Broke....except:

D

deleted15807

Guest
^ There's nothing here Captain. It has nothing substantive to say. Agreed...take us out of here ensign....Let me see there it is......my ignore list. We shan't be bothered with this life form again. We should have done it long time ago. Engage.

Well what do you expect? No one volunteers to give up income however much they have. Of course the rich will lie and cheat to hang on to it.

And today they've got 'the poor' lined up to help them. Voting against their own self-interest. The biggest coup of all.
 

FuzzyKen

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
2,045
Media
0
Likes
100
Points
193
Gender
Male
Since the original subject was disaster relief presumably from Hurricane Irene if it happens:

The FEDS have earmarked money, but there is a problem. If one researches carefully a great deal of the promised disaster relief has never materialized.

I am told that there are still places where evidence of Hurricane Andrew can be seen in Florida. Not being a Florida resident myself my words are relays from others, but based on past performance of the FEDS and the political wrangling, I would have no reason to doubt this to be the case.

We all know the bungling that took place in New Orleans, Louisiana after one of the most destructive hurricanes in U.S. history. Large portions of damaged areas still remain a mess to this day and though there has been some help, the feds made their P.R. appearances promised aid and other than public health items it never happened.

If there were to be extensive damage in the northeast from Irene, I right now have good friends from Palm Springs back there who will be first hand eyewitnesses to it. I expect fully that the FEDS and the aid will be more in words than anything else.

We will see. The fact is that there is no money.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
And today they've got 'the poor' lined up to help them. Voting against their own self-interest. The biggest coup of all.[/FONT]

Isn't self interest a capitalistic or right wing trait?!:smile: Isn't it that very trait that leads to the destruction of capitalism? Shouldn't the left & liberals say "Bring It On!":biggrin1:

In contrast to the utilitarians who conceive of self-interest as a regulator of a harmonious society, Marx sees individual self-interest among capitalists as destructive of their class interest in general, and as leading to the ultimate self-destruction of capitalism. The very fact that each capitalist acts rationally in his own self-interest leads to ever deepening economic crises and hence to the destruction of the interests common to all.


http://www.bolender.com/Sociological Theory/Marx, Karl/marx,_karl.htm
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Isn't self interest a capitalistic or right wing trait?!:smile: Isn't it that very trait that leads to the destruction of capitalism? Shouldn't the left & liberals say "Bring It On!"

Does the so called 'Left' want the destruction of capitalism? Or do they simply want a more equitable share in the spoils of this quickly diminishing planet?
 

ConanTheBarber

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2011
Posts
5,314
Media
0
Likes
2,110
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Coming from the EDITORIAL PAGE from the Washington post doesn't make it an op-ed piece?

ed·i·to·ri·al

noun 1. an article in a newspaper or other periodical presenting the opinion of the publisher, editor, or editors.

An op-ed piece is not written by the publisher or by anyone affiliated with the editorial board.
"Op-ed" is an abbreviation for "opposite the editorial page."
So something drawn from the editorial page would not be an op-ed.
I would say most op-ed pieces are written by people who have no connection with the newspaper at all. Henry Kissinger or Bill Gates might write an op-ed piece. They seem to be invariably signed.
I suppose a writer for the paper might write a one-off signed piece to appear on the op-ed page, but I don't see it often.

E.J. Dionne Jr. writes a regular opinion column for the Washington Post. He's not an op-ed writer.
 

Incocknito

Sexy Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Posts
2,480
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
133
Location
La monde
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
America has been running a huge deficit since WWII. It's not necessarily a bad thing, because the US had been able to do it on account of being the strongest economy in the world with an impeccable credit rating. The recent S&P rating downgrade is because they'd lost confidence in the US's ability to pay back its debts. This is why people were fighting so hard not to raise the debt ceiling, since the US was bumping up against that limit where if they were any deeper in debt their rating would be downgraded.

So the US once again has more credit, which they can use for disaster relief, but really don't pay too much attention to that. It's small potatoes compared to the trillions that are wasted on healthcare. Most people don't know where to find these data, and the news never reports it, but in the states the government actually spends more per capita on healthcare (medicare and medicaid) than Canada does, yet Canadians have universal healthcare. Also, there's a huge crunch coming up in social security that there is basically no plan for, and we've known about since FDR, yet everyone is just ignoring.

Anyways, this is a really good read. It's just the wikipedia article so it's not some think tank or pundit's page, so no matter what your politics it's a good idea to be up on these numbers:
United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most interesting to me: one half (approx ~1.7 trillion) of the entire budget is social security + medical + debt interest. These numbers are already incredibly high, and expected to rise to the point where by 2025 (according to the Obama administration) the entire budget at current tax levels will _only_ cover social security + medical + interest. That means you'd basically have no government, and it's less than 14 years away. It could be even sooner, since the expenses are guaranteed to rise, but the economy is likely to shrink as companies move to other nations and the US tax receipts shrink.

This may be the best post in the forum. Since it doesn't mention Democrats or Republicans and picks no side.

I don't really know why Americans are so against the idea of national healthcare.

It helps everyone, especially the poor; who seem to suffer the most as they can't afford healthcare in the current system.

Doctors will still be rich because people will still use premium rate, private solutions for more immediate and personalised treatment.

There is a stereotype that most Americans are stupid (and fat) that just won't go away. It won't go away because there are enough stupid (and fat) Americans perpetuating it.
 
D

deleted213967

Guest
There is a stereotype that most Americans are stupid (and fat) that just won't go away. It won't go away because there are enough stupid (and fat) Americans perpetuating it.

Facetiousness aside, a great deal of the country's health care woes has to do with Americans being excessively fat indeed.
 

cruztbone

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Posts
1,283
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
258
Age
71
Location
Capitola CA USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
the federal money for 'DOMA is approved each year. it is in a reserve account waiting to be used for disasters like Irene.
it is called an emergency reserve. just like the ones we, who are school board trustees, are required to maintain for emergencies like state budget cutbacks, natural disasters and escaped embezzlers of school funds.
and yes, Domisoldo , americans are too fat and stupid (tea party members are a good example) and that is why MIchele Obama is leading the GET MOVING program for k-12 students nationwide. and that is why our school district , like so many others in CA , is promoting healthy delicious menus with fresh produce, much like that grown in the White House garden.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
Which I imagine the students will refuse to eat? That seems to be the rule in the UK.

Tough titty. That'll get them slimmer.

A tax on junk/fatty foods should have been brought in years ago - globally.

Cigarettes & alcohol are highly taxed, so should anything else that causes long-term medical problems.

Of course, it is really another tax that falls most heavily on the poorest...in all truth if non healthy products attracted zero taxation, then more people would live a life based upon their own choice, & if they chose to enjoy knocking off a few years off their life by smoking, drinking & eating deep fried burgers, it would ultimately mean...

...healthcare costs would go down! People are living too long without being economically active. If spending the last 15 years of your existence soiling yourself, not knowing who any one is, or where you are, it's not much of a life.

The other route is to at least raise the retirement age to 70 (being as if you get to 60, you'll life another 27 years on average), & actively prosecute those who discriminate on age.
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
I don't really know why Americans are so against the idea of national healthcare.

It helps everyone, especially the poor; who seem to suffer the most as they can't afford healthcare in the current system.

I posted this over a year ago - California inmate costs - NB HEALTHCARE!
California Criminal Justice FAQ: How much does it cost to incarcerate an inmate?

It costs $12,500/annum to keep a prisoner healthy. That's mad. That's almost as much as the entire inmate cost in Alabama. It's 4 times higher than the free healthcare/person cost in the UK.

Something is seriously wrong with the health system, & all the concomitant litigation, if it charges that much for a static population!

I think the USA spends $760Bn on free healthcare - which is only about 20% less per capita than the UK. Just like the UK, I don't think it's very efficiently spent.
 
Last edited:

Horrible

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Posts
424
Media
6
Likes
2
Points
51
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
the federal money for 'DOMA is approved each year. it is in a reserve account waiting to be used for disasters like Irene.
it is called an emergency reserve. just like the ones we, who are school board trustees, are required to maintain for emergencies like state budget cutbacks, natural disasters and escaped embezzlers of school funds.
and yes, Domisoldo , americans are too fat and stupid (tea party members are a good example) and that is why MIchele Obama is leading the GET MOVING program for k-12 students nationwide. and that is why our school district , like so many others in CA , is promoting healthy delicious menus with fresh produce, much like that grown in the White House garden.

We get it.


You like BHO.


Will you get off his nuts when he's voted out in November?
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I think the USA spends $760Bn on free healthcare - which is only about 20% less per capita than the UK. Just like the UK, I don't think it's very efficiently spent.
Im not aware there is much evidence the Uk health system Is inefficient at all, certainly compared to the US. Over the last 30 years all sort of schemes has been tried to improve its efficiency and none has shown any result except to increase the proportion of spending on management.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Tough titty. That'll get them slimmer.
There was this golden age after ww2 when rationing persisted and then the period after when people were forced by availability to have healthy diets. They dont like it though. So which side of this debate do you come down, tax bad foods to discourage consuming them, or deliberately dont so that people die sooner thereby avoiding the care costs crisis?

People are living too long without being economically active.
Basically, this is bollocks. Since we throw away most of what we spend money on, the reality is we need far less than we consume now. Having a shorter working life or shorter working week is a question of more efficient lifestyle. No one ever discusses this. Instead we have the insanity of perpetual 'growth', which means perpetually increasing waste.

If spending the last 15 years of your existence soiling yourself, not knowing who any one is, or where you are, it's not much of a life.
So better get behind the lobby demanding the right to assisted suicide.
 

Redwyvre

Cherished Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Posts
607
Media
0
Likes
321
Points
128
Location
Minneapolis (Minnesota, United States)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Dandelion is correct. Managing healthcare costs is an intractable situation. Sister-in law's father died recently. He spent over two years on kidney dialysis at $10,000/week paid for by Medicare. Was informed last week my healthcare insurance will go up by 18-30% per year with bigger jumps at age 45, 50, 55, ect. Obviously, as a culture we don't really want affordable healthcare, yet it is delusional to think this isn't effecting the rest of our economy.
'nother interesting note. Have a friend who is refinancing his home mortgage with a 20 year loan for around 3.3%! I said, "But that doesn't make sense why would anybody lend money at that low of an interest rate." He said he was getting in on a one time Federal Government program. It must be true the Fed is lending money for 0% interest. Does this make any sense to anyone. Seems crazy.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Have a friend who is refinancing his home mortgage with a 20 year loan for around 3.3%! I said, "But that doesn't make sense why would anybody lend money at that low of an interest rate." He said he was getting in on a one time Federal Government program. It must be true the Fed is lending money for 0% interest. Does this make any sense to anyone. Seems crazy.

Low interest rates are a tool governments use to boast the economy. High interest rates similarly is a tool to cool an over-heating economy.
 

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,793
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
With all the talk of just how broke we are; could someone please explain to me just where the money comes from for Federal Disaster Relief? Now that Hurricane Irene is probably going to barrel up the East Coast (and had the earthquake out East been much more devestating) --- where do the "billions" come from in promised AID? Is this just more deficit spending? Thanks!!

Economics is like this:

We are not broke.

What we are, is being run into insolvency by a GOP that has been trying to make government small enough to "drown in a bathtub" like an unwanted baby... at least, according to former GOP leader DeLay.

By giving massive tax cuts to folks who have way more money than they need, and committing the nation to a schedule of defense spending on two wars that is cripplingly large, the GOP has succeeded in UNDERFUNDING the richest 'nation' on earth.

In short... they decided to take LESS money in, and then voted to spend more money than we take in. (keep in mind that, when the so called 'fiscally responsible' GOP took control of all three branches of government, that this nation had a balanced budget, and was actively paying down debt with its surplus.)


But the 'people', who voted for a 'small government' agenda, nevertheless still want the nation to keep providing services. And the GOP still wants to continue corporate welfare programs that enrich the corporations to whom they are indebted.
So the government has to borrow the money against future earning... Just as you might have to, if you have an essential need crop up that you can not afford to pay with cash.

In other words, the nation's need to deficit spend has been created by spending bills passed by congress that exceed the amount of money they are willing to ask the public to pay in taxes.

There is plenty of money... the GOP is just unwilling to take it from corporations and individuals whose profits are at record high levels, despite the massive unemployment and economic ennui that are crushing most of the population. The very individuals and corporations who most greatly benefit from the stability and infrastructure that the government provided.

The GOP likes to cast this as a "family" scenario... that, when times get tough, the 'family' has to Cut Expenses. That they can not spend beyond their means.

Fair enough... but in fact, when times get tough, families cut as many discretionary expenses as they can... but if daddy's car needs to be fixed so he can get to work, they charge it.

And, when times get so hard that a family has to start cutting medicine for grandma... cut food... or cut into paying for heat and electricity.... then maybe, just maybe, that family has to entertain the idea that they have to INCREASE REVENUE. ...i.e. make more money... no matter what the cost. Maybe Daddy has to get a second job, or ask for a raise.
Maybe Mommy can't be a stay at home mother anymore and has to get a job.
Maybe Junior has to start a paper route.
ANYTHING to bring in more money, to survive.

But the GOP says no to any increase in federal revenue, even though, thru most of the last century, the rich and corporations paid a LOT more in taxes, and they STILL got richer, and the nations economy grew at a faster rate than it has since the Deregulation and tax cutting frenzy of the 12 years prior to the recent economic crash.


Now- about disaster relief....

As I pointed out... in the mythic american family... if Daddy needs to get to work to earn any money at all, and his car's engine explodes... the family has no choice but to enter into debt to have it fixed...

If need be, the family might have to sign on for five years of additional debt to buy another car, if that is the only way to keep making a living.

Natural disasters wreck the infrastructure that the American people use to make a living... and their making a living is where the government gets its money. They not only tax the people's income, they tax their economic activity.

The Government has no choice but to try and get an affected area back up and running as quickly as possible, even if it means borrowing the money to do it.

If daddy getting to work brings in $3000 per month... and replacing a broken car costs $500 per month, plus interest on the loan of $75 per month....
Then Daddy would be an Idiot not to take the loan.


The problem with the debt crisis is that the GOP is arguing that, right now... with Daddy taking a pay cut, and the car broken down, and Daddy unable to get to work, that NOW is when Daddy can not afford to take on the additional debt of replacing the car.

The Whole point of a good credit rating ( like we USED to have) is to be able to borrow money when things get bad. When borrowing money makes the difference between surviving, or going under.
Or when borrowing money has the potential to pay off better than the cost of borrowing... ( The 'family' would borrow money to buy a second car,too, if it means Mommy can get a job and increase the family's future income, right? )

When things are going well... as they were under the Clinton presidency ( not his doing... but the explosion of the internet... which was an infrastructure built by the government)... THAT is when the family needs to allocate resources to paying down debt.
NOT in the midst of the crisis.

But then, Even the GOP understands that.
They spent like drunken sailors to try and deal with the recession caused by the collapse of the dot.com bubble... borrowing money to fight two wars...

They just spent it in the worst possible way, on things that did not increase revenue long term. They cut spending on infrastructure, cut further the regulations that, for 70 years, had prevented the boom and bust economics that are the result of a laissez faire policy.

And they cut income by letting the rich even further off the hook. Equivalent to having daddy quit his high paying job and get a job paying 30% less.


But the GOP does not care about your pain and your inability to make ends meet... they and their buddies have no trouble making ends meet.

They know full well that cutting spending, NOW, in the midst of crisis, is going to tank the economy.

They WANT to tank the economy. Because they know the American people are stupid enough to blame a tanked economy on the president... and all they care about is getting a republican back into power...

So they can then continue transferring the nation's treasure into the hands the already rich and already powerful.

Sure, this will eventually destroy the country... but when the shit hits the fan, you want to have friends on the Riviera, not in the bronx.
 

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,793
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
BTW- there are very few potholes in DC
And all the zip codes in the US with the highest life expectancy are the zip codes surrounding washington DC... because the majority of affluent suburban residents of DC have government jobs and therefore have government healthcare.


The GOP presidential candidates all cry that Government can not create jobs... while they all spend millions of dollars to ensure They have a government job.

Wake up.

tax the rich... tax corporate profits with the only loophole being for money invested in DOMESTIC job creation.

And back government stimulus spending on real infrastructure. The US can not compete with nations that are building everything new, unless we rebuild what's falling apart.

The US did not become the economic powerhouse of the world via private corporate spending... it was Government deficit spending leading up to and thru WWII that built the modern factories, water and power systems, and phone and road networks and that ENABLED corporate america to out-compete the rest of the world.

It was not that the Japanese were better workers or had better corporate culture than the US that allowed them to undermine our automobile industry in the 70's... It was that they had the newest, government subsidized factories capable of building more accurately assembled cars at lower costs...
And what it took for the US to compete was investment in new manufacturing facilities.

And today... the US phone network, the US roadway and rail system, even the US electric grid, is out of date and falling into ruin.

The only way to improve American job and income prospects, long term, is for the US government to deficit spend massively on infrastructure improvement.
THAT new base on which to run will allow US corporations and US workers to compete with the nations who now out spend us on laying the groundwork for an economic future.

Forget about debt for right now. Focus on the long term.

The Interstate highway system was built by Eisenhower after he saw the economic advantage that Germany's autobahn had provided Hitler.
Free superhighways for the use of the public... the largest, most expensive jobs program in US history.

The interstates, alone, tripled the US GNP. That investment of borrowed money paid back its cost a thousand times over in increased productivity and a more affordable future.

Think big

or resign yourselves to a future of being a third rate nation.

Support your government... and make sure the wealthy support it, too.