Biden: We Have to Go Spend Money to Keep From Going Bankrupt

Discussion in 'Politics' started by faceking, Jul 16, 2009.

  1. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,535
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    110
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    I couldn't make that up any better (actually I could). And here libtards latched on to Saturday Night Live making up that Palin said she could see Alaska from her house... when those in the know, knew the biggest dumbass in the election is Biden. This is where I feel sorry for Obama. He's 3x dumber than Quayle could EVER be.

    Vice President Joe Biden told people attending an AARP town hall meeting that unless the Democrat-supported health care plan becomes law the nation will go bankrupt and that the only way to avoid that fate is for the government to spend more money.

    “And folks look, AARP knows and the people with me here today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status quo is simply not acceptable,” Biden said at the event on Thursday in Alexandria, Va. “It’s totally unacceptable. And it’s completely unsustainable. Even if we wanted to keep it the way we have it now. It can’t do it financially.”

    “We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.

    “Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”


    Poor Obama...
     
  2. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Ever heard of the saying, "You have to spend money to make money?"
    Yeah, ask someone about that before making asinine threads like this. :rolleyes:
     
  3. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    Ya, it takes money to make money, but you have to invest the money wisely in order for that to hold true. We aren't investing the money, we're merely spending it, with no expectation of future returns. Interest rates will be soaring in a few years...get ready for another engineered recession to combat the inflation...cause it's coming...
     
  4. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Well, the issue regarding spending in this case is Health Care. Do you think we should be spending money in this venture in an attempt to repair the economy? Personally, I think we should. Health Care costs is one of the main reasons why people go broke to begin with. Either way, doing nothing is not an option.

    And the OP clearly failed the first law of economics, in his desperate need to type the word "libtard". :rolleyes:
     
  5. joejack

    joejack Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2004
    Messages:
    741
    Albums:
    10
    Likes Received:
    104
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Florida
    Yes, Joe Biden, we need to spend money to make money, but we must spend it for the benefit of our people, not trans-national capital. We must get out of Irag, Afganistan, Korea (the war ended 56 years ago), Germany (the war ended 64 years ago), not to mention bases in Turkey, Great Britain, Italy, Spain; the list goes on and on. Our constitution states that Congress shall have the power to raise an army..., not maintain a standing army. One of the big reasons we rebelled against England was we did not want to be taxed for the care, feeding, housing and outfitting of the King's Army. Since 1950 we have been engaged in costly quests to make the world safe for a perverse form of state sponsored international capitalism which is squeezing our people dry. We cannot go on like this. Militarism is bankrupting us.:frown1:
     
  6. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    We should definately begin coming up with a plan, but I don't think forcing people to buy insurance they already can't afford is the answer. If anything, let's set up government sposored hospitals and insurance that compete off of price competition. Increase the supply of medical facilities, offer services at a lowered cost, and sloooowly begin decreasing prices until equipment manufacturers are forced to lower their profit margins. That way people can still visit their private hospitals and doctors without consequence, and people who currently can't afford the status quo have an option as well.

    Let's face it, a new CAT scan machine purchased for $100,000 is most likely paid off within a year or 2, so why do we need to keep charging $7000 for a CAT scan when the machine is already paid off? I'm sure my numbers aren't very accurate, but it's an example of just 1 step the government could take to make service more affordable, on the premise that it owned its own facilities of course. There is also no reason why it should cost a patient in a coma $20,000 to lie in a bed for 3 months hooked up to a machine that cost probably under $1000 to manufacture...greed is more rampant than a lot of politicians and businessmen will ever publicly admit...

    ...if we want to start solving the problems of our country, the first step to take is lobby reform. Lobbying has turned into bribery which is fucking up our country quicker than an atom bomb. Funny cause I always thought bribery was illegal...but I guess not if you're a lawmaker...don't re-elect a single congressman or senator, ever. Career politicians don't give a damn about anyone or anything except their bank accounts. Hung and quartered, it's about time we brought back public execution for treasonous actions...
     
  7. FuzzyKen

    FuzzyKen New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,116
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    The health care plan we are looking at is not good.

    The only thing that is going to work at this point is at least a temporary nationalization of health care. The proposed plan is certainly not going to be as effective and is in cost not going to be any more economical.

    The ONLY problem is that to have nationalized health care be effective it has to be universal and exempt only active military because of battle related injury.

    It would work just dandy of every Senator and Congressman were under exactly the same plan as the rest of us. That will eliminate the problems and descriminatory garbage from the beginning.

    Right now medicine, the pharmaceutical industry and health care insurers are out of control with ineffective and dangerous drugs, a descriminatory death spiral and other factors which crash and burn the system.

    With what I have read so far of what is proposed it is an absolute example of the old saying: "A Camel is a horse built by committee."
     
  8. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Sounds kinda like the bailouts...er...I mean...loans....to failed investment banks and automobile giants that have demonstrated poor management.
     
  9. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but CIT is pretty much the only TARP recipient to file for bankruptcy (I know, they haven't yet, but they will)

    It's inevitable that a decent portion of the bailouts won't be paid back, but at least there's an expectation that the loans that are paid back will generate a decent amount of interest income. As for the auto giants and their bad management...GM's CEO was ousted, Chrysler was sold to Fiat, and Ford didn't take any money. Whatever the outcome, it's safe to say there's probably going to be some inflation down the road. Although there isn't much of an inflation trade going on right now, the increase in the money supply will affect price levels even more so than the cost-push inflation we experienced under $150 a barrel oil because once the economy recovers, oil prices will surge with it, giving us a double wammy of cost-push inflation in the short run and the depreciation of our currency in the long run brought about by a dramatically increased money supply

    ...either that or the Fed will jack rates up to double digits to combat the inflation...both options suck in my opinion
     
  10. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    More would have gone the way of Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros without TARP.

    And more still might fail. The fact that some of those banks were caught awarding lavish bonuses after TARP indicates just how far from reality the universe of those insulated, entitled bank execs really is.

    Thankyou for being frank.

    As to probable inflation coming due to all the government borrowing and spending...perhaps so but preferable to the alternative: doing nothing.
     
  11. Blagoblog

    Blagoblog Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    IIRC the government has come out ahead in the first wave of TARP repayments; also I think a major idea behind nationalizing health insurance is that such things as a gigantic risk pool, greater usage of preventive care, and limits on the profit motive, adverse selection, and cross-provider incompatibility will lead to such savings that the average cost to the taxpayer to implement this scheme (shoehorned in by the public option) will be lower than the average cost of obtaining health care under the current system.

    Now I'm normally opposed to the government trying to do what could better be done by the private sector, but arguments like this make it clear that treating health care as a public good is a good idea: FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: George F. Will Admits Public Option Will Cut Costs
     
  12. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    A lot of people against say this, but I haven't seen anywhere in Obama's Health Care proposal that would essentially force people to own insurance. If anything, this provides people with another option. Most current plans either cost too much already, and most government programs at this time force people to be retired or practically bankrupt before they offer any assistance.

    Most of the stuff you're suggesting makes sense. We'll just have to see how this all plays out.
     
  13. Trinity

    Trinity New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,682
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Female
    There are so many things to consider in this. Do you want a lower cost government option? If you have Aetna or Cigna and you are fine with it...the scary part is your employer might say the government option is cheaper and dump Aetna and Cigna as options for you to choose. Someone who doesn't have healthcare insurance might be grateful for the wealthy subsidizing their access to the government option, but what if they get brain cancer and bureaucrats won't approve costly MRI tests in a timely manner, and then won't approve the expensive brain surgery and then the long term care because we can't break the system by spending too much money on limited subsidized care? What if the expanision of healthcare makes costs rise...for everyone?

    CBO says costs will rise as healthcare expanded

    CBO Sees No Net Federal Cost Savings in Dem Health Plans

    Lawmakers Warned About Health Costs
     
  14. Trinity

    Trinity New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,682
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Female
    Obama is forcing this healthcare reform. He isn't dictating his own bill so we must live with what Obama and his party come up with and force through congress. The bill currently that Obama is backing:
    A Breakdown of the House Democrats' Health Bill
    REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS: Individuals must have insurance, enforced through tax penalty with hardship waivers. The penalty is 2.5 percent of income.
    REQUIREMENTS FOR EMPLOYERS: Employers must provide insurance to their employees or pay a penalty of 8 percent of payroll. Companies with payroll under $250,000 annually are exempt.
     
  15. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,333
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,197
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you don't believe there is a beaurocracy standing between Patients and their access to health care under PRIVATE plans, you are sorely mistaken. It's called Managed Care or as I prefer, mangled care. Examples: First a personal one. I take Lipitor for cholesterol management. I received a letter from my INSURANCE company stating that they wanted me to request from my doctor that he prescribe a different medication and if I didn't the co-pay for that drug would rise from 10 dollars a month to FIFTY dollars a month. So the insurance company interfered and punished me for taking THE DRUG that my cardiologist wants me to take.
    I used to work as a registered nurse who took care of patients undergoing Bone Marrow Transplants for leukemia. It is a costly procedure, and the only one with any efficacy for patients with certain forms of Leukemia. Patients with medicare and medicaid were ALWAYS approved to receive this treatment. PRIVATE insurance companies routinely denied access to this treatment. The whole idea of Managed Care for the insurance companies is to cut costs and make money.Stories such as these are rampant in the Private insurance industry and managed care. So the bugaboo that care would be rationed or denied under a public option is a fallacy. I intend on signing on for a Public Plan as soon as it becomes available
     
  16. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,333
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,197
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    Hillary was for MANDATES.
     
  17. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    That still doesn't suggest that you HAVE to take the government plan. Most people will have insurance through their employers anyhow. Besides, we don't even know how much this government plan will cost per person if its implemented. Do you know this answer? It's safe to say that you DON'T. And until we know those kind of details, I'm not even going to get all worked up over it. Just saying that it's "too much" isn't enough for me. Show me the actual dollar signs, not some fear mongered rhetoric.
     
  18. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not too keen on the provisions of the healthcare plans, I'll admit that...but I have heard of plans to force all employers to provide insurance for their employees...they report this even on CNN. If this happens, it will lead to serious problems for businesses. I can speak from experience with this matter. I've known the president/owner of the company I work for for about 8 years now. I know she wants to have a group insurance plan for her employees, and she did, until a couple months ago, when her insurance provider dropped the coverage because we were "1 person too short." No one that was already on the plan dropped out...the insurance company basically said "fuck you" and raised the quota so they wouldn't have to pay. You can't really force employers to provide insurance when insurance companies are pulling this kind of shit. We'd probably have to turn all insurance companies into GSE's if we want them to cooperate...
     
  19. Ajacoid

    Ajacoid Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2009
    Messages:
    33
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM, USA
    Name one country where its government has taxed and spent it into prosperity...

    Chirp... Chirp... Chirp... Chirp... Chirp... Chirp...
     
  20. Trinity

    Trinity New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,682
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Female
    Since you didn't want Hillary for President, this is about Obama's healthcare plan. Vinyl claimed that Obama's plan only gave another option. Wrong. There is a penalty for individuals and employers.

    The whole point of Universal Healthcare is to cover the millions of uninsured and underinsured. So don't give me most will be covered by their employers. :rolleyes: And as I previously stated, the government option may reduce private options for those who are actually happy with their health insurance just based on costs to the employer. Until we know the details? The congress hashes this out and passes it and that's when we know the details. Obama is pushing something that isn't written...prime example you didn't even know there was a Penalty for refusing healthcare. By the time we see the final bill, Obama will be signing it, shoving it down our throats and ruining the economy.

    Yes, I posted it. Employers with payroll under 250K are exempt.

    Can you imagine the federal government trillions in debt and deficit, raising taxes to increase revenue which is unpopular and damaging to politicians, and in the worst recession in history weighing costs against the best care? The federal government has never managed anything efficiently.

    You sign on if you want to. I want to see if congress keeps the provision in the bill that requires congress and federal employees to take the Government Option. If all the Congressmen and women stand in line and go by their own bureaucratic standards for care...we will see.

    tumble weeds.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted