around 30 000$ and I could just fire all those 4 people and get hired somewhere. Why would I take the trouble?
And really, anyone who knows economics history, knows that all that Obama is doing will make matters worse on the long run and what's funny is that American people don't get that 2008 was the payback for 1972, 1984, 1998 and 2000ish. Fighting recessions, which was done in all cases(arguably not in 1984, but in all the rest of the crisis) created way bigger malinvestments and kept the bad ones on the market.
You really think Bush was a free market person? Because he wasn't.
01 May 09
Originally posted by TastyGlamGirlYour arguments are correct, but rather sit here agreeing with you I will find something to debate about and throw you a curveball.
The White House is still occupied by a moron.
Raising capital gains hurts both the economy and tax revenue and hurts the middle class the most... Taxing 250 000$ or more companies hurts the people who create 74% of the new American jobs. But who cares, we need "change". Aww.
Actually inflation destroys the poor and middle class. And this guy wil ...[text shortened]... ones on the market.
You really think Bush was a free market person? Because he wasn't.
Obama is making many moves that are bad for the economy, including the taxes on bonuses, bailing out so many companies, TARP, etc.
However, there is another problem.
He is not doing what the most brilliant economists and private capital people are recommending, which is for the goverment to quickly takeover banks and clean up the books, then quickly sell them back to the private sector.
Instead, his policies mimic those of Japan's "zombie banks" that keps sick banks slowly recovering an their economy mired in wekaness for decades.
We should do the quick fix as was done in other countries such as Chile, rathern than Mexico's approach. The pattern is clear: clean up the banks at high short-term costs and send them back to the private economy.
Unless he does fix the banking system the correct way, then he will prove to have been a worse choice for the economy than McCain (depending on McCain's position, but I think McCain would have done the right thing here).
01 May 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusWhat part of share its benefits more equitably did you fail to understand?
Obama's pro-capitalist views:
Barack Obama
Other quotes by Barack Obama.
http://www.aim.org/wls/we-must-build-on-the-wealth-that-open-markets-have-created/
"This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and gl ...[text shortened]... ://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/25/obama_responsible_capitalism_vs_crony_capitalism/
01 May 09
Originally posted by TastyGlamGirlOverpriced stock and overpriced housing were due to deregulation.
The White House is still occupied by a moron.
Raising capital gains hurts both the economy and tax revenue and hurts the middle class the most... Taxing 250 000$ or more companies hurts the people who create 74% of the new American jobs. But who cares, we need "change". Aww.
Actually inflation destroys the poor and middle class. And this guy wil ...[text shortened]... ones on the market.
You really think Bush was a free market person? Because he wasn't.
The budget deficit is also the moron's legacy, not Obama's. Implicitly suggesting a contractionary fiscal policy in the middle of a depression also shows your ignorance. Inflation may hurt the poor and middle class more than the rich, but if the alternative is high unemployment then do you really think that hurts the poor and middle class less? Only in your anti-Obama fantasy land.
And really, anyone who knows economics history, knows that all that Obama is doing will make matters worse on the long run
Wrong again. Contractionary policies during the beginning of the great depression are what led to such a severe recession. I suggest you read Barry Eichengreen's excellent book Golden Fetters. Then you'd be able to talk about economic history. Where are you supposed to have studied economics? ASE?
You really think Bush was a free market person? Because he wasn't.
Talking to yourself again? Nobody said Bush was a free market person. Deregulation in the US banking system started before Bush and continued in his term. That is a fact, despite Clinton and Bush not being libertarians.
01 May 09
Originally posted by PalynkaExcellent post.
Wrong again. Contractionary policies during the beginning of the great depression are what led to such a severe recession. I suggest you read Barry Eichengreen's excellent book Golden Fetters. Then you'd be able to talk about economic history. Where are you supposed to have studied economics? ASE?
I suggest reading Herman van der Wee's Prosperity and upheaval - the World Economy 1945-1980 afterwards.
I don't think he studied economics. Certainly not economic history. Obviously he's a troll with multiple accounts or someone who's come back after a banning.
01 May 09
Originally posted by PalynkaOverpriced stock and housing are due to STUPID monetary policies during Clinton and Bush and due to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Those two were the biggest buyers of subprime and guess what, they were government creations. The government created the demand for those exotic loans. Just like they created the moral hazard by co-signing loans so banks pretty much didn't care who they lend to.
Overpriced stock and overpriced housing were due to deregulation.
The budget deficit is also the moron's legacy, not Obama's. Implicitly suggesting a contractionary fiscal policy in the middle of a depression also shows your ignorance. Inflation may hurt the poor and middle class more than the rich, but if the alternative is high unemployment then do you ...[text shortened]... and continued in his term. That is a fact, despite Clinton and Bush not being libertarians.
And the budget deficit isn't a legacy. I'm not referring to the national debt, but deficit. And Obama spent more in the first 100 days than Bush in a whole term.
I'm ignorant? Fiscal policies are different than monetary policies. Fiscal policies are related to taxes and Obama's fiscal policy is contractionary. And high unemployment is something temporary. The destruction of the currency is permanent. Also, you hurt the unproductive poor by letting people collapse, with inflation you hurt everyone.
Keynesian economics lead to the great depression(which aren't even a science since Keynes basically ignored all Say's proven theories, instead of refuting them). How did you get over year 1920 since it looked worse than 1929? All economic crisis in the American history were treated like that until 1929 and you didn't have depressions.
Originally posted by TastyGlamGirlAre you saying that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were government creations? Or that the subprime lending was? Fannie Mae was a private organisation created in 1938, which was split into a private corp still named Fannie Mae and Ginnie Mae, the government sidekick. From wiki: To provide competition for the newly private Fannie Mae and to further increase the availability of funds to finance mortgages and home ownership, Congress then established the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) as a private corporation through the Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970.
Overpriced stock and housing are due to STUPID monetary policies during Clinton and Bush and due to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Those two were the biggest buyers of subprime and guess what, they were government creations. The government created the demand for those exotic loans. Just like they created the moral hazard by co-signing loans so banks prett the American history were treated like that until 1929 and you didn't have depressions.
And the budget deficit isn't a legacy. I'm not referring to the national debt, but deficit. And Obama spent more in the first 100 days than Bush in a whole term.
You sound ridiculous. Please come up with some FACTS and numbers instead this idiocy.
I'm ignorant?
Yes. That is obvious to everybody.
Fiscal policies are related to taxes and Obama's fiscal policy is contractionary. And high unemployment is something temporary. The destruction of the currency is permanent. Also, you hurt the unproductive poor by letting people collapse, with inflation you hurt everyone.
Fiscal policies are related to taxes and spending. Destruction of currency is not permanent. Inflation do hurt everybody, but high uemployment is worse for the poor and middle class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philips_Curve - read about the Philips curve today.
Keynesian economics lead to the great depression(which aren't even a science since Keynes basically ignored all Say's proven theories, instead of refuting them). How did you get over year 1920 since it looked worse than 1929? All economic crisis in the American history were treated like that until 1929 and you didn't have depressions.
Keynes didn't release his work, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, until 1936. How exactly is that leading to the Depression in 1929? You really should read some history.