Barney Frank Slaps Wall Street Silly
I tried to post in Free Speech but it tried to direct me to diversitytomorrow.
Quote: lojoThe * Banks are saying they have to reserve the capital they have. It's part and parcel of the whole hostage situation. The economy won't grow if people don't invest, yes?
The economy lacks demand.......most Americans are broke.
Why has the economy 'stalled'? Because the money isn't flowing is my only guess.
Quote: lojoI wonder why we are broke? Everybody I know is working harder than they did 10 years ago. Doesn't it take money flowing to create wealth? I remember back in the 70's taking home 137 a week and doing about as good as most are now, better than many actually. Did you know that if the wage for fast food workers, actually everybody at McD's had their income doubled, all the way to the CEO, it would add 60c to the cost of a Big Mac? I'm no economist by any means, I just know that money is cheap right now but they aren't lending it - that has been strangling the economy since 2008. The sequester sure isn't helping cash flow. I always believed that being 'fiscally conservative' started with paying your bills and then maybe NOT taking on new debt, but you paid the bills in your budget first
Raise your prices 25-30% and see what happens to your sales. Banks are not lending because:
1. People do not want to invest with the regime in power as they do not know how many new regulations and costs they will impose
2. Banks can make money at no risk by borrowing from the Fed and buying government bonds. Why would the lend with risk?
Quote:Why has the economy 'stalled'? Because the money isn't flowing is my only guess.
It has stalled because of increased taxes and regulation. Obamacare alone is a huge disincentive to invest. Threatened "carbon taxes" are another. Promised minimum wage boosts yet another. All in all we have the most business hostile administration since 1933. And people want to know why the economy is stalled?
Quote: lojoDid you know that if the wage for fast food workers, actually everybody at McD's had their income doubled, all the way to the CEO, it would add 60c to the cost of a Big Mac?
I am pretty convinced any of these similar statements are a canard. I'm familiar with the practice of certain machinaters with various motives who take the cost of doing business and projecting a very small or very large mark-up. They know the public can't understand any of it. In this case, if the 60c is accurate at all, it would be based on a cost of 55c with the assumption there is no need to mark it up much. In reality, restaurants operate on an enormous mark-up which seems to be an necessity. Next time you order an orange-juice with breakfast, go to the grocery store and figure out how much it actually costs, and chew on that for a while.
Quote: odiousgambitI am pretty convinced any of these similar statements are a canard. I'm 0c familiar with the practice of certain machinaters with various motives who take the cost of doing business and projecting a very small or very large mark-up. They know the public can't understand any of it. In this case, if the 60c is accurate at all, it would be based on a cost of 55c with the assumption there is no need to mark it up much. In reality, restaurants operate on an enormous mark-up which seems to be an necessity. Next time you order an orange-juice with breakfast, go to the grocery store and figure out how much it actually costs, and chew on that for a while.
Restaurants seem to have about a 300% mark-up on food. This covers facilities, insurance, G&A, misc, and mostly labor. I seem to remember hearing this 60c figure and it was debunked because whoever made it up just took gross food sales and divided it by employees of MCD. They missed the fact that the employee data was for MCD and not total system-wide store level employees, a far higher number. It is also a static analysis meaning when the price of a Big Mac goes up 60c then fewer are sold.
In any case I am a bit tired of this, "you can't raise a family of 4 on minimum wage/at MCD/at WMT, etc." You could never raise a family on an entry level job. You are not supposed to be able to. If you have an entry level job you are supposed to wait until you move a few steps up the ladder to earn more.
That's all that you have? Nothing about Teleprompters or maybe Vince Foster?Quote: wrongwayBarney knows a thing or two about capitalism. His partner was running a male prostitution ring out of Barney's home...
Quote: lojoI wonder why we are broke? Everybody I know is working harder than they did 10 years ago. Doesn't it take money flowing to create wealth? I remember back in the 70's taking home 137 a week and doing about as good as most are now, better than many actually. Did you know that if the wage for fast food workers, actually everybody at McD's had their income doubled, all the way to the CEO, it would add 60c to the cost of a Big Mac? I'm no economist by any means, I just know that money is cheap right now but they aren't lending it - that has been strangling the economy since 2008. The sequester sure isn't helping cash flow. I always believed that being 'fiscally conservative' started with paying your bills and then maybe NOT taking on new debt, but you paid the bills in your budget first.
Why has the economy 'stalled'? Because the money isn't flowing is my only guess.
But adding wi-fi added $1.
Quote: s2dbakerThat's all that you have? Nothing about Teleprompters or maybe Vince Foster?
Barney Frank killed Vince Foster?
Quote: CalderBarney Frank killed Vince Foster?
No, video killed the radio star. We must have our facts right if we are to debate such matters!
Quote: odiousgambitI am pretty convinced any of these similar statements are a canard. I'm familiar with the practice of certain machinaters with various motives who take the cost of doing business and projecting a very small or very large mark-up. They know the public can't understand any of it. In this case, if the 60c is accurate at all, it would be based on a cost of 55c with the assumption there is no need to mark it up much. In reality, restaurants operate on an enormous mark-up which seems to be an necessity. Next time you order an orange-juice with breakfast, go to the grocery store and figure out how much it actually costs, and chew on that for a while.
According to the Kansas City researcher who did the original wages-to-Big Mac study, McDonald's spends about 17% of U.S. revenue on employee salaries and benefits. So I don't think think he used your suggested method for arriving at the number ($0.68 actually)
Read more: xttp://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-could-double-wages-for-employees-and-make-less-money-2013-7#ixzz2fTl4GVF0
The Business Insider article makes a great case for simply doubling all *employees wages and cutting profits to a lousy $5.5 billion a year.
Quote: AZDuffmanRaise your prices 25-30% and see what happens to your sales. Banks are not lending because:
1. People do not want to invest with the regime in power as they do not know how many new regulations and costs they will impose
2. Banks can make money at no risk by borrowing from the Fed and buying government bonds. Why would the lend with risk?
It has stalled because of increased taxes and regulation. Obamacare alone is a huge disincentive to invest. Threatened "carbon taxes" are another. Promised minimum wage boosts yet another. All in all we have the most business hostile administration since 1933. And people want to know why the economy is stalled?
We would simply have to agree to disagree on this one. Your statements are the party line "excuse". I believe it is a hostage situation pure and simple. Your argument #1 is frail; risk management tells us we CAN invest and pull out at x% loss (or continue to long term profit) if a new regulatory environment takes effect. Keep in mind that a great majority of economy movement is small business, (99%) and not to be a douche, but your average employer of 25 people or less (true small business) is simply not well enough informed to form a cogent argument that would validate that statement. He does, however, happen to be vote Republican on average
#2 I can concede that point, but it is a bit more complicated than that, isn't it.
Taxes and Regulation: The economy stalled because of what occurred prior to 2008. Being gamblers we can take a random draw of SIC codes, say 20 purely at random and take a look at if, indeed, they face new taxes and regulations under the current administration. We can then look at any new business incentives they have available and see if they are better off now, or in 2007. You game? I'm not because I already know the answer.
Carbon Taxes: Sure, let's fall behind the rest of the world here too.
Obamacare: Talk about a hostage situation! The radical nestea party held rational Republicans hostage today - Boehner will bend, the govt will not shut down. And again, let's just go back to millions of uninsured Americans driving up the cost of health care and stay in the back of the pack in relation to developed nations. Decline and fall America, it's the patriotic thing to do! I haven't looked at the numbers on this issue, it is the will of the people and it is the law of the land - no reason to hold the economy hostage by not investing.
Minimum Wage: The old saws just don't play in this era. I've read enough economists (okay I'm a Krugman fan) who debunk that claim on merit. It will actually stimulate the economy if employers also invest! Of course it would only be a burden otherwise and there would be some layoffs and failures. Point: when I was researching chicanery by gtech the other night and saw the misreporting of where a winning lottery ticket was bought (120 miles from where they said it was) I was also looking at the economy and saw a McDonalds operating 20 feet (across the street) from a state with a $2 less minimum wage. They were doing fine and didn't plan to move, they didn't move when they tore the old store down and built a new one in it's place. Sales tax is higher where they are, almost all taxes are - but I ramble. In short, your argument no longer holds water. Google Forbes on minimum wage, read with open mind, report back. Thank you.
Business hostile administration: Rubbish. Had the 2010 HIRE act gone through at the 150 billion the President proposed rather than the trickle of $17.5 billion the "pro-business party" allowed we would have seen a much greater affect.
I bore myself, you are of your opinion and I tire of debating stalwarts so unless you want to rebut, with data and fact, not thought experiments, talking points, or think tank propaganda please expect my responses to be one liners on these subjects.
We're all gamblers here - how do ya think the House gambit over Obama care is gonna work out for the party? lol
Quote: Sabretom2Don't know much about Barney Fag. Vince Forter is certainly dead. The economy sucks. And, If you squint just a little, Aaron Alexis could be Obama's son.
I'm not sure calling someone a 'fag' adds much to the conversation.
Quote: lojoWe would simply have to agree to disagree on this one. Your statements are the party line "excuse". I believe it is a hostage situation pure and simple. Your argument #1 is frail; risk management tells us we CAN invest and pull out at x% loss (or continue to long term profit) if a new regulatory environment takes effect. Keep in mind that a great majority of economy movement is small business, (99%) and not to be a douche, but your average employer of 25 people or less (true small business) is simply not well enough informed to form a cogent argument that would validate that statement.
l
I would like to see something to back up your you statement that small business owners are "not well informed."
Quote: lojoI'm not sure calling someone a 'fag' adds much to the conversation.
Neither does making fun of my spelling challenge.
Quote: timberjimI would like to see something to back up your you statement that small business owners are "not well informed."
Well, nothing empirical to be sure. But if we look at how 'they vote', and where they get their information, and the way they spew party line politics instead of investigating issues, we can anecdotally surmise - a goodly majority are now faux newz shleep.
I don't keep my finger on the pulse, but I could almost guess what sort of business you are in (if employing less than 25 people) by the way you vote. We are all profiled with (how ya say plural matix?) online, but I can read a person and hunker down in the old fashioned ways.
At the risk of assuming you meant red or blue politics in regards to informed (I did) I will admit it was a goad.
My "feeling" from experience in economies like this is that MOST small business owners are not colored red or blue when they vote with their wallet, when they decide to invest or not; that they get the information they use to struggle and boogie in any economy from the market they operate in, not politics. We live in a new world today where it is NOT the under 25 employees guy who has fuck all to say about 'pro business politics'. If that seems to make my point invalid, so be it, there are reasons.
For the statement you challenged I conjured an archetype. That was of a pawnshop owner in Lousiana, who sued the Obama government for relief after a storm, claiming their business had been damaged by an oil spill when we all know damn well they set up a second set of books to stay out of the "new economy" and did landslide business on the backs on people who actually suffered from an oil spill, a storm, a collapse, whatever. I also conjured a gas station owner in Ohio in 1979, a newspaper owner in Ypsilanti, a media company in Chicago, and over a hundred small business owners I have talked to since 2008.
Red, Blue or otherwise, if you are a true small business owner (less than 500 employees) I can inform you and help you release capital and create jobs. Call it charity, call one point of light, call it, break this bullshit economic hostage situation.
If your post was for the sake of argument you will be given one liners just like dude. If you are a small business owner and want to grow I am all ears and sound advice in public. I have nothing to sell.
Quote: Sabretom2Neither does making fun of my spelling challenge.
Okay spellng lesson
FRANK
F (all words beginning with f)
How do you make that a spelling challenge?
You are a bigot unless you can explain this simple mystery, sir.
Quote: lojoWell, nothing empirical to be sure. But if we look at how 'they vote', and where they get their information, and the way they spew party line politics instead of investigating issues, we can anecdotally surmise - a goodly majority are now faux newz shleep.
I don't keep my finger on the pulse, but I could almost guess what sort of business you are in (if employing less than 25 people) by the way you vote. We are all profiled with (how ya say plural matix?) online, but I can read a person and hunker down in the old fashioned ways.
At the risk of assuming you meant red or blue politics in regards to informed (I did) I will admit it was a goad.
My "feeling" from experience in economies like this is that MOST small business owners are not colored red or blue when they vote with their wallet, when they decide to invest or not; that they get the information they use to struggle and boogie in any economy from the market they operate in, not politics. We live in a new world today where it is NOT the under 25 employees guy who has fuck all to say about 'pro business politics'.
For the statement you challenged I conjured an archetype. That was of a pawnshop owner in Lousiiana, who sued the Obama government for relief after a storm, claiming their business had been damaged when we all know damn well they set up a second set of books to stay out of the "new economy" and did landslide business on the backs on people who actually suffered from an oil spill, a storm, a collapse, whatever. I also conjured a gas station owner in Ohio in 1979, a newspaper owner in Ypsilanti, a media company in Chicago, and over a hundred small business owners I have talked to since 2008.
Red, Blue or otherwise, if you are a true small business owner (less than 500 employees) I can inform you and help you release capital and create jobs. Call it charity, call one point of light, call it, break this bullshit economic hostage situation.
If your post was for the sake of argument you will be given one liners just like dude. If you are a small business owner and want to grow I am all ears and sound advice. In public, I have nothing to sell.
There was a time, for about a decade, where I was lobbying Congress, so I sort of have an idea of what you're saying. I don't think it's the Fox influence on small business as much as it is the Chamber of Commerce. For a century or more, the CC was active in every town, especially small ones, in promoting members, while being politically neutral. That has changed radically just in the last 15 or so years. Nearly every press release, convention, and executive committee is packed with a right-wing-agenda and that agenda is couched in language that leads the small business owner to think that the CC, which is supposed to be supporting things good for business, is actually doing that. They aren't. Quite a bit of what they advocate requires a local businessman to act and vote against his own best interests, from infrastructure investment to school bonds. And I think the change from neutral to right has been deliberately subtle and misleading, especially when they get caught doing that and deny it. In that respect, I do agree there is an ignorance among small business owners, and that's part of why.
Quote: Sabretom2Neither does making fun of my spelling challenge.
By the way, who introduced the first bill that would have normalized online gambling? was it Mr. Frank?
sush dude.
Quote: beachbumbabsThere was a time, for about a decade, where I was lobbying Congress, so I sort of have an idea of what you're saying. I don't think it's the Fox influence on small business as much as it is the Chamber of Commerce. For a century or more, the CC was active in every town, especially small ones, in promoting members, while being politically neutral. That has changed radically just in the last 15 or so years. Nearly every press release, convention, and executive committee is packed with a right-wing-agenda and that agenda is couched in language that leads the small business owner to think that the CC, which is supposed to be supporting things good for business, is actually doing that. They aren't. Quite a bit of what they advocate requires a local businessman to act and vote against his own best interests, from infrastructure investment to school bonds. And I think the change from neutral to right has been deliberately subtle and misleading, especially when they get caught doing that and deny it. In that respect, I do agree there is an ignorance among small business owners, and that's part of why.
I'll be back, would love to read this and respond but sober calls lol
Quote: beachbumbabsThere was a time, for about a decade, where I was lobbying Congress, so I sort of have an idea of what you're saying. I don't think it's the Fox influence on small business as much as it is the Chamber of Commerce. For a century or more, the CC was active in every town, especially small ones, in promoting members, while being politically neutral. That has changed radically just in the last 15 or so years. Nearly every press release, convention, and executive committee is packed with a right-wing-agenda and that agenda is couched in language that leads the small business owner to think that the CC, which is supposed to be supporting things good for business, is actually doing that. They aren't. Quite a bit of what they advocate requires a local businessman to act and vote against his own best interests, from infrastructure investment to school bonds. And I think the change from neutral to right has been deliberately subtle and misleading, especially when they get caught doing that and deny it. In that respect, I do agree there is an ignorance among small business owners, and that's part of why.
+1
Well informed
Now ya know me a little better :)
Quote: lojoWell, nothing empirical to be sure. But if we look at how 'they vote', and where they get their information, and the way they spew party line politics instead of investigating issues, we can anecdotally surmise - a goodly majority are now faux newz shleep.
If your post was for the sake of argument you will be given one liners just like dude. If you are a small business owner and want to grow I am all ears and sound advice in public. I have nothing to sell.
No argument. Just wanted you to make it clear to everyone reading this that you, by your own admission, have nothing to back up your statements.
It is a complete waste of time to try to debate any points with someone who has admitted that he makes up the facts he argues with since that is what he believes they should be.
Quote: lojoOkay spellng lesson
FRANK
F (all words beginning with f)
How do you make that a spelling challenge?
You are a bigot unless you can explain this simple mystery, sir.
Yep, I'm a bigot, thanks for opportunity to express myself.
Quote: beachbumbabsThere was a time, for about a decade, where I was lobbying Congress, so I sort of have an idea of what you're saying. I don't think it's the Fox influence on small business as much as it is the Chamber of Commerce. For a century or more, the CC was active in every town, especially small ones, in promoting members, while being politically neutral. That has changed radically just in the last 15 or so years. Nearly every press release, convention, and executive committee is packed with a right-wing-agenda and that agenda is couched in language that leads the small business owner to think that the CC, which is supposed to be supporting things good for business, is actually doing that. They aren't. Quite a bit of what they advocate requires a local businessman to act and vote against his own best interests, from infrastructure investment to school bonds. And I think the change from neutral to right has been deliberately subtle and misleading, especially when they get caught doing that and deny it. In that respect, I do agree there is an ignorance among small business owners, and that's part of why.
How is voting against infrastructure or school bonds just blanket "voting against the businessman's best interest?" Please explain this.
The CoC really doesn't influence small business in this way. Businesses join the CoC because they see them doing work that will help them in a positive way. If as a business owner living in a town that wants to build an unneeded new school with lots of unneeded things they pack in schools these days (eg: swimming pool, fancy gym, etc) sees a group trying to defeat such a measure then he will be more prone to join. If he just sees the CoC as a group to have lunch with then he will be less likely to care.
You seem to think small business owners are somehow stupid and do not understand their own situation. Other posts in the thread seem to think that the small business owner is not knowing how all of the regulations put in place have negatively affected him because he does not have a roomful of MBAs and lawyers to explain it to him. It seems to be implied here that the small business owner "just does not understand" that the higher minimum wage and Obamacare mandates will hurt him until his accountant gives him that week's checks to sign.
Why does the left-wing always assume this?
Quote: lojoWe would simply have to agree to disagree on this one. Your statements are the party line "excuse". I believe it is a hostage situation pure and simple. Your argument #1 is frail; risk management tells us we CAN invest and pull out at x% loss (or continue to long term profit) if a new regulatory environment takes effect. Keep in mind that a great majority of economy movement is small business, (99%) and not to be a douche, but your average employer of 25 people or less (true small business) is simply not well enough informed to form a cogent argument that would validate that statement. He does, however, happen to be vote Republican on average
Nonsense. See my other post. Small business owners are actually more likely to be affected by regulations and pull back even faster. I have seen it happen, been at state-level regulatory meetings. The small guy had to take hours of his day to figure how to comply, my place I just waited for HQ to tell me what to do. In this case, is the small guy going to buy another truck and expand? Doubtful.
Quote:Taxes and Regulation: The economy stalled because of what occurred prior to 2008. Being gamblers we can take a random draw of SIC codes, say 20 purely at random and take a look at if, indeed, they face new taxes and regulations under the current administration. We can then look at any new business incentives they have available and see if they are better off now, or in 2007. You game? I'm not because I already know the answer.
Horse Hockey. The Panic of 2008 was in reality not all that different than the dozen other "Panics" we had from 1800-1930. In those cases, except 1929, the damage happened and in a few years growth returned to normal. ALL businesses face new regulation post-2008 in the form of Obamacare alone. Add in the threat of taking away a worker's right to vote to join a union. Add in a POTUS who promised he would make your electric bill skyrocket. Add in a tax increase. Screw the "incentives" as all they do is distort investment.
Quote:Carbon Taxes: Sure, let's fall behind the rest of the world here too.
I am happy to fall as far behind the rest of the world in raising these taxes to solve some non-existent "problem" as we can. Let the rest of the world tax themselves to death here.
Quote:Obamacare: Talk about a hostage situation! The radical nestea party held rational Republicans hostage today - Boehner will bend, the govt will not shut down. And again, let's just go back to millions of uninsured Americans driving up the cost of health care and stay in the back of the pack in relation to developed nations. Decline and fall America, it's the patriotic thing to do! I haven't looked at the numbers on this issue, it is the will of the people and it is the law of the land - no reason to hold the economy hostage by not investing.
Just let them buy health insurance. I mean, that is the law under Obamacare, buy it or go to prison? Our health care is about the best out there, ask any Canadian who came across the border while they waited months for a MRI. It is just that everyone cannot drive a Cadillac. It would have been easier if the people who said "they don't mind higher taxes to cover everyone" would just individually buy a policy for one uninsured person each. Problem would have been solved. Instead we get people losing coverage left and right. Obamacare might be the biggest mess the USA ever created.
Quote:Minimum Wage: The old saws just don't play in this era. I've read enough economists (okay I'm a Krugman fan) who debunk that claim on merit. It will actually stimulate the economy if employers also invest! Of course it would only be a burden otherwise and there would be some layoffs and failures. Point: when I was researching chicanery by gtech the other night and saw the misreporting of where a winning lottery ticket was bought (120 miles from where they said it was) I was also looking at the economy and saw a McDonalds operating 20 feet (across the street) from a state with a $2 less minimum wage. They were doing fine and didn't plan to move, they didn't move when they tore the old store down and built a new one in it's place. Sales tax is higher where they are, almost all taxes are - but I ramble. In short, your argument no longer holds water. Google Forbes on minimum wage, read with open mind, report back. Thank you.
I have read and seen all I need to on MW. Raising it does not stimulate the economy any more than raising the price of gasoline by $1 helps it. Any Econ-101 student knows if you raise the price of something then no matter the price elasticity less will be consumed. Don't you wonder why there are all those self-serve check-outs at the store; why full-serve gasoline exists only by regulation; why self-serve kiosks are all around? Raise minimum wage and you increase unemployment among the least employable.
Quote:Business hostile administration: Rubbish. Had the 2010 HIRE act gone through at the 150 billion the President proposed rather than the trickle of $17.5 billion the "pro-business party" allowed we would have seen a much greater affect.
Mule Muffins. This administration got $865 BILLION in stimulus. That is about 5% of the economy. We don't need more "jobs bills." We need an administration that does not propose more regulation like it is a bodily function. We need an administration that does not call successful people and corporations "greedy" and demand they "pay their fair share." We need an administration that can explain how jobs get created without using the word "government."
Quote:how do ya think the House gambit over Obama care is gonna work out for the party? lol
It will do as intended. Whip up support against the law; put senators on record as supporting it; and show the >50% who want it repealed that they have a choice.
Yeah we will have to agree to disagree. But you really should know a little something about a subject like the Affordable Care Act before spewing such nonsense. If a person does not purchase insurance or is not otherwise covered (and it is affordable, btw with accelerated tax credits paying most of the bill for most people monthly) you DO NOT go to prison, nor are there any death panels, you might as well have thrown that in there. What happens is you will be fined/taxed (up to 1% of your income the first year or $95 whichever is most and that raises to 2.5% in 2015). That penalty is levied on your federal income tax and the only way they can ever collect it is to nick a tax return, they can't garnish wages, sue you in court, no other vehicle is provided to collect the penalty other than taking it out of a tax return.
Quote:It will do as intended. Whip up support against the law; put senators on record as supporting it; and show the >50% who want it repealed that they have a choice.
No, it will divide your party and cause the end of their ability to hold the nation hostage again. Dems will retain control of the Senate and regain control of the House in 2014 because the nestea buggers have destroyed the Republican party's credibility. kaput, finito, donesville.
Quote: lojo@AZDuffman
Yeah we will have to agree to disagree. But you really should know a little something about a subject like the Affordable Care Act before spewing such nonsense. If a person does not purchase insurance or is not otherwise covered (and it is affordable, btw with accelerated tax credits paying most of the bill for most people monthly) you DO NOT go to prison, nor are there any death panels, you might as well have thrown that in there. What happens is you will be fined/taxed (up to 1% of your income the first year or $95 whichever is most and that raises to 2.5% in 2015). That penalty is levied on your federal income tax and the only way they can ever collect it is to nick a tax return, they can't garnish wages, sue you in court, no other vehicle is provided to collect the penalty other than taking it out of a tax return.
And if I keep refusing to pay the fine then what? You will eventually go to prison for failure to pay taxes. BTW: I thought Obama said if I paid less than $250K per year I would not get a tax increase? But heck, people believed him when he said if you liked your current plan you could keep it.
Quote:No, it will divide your party and cause the end of their ability to hold the nation hostage again. Dems will retain control of the Senate and regain control of the House in 2014 because the nestea buggers have destroyed the Republican party's credibility. kaput, finito, donesville.
Hold the nation hostage? What on earth does that mean? I guess you think debate on an issue and not just going along with Obama is holding the nation hostage?
As to dividing the GOP, let it happen. The GOP currently has a Tea Party wing, who prefer freedom and smaller government, and a RINO/Country Club wing who want to be Democrat-Party Lite. Those who dislike the Tea Party rarely can articulate a reason they do or a Tea Party tenant that they are against so they resort to name-calling. But the Tea Party has given the GOP the most energy it has had in decades. The movement should grow as people see what freedoms they are losing.
And the biggest surprise will happen when Obama voters realize their "free" health care is not free. The unions seem to already be realizing they really screwed themselves there. Young workers will probably be next when they see how much of their cash they need to put to a plan that is not the best for them. The base that refuses to work will probably not mind.
Instead, the government intends to drive down insurance rates by taking out the profit and forcing health insurers to lower rates to compete, but whether its own wages and wastes will be able to do that is the big question here. About half of the US feels that that is a bad idea, and I think it is too.
What I think should have happened was for the US to go down the big bang route and completely socialize medicine. Tell the American public that this is the new way to take care of Americans going forward and that your insurance premiums are going away and being replaced by corporate and personal taxes, but that you will be covered. Government can then institute preventional policies, national buying programs, and lower pay rates for doctors and health professionals to drive down the cost of delivering health care.
There are plenty of examples around the globe that aren't perfect but work. Every western country has socialized medicine and are not commie republics, believe it or not.
Quote: boymimboI hate to agree with AZ, but I will for different reasons. The Affordable Health Care act doesn't go far enough to socialize medicine. Obamacare is a bandaid solution reached on shitty comprimises that forces employers and Americans to purchase health insurance at market rates without any controls or measures (besides competition) to make the cost of health care go down. There are plenty of loopholes.
Instead, the government intends to drive down insurance rates by taking out the profit and forcing health insurers to lower rates to compete, but whether its own wages and wastes will be able to do that is the big question here. About half of the US feels that that is a bad idea, and I think it is too.
What I think should have happened was for the US to go down the big bang route and completely socialize medicine. Tell the American public that this is the new way to take care of Americans going forward and that your insurance premiums are going away and being replaced by corporate and personal taxes, but that you will be covered. Government can then institute preventional policies, national buying programs, and lower pay rates for doctors and health professionals to drive down the cost of delivering health care.
There are plenty of examples around the globe that aren't perfect but work. Every western country has socialized medicine and are not commie republics, believe it or not.
facepalm
Quote: boymimbo
What I think should have happened was for the US to go down the big bang route and completely socialize medicine. Tell the American public that this is the new way to take care of Americans going forward and that your insurance premiums are going away and being replaced by corporate and personal taxes, but that you will be covered. Government can then institute preventional policies, national buying programs, and lower pay rates for doctors and health professionals to drive down the cost of delivering health care.
Heck, we should do that for food and housing then. No more profit for those greedy farmers! No more profit for those greedy landlords! Profit is so evil!
Socialism worked so well in the Soviet Bloc, we need to emulate it.
Why do people think that Doctors should not make a good living and health providers should not make a profit?
Quote: AZDuffman.
Why do people think that Doctors should not make a good living and health providers should not make a profit?
I don't think either of those things. However, the following things need to happen, and many of them do under Obamacare:
1. Coverage available for individuals at pool rates.
2. Tort reform so that doctors only order tests that are needed, not tests that some judge might need to see 5 years from then to ensure that all possibilities, no matter how remote, were examined.
3. Health care administrative costs for Medicare are less than 2% of the cost of the program; eliminate the 20-40% tacked on by private insurers by setting a profit cap.
4. Extended coverage for children in college, children with lifetime conditions too severe for them ever to leave their parents' care.
5. Do not allow exclusions for pre-existing conditions.
6. Low cost preventative care to eliminate expensive emergency room visits the rest of us end up paying for.
etc..
Quote: beachbumbabsI don't think either of those things. However, the following things need to happen, and many of them do under Obamacare:
1. Coverage available for individuals at pool rates.
2. Tort reform so that doctors only order tests that are needed, not tests that some judge might need to see 5 years from then to ensure that all possibilities, no matter how remote, were examined.
I agree here, though we don't need a huge law to get the pool rates. Just make it easier to form pools.
Quote:3. Health care administrative costs for Medicare are less than 2% of the cost of the program; eliminate the 20-40% tacked on by private insurers by setting a profit cap.
NO WAY to any profit caps. Period. Let insurers sell across state lines, and if you do not like the price purchase from someone else. When you buy a product or service "their profit" should not matter to you, all that should matter is the price to pay whether their margin is 1% or 100%.
Quote:4. Extended coverage for children in college, children with lifetime conditions too severe for them ever to leave their parents' care.
As long as someone is paying for it themselves and not forcing their employer to do so by law.
Quote:5. Do not allow exclusions for pre-existing conditions.
This could be handled via an assigned-risk pool. But it is unfair to expect the insurance company to sell at a loss to these people. Also make there be an open-enrollment period for the industry. If you have a condition and miss that, well too bad.
Quote:6. Low cost preventative care to eliminate expensive emergency room visits the rest of us end up paying for.
etc..
We already have this. Problem is people think "low cost" is supposed to mean FREE<=LOW COST<$10. Sorry, but a doctor's visit is going to cost $50-100. What we need is high-deducible plans with a HSA component. That way you have the "preventative care" money saved and the penalty is on *you* first if you do not get such care. Same as auto insurance, your reward is lower rates for you.
Generous societies recognize this and create a level playing field by providing health care at low costs to their citizens that benefits the entire society as a whole. They recognize that some people are just not healthy. They recognize that sick people are unable to work and therefore can't afford to pay medical bills on their own. They have the ability to see trends and institute policies that promote health. I will purport that if there is one area that governments should get involved in, it's the health of their citizens.
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd if I keep refusing to pay the fine then what? You will eventually go to prison for failure to pay taxes. BTW: I thought Obama said if I paid less than $250K per year I would not get a tax increase? But heck, people believed him when he said if you liked your current plan you could keep it.
Hold the nation hostage? What on earth does that mean? I guess you think debate on an issue and not just going along with Obama is holding the nation hostage?
As to dividing the GOP, let it happen. The GOP currently has a Tea Party wing, who prefer freedom and smaller government, and a RINO/Country Club wing who want to be Democrat-Party Lite. Those who dislike the Tea Party rarely can articulate a reason they do or a Tea Party tenant that they are against so they resort to name-calling. But the Tea Party has given the GOP the most energy it has had in decades. The movement should grow as people see what freedoms they are losing.
And the biggest surprise will happen when Obama voters realize their "free" health care is not free. The unions seem to already be realizing they really screwed themselves there. Young workers will probably be next when they see how much of their cash they need to put to a plan that is not the best for them. The base that refuses to work will probably not mind.
Dude, maybe you are simply misinformed, and that's okay. Most people against the care act are. I'll do my best to let you know what's up, but it's a really pagey law - thanks to insurance lobbies and the folks who defend them. I will never go to prison for refusing to buy insurance, there are specific provisions in law and code. It can only be collected from taxes. Pay your other taxes and nothing can happen. As for Obama saying it wasn't going to be a tax, what do constitutional lawyers like him know when it comes to a Supreme Court who will do what they may?
The tea partisan needs to ditch the publicans or they will make them irrelevant. Who wouldn't go for what 'they' originally propsed? They were co-opted by the likes of heritage and Kochs since norquist (can we call treason on a Member who takes the Norquist pledge more seriously than their COnstitional pledge?)
Yeah, the unions wanted an bye, just like a lot of others got. It is in the law. It might not be right and it might not be fair to get an exemption but there is a good economic development reason for each one granted - or there was trade off to get it passed. The law will survive.
There is no base that refuses to work, is there? This is America, we like to work.
Quote: boymimboSocialized medicine works very very well in the rest of the world. US Healthcare ranks below most westernized countries by any standard. Doctors in countries with socialized medicine make very good money, not as much as those in the USA, but something very commensurate with their extra years of medical school should and would provide.
Yup. Take the price of a hip joint replacement (heard on NPR a couple of months ago) a guy couldn't afford it here, went to Belgium (same great medicine), got round trip tickets, the surgery, the part, and two weeks in a top end rehab for about 1/4 the cost... less than that actually. It is a complicated mess - free market for parts sucks for Americans - it sucks. The American medical lobby was not fixed by ACA, it was fed billions, so were the insurance companies - BUT we will get coverage. The ACA is not socialized medicine, it is a cash cow for providers and insurance companies - but we will have health care, yes?
Medicine in Canada isn't perfect, far from it. But it's equal. My ex-wife who makes $1,000/year will have the same good standard of care as someone who makes $250,000/year. Canadians find this incredibly fair, and it's a hallmark of our society. We celebrate our capitalism in other ways, through the typical status items such as nice houses and cars. Yes, we all pay more taxes to fund health care. The end result is that we have a system that costs about 55% per capita than the US equivalent.
I just don't see a viable defense to US health care remaining the status quo given that it costs 18% of GDP (45% more than any other OECD country) and 35% more / capita than any other OECD country. The quality of care lags in the middle of the road. The incredible costs put the USA and its AVERAGE (not the 1%) people at a tremendous disadvantage to the rest of the world.
Actually, for the majority of Americans who are covered by their workplace, nothing changes. They are still covered. Some companies that didn't provide insurance for their employees are scrambling to avoid having to do that but it doesn't matter. Those people will get access to health insurance through the exchanges where they couldn't afford health insurance before. The only major difference between four years ago and now is that health insurance companies can't deny you coverage for having a pre-existing medical condition. Other great things are, your kids get to stay on your policy until age 26, there's no cap on medical expenditures and insurance companies have to spend 80% of your premiums on actual healthcare.Quote: lojo..but we will have health care, yes?
A majority of people don't like Obamacare but only a minority want it repealed. I consider myself to be one of the large group of people who don't like this law because it doesn't go far enough. We want single-payer or Medicare for all but we're better off with Obamacare than what we had before.
Quote: boymimboI'm waiting for the anecdotal story or two telling of the Canadian who went to the States to bypass a waiting list.
Medicine in Canada isn't perfect, far from it. But it's equal. My ex-wife who makes $1,000/year will have the same good standard of care as someone who makes $250,000/year. Canadians find this incredibly fair, and it's a hallmark of our society. We celebrate our capitalism in other ways, through the typical status items such as nice houses and cars. Yes, we all pay more taxes to fund health care. The end result is that we have a system that costs about 55% per capita than the US equivalent.
I just don't see a viable defense to US health care remaining the status quo given that it costs 18% of GDP (45% more than any other OECD country) and 35% more / capita than any other OECD country. The quality of care lags in the middle of the road. The incredible costs put the USA and its AVERAGE (not the 1%) people at a tremendous disadvantage to the rest of the world.
I understand. Our starting system is really not great, in fact it is poor, but it is a start - we hope. What people like me hope for is improvement but the climate seems... not conducive. We can only hope. Thanks for your comments, I wish I were informed enough to comment more.
Quote: s2dbakerActually, for the majority of Americans who are covered by their workplace, nothing changes. They are still covered. Some companies that didn't provide insurance for their employees are scrambling to avoid having to do that but it doesn't matter. Those people will get access to health insurance through the exchanges where they couldn't afford health insurance before. The only major difference between four years ago and now is that health insurance companies can't deny you coverage for having a pre-existing medical condition. Other great things are, your kids get to stay on your policy until age 26, there's no cap on medical expenditures and insurance companies have to spend 80% of your premiums on actual healthcare.
A majority of people don't like Obamacare but only a minority want it repealed. I consider myself to be one of the large group of people who don't like this law because it doesn't go far enough. We want single-payer or Medicare for all but we're better off with Obamacare than what we had before.
Thank you for your well thought out post. funny how banking became health care? lol. All part and parcel I guess - some are trying to move the country forward and some are trying to simply not. I appreciate well informed arguments on any side of any issue and I apologize if i seem more than daft, maybe even a jerk sometimes. I do appreciate how you broke down the consensus of - opposed as opposed to not thinking it is enough. The numbers I have seen back up that assertion.
I'd have to say he is one of my heros. I won't embroil myself in a fanniemae discussion but that is a non sequitur (oooh look, he talks latin and doesn't know what it means) lol. Barnie was the first to introduce a bill that would have made online gambling as safe as land based back in the day. He ( i do not care about it other than courage) the first sitting member to announce he had a preference and he held his seat until deciding to retire, he has stood with courageous senators and congressmen time and time again when what was being said was not popular. He is a sort o hero to me, a man of courage.
I liked the simple question he asked of banks the other day (starting this thread)
If you can not free up enough capital to invest in the common man (<sic me>) where are you finding the money to give your selves raises?
Boring question, but barney through and through.
Thanks for all contributions I learn something from everyone
Quote: lojo
There is no base that refuses to work, is there? This is America, we like to work.
I suggest you look around. Labor force participation is at 30 year lows. The Occupy Wall Street movement was filled with socialists who refused to work. Disability payments are at highs. People spending 99 weeks on unemployment. 47% of the USA is refusing o work or demanding handouts of one sort or another.
I think people are recognizing that the quality of life under welfare and other freebies is better than working 8 hours at minimum wage, so they elect to stay at home. There is the parallel to the rich person who decides to buy stock and pay 15% in their income in taxes rather than investing it in a business and hiring employees and paying a higher tax rate. The similarity is that the government is being fleeced in both cases.
The solution on the low income side of course is to create a large enough gap between welfare and minimum wage to make minimum wage work worthwhile. There is a sector of society who just are not capable of climbing a corporate ladder because they are dumb or uneducated or the barriers to getting to a higher level are too great in their eyes. Minimum wage work is all that they will get and all that they feel will ever get. So, why live life making $14,000 a year on minimum wage working full time when you can sit at home and make $12K?
The US is indeed the land of opportunity, but let's face it, some of us are more capable of taking advantage of opportunities than others. And the opportunities of getting work at higher than minimum wage are lower than they have ever been.
Quote: boymimbo
I think people are recognizing that the quality of life under welfare and other freebies is better than working 8 hours at minimum wage, so they elect to stay at home. There is the parallel to the rich person who decides to buy stock and pay 15% in their income in taxes rather than investing it in a business and hiring employees and paying a higher tax rate. The similarity is that the government is being fleeced in both cases.
The solution on the low income side of course is to create a large enough gap between welfare and minimum wage to make minimum wage work worthwhile. There is a sector of society who just are not capable of climbing a corporate ladder because they are dumb or uneducated or the barriers to getting to a higher level are too great in their eyes. Minimum wage work is all that they will get and all that they feel will ever get. So, why live life making $14,000 a year on minimum wage working full time when you can sit at home and make $12K?
I'm not sure how the government is being "fleeced" in the case of the person who takes their income in capital gains over wages and how it relates to people on assistance who refuse to work.
As to those who refuse to work, it is about ambition and personal responsibility. Some people are happy living in their public housing, others are afraid to leave the reservation they may have been on their entire life.
I will say I am all for cutting the welfare level back to make taking a job a better prospect!
Quote:And the opportunities of getting work at higher than minimum wage are lower than they have ever been.
That is complete and total nonsense. True the Obama economy is producing more low skill jobs than high, but if one gets some skills they can do well. The problem is too many people expect "a career" to be handed to them. You have to get some training and build some skills. Learn a trade, get in an apprenticeship program. It will take a few years but you will move up. Nobody is going to run into the line at Mcdonald's and offer you training in a trade. But if you start there in high school and show yourself to be a good worker it helps you to get into a better job.
This is a big part of the reason that conservatives aren't taken seriously. They don't know what they are talking about and so they just make stuff up that sounds like it might support their welfare fantasies.Quote: AZDuffman47% of the USA is refusing o work or demanding handouts of one sort or another.
