So from the beginning the right told you and every other American that you did not like the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. So you don’t. They also told you to hide Grandma and that there would be “Death Panels”. Did you hide Grandma or has she been
before the Panel. I fail to see how people can be so gullible. Keep
throwing Jello on the ceiling. Eventually some will stick. I guess you like the price you are paying for Health Care pre-“Obama Care”.
Well I don’t. I appreciate the President trying to help the least of us.
Great step in the right direction. Now how about appealing all of Obamacare so small business will start to gain some confidence in the future of their viability!!
I think you mean “repeal”. Nevertheless, I am a small business who
has watched premiums for 2 employees go from less than $400 a month to over $1800 before President Obama was elected. That really
makes me want to hire some more people. I would like to see what The Patient Protection and Affordable Care act could accomplish before the right just kills it because they tell me I don’t like it. I would like to decide whether I like it or not.
Obamacare is mostly free (or low cost) for everyone except those who work and pay for it (in other words, the majority of Americans).
(Just to elaborate – Jesus would never steal or forcefully take anything from someone to give to another – which is why he is not a socialist. I don’t mind the “anti-war part”, although that is a much broader subject :))
TITLE II—ROLE OF PUBLIC PROGRAMS
Subtitle A—Improved Access to Medicaid
This is just one of MANY references to MEDICAID.
October 17, 2011 at 3:32 pm
social jesus says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Socialism says nothing about forcefully taking or stealing. The Soviets molded socialism to their whim as we mold capitalism to our own whim(Adam Smith would frown upon the concept of Wall Street as it basically replaces his ideal of capitalism with institutionalized gambling).
Here is why Jesus is a socialist:
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. (King James Version) Acts 4:32-37
October 17, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Carrier says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Social Jesus, you incorrectly interprety scripture (as many do).
“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.”
– God possesses all and we have nothing. We are all responsible for taking care of what has been given to us.
“Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. (King James Version) Acts 4:32-37”
– These people gave freely as individuals. Where does it say that it is the government’s responsibility to provide? Yes, none of us should be lacking and everyone should share – that is what God desires we do. But it is not the government’s job to do that. No where in the Bible is that proclaimed. It should be done by the individual.
October 17, 2011 at 2:47 pm
not fooled says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
It may not be free, but it’s hardly “affordable” either.
It was Solyndra and they did know what they were doing. It was all about the green agenda and pushing the agenda. To them, it wasn’t their money so they were willing to risk our money on a losing proposition. They did it on several others as well. I disagree that these people do not know what they are doing. They are rapidly ruining this country on purpose and really don’t care if it goes bankrupt on their watch. It will be easier to re-build on their Socialist/Marxist model if Capitalism is gone. I agree with you that it is time for real change and America will do that in the next election with overwhelming landslide.
As the song says “Just Another Day In Paradise”, can we as humans not see taking care of our fellow human beings is our responsibility. Are we so selfish and uncaring? Maybe we should go back about 30 years and just lock all the ones we don’t want to look at or act as though they do not exist away in a building some where w/o any real health or physical care, so they are not real….Like the Skin Horse with the Velveteen Rabbit? At one time I wasn’t real, until someone finally loved me. Just think about what is really important, it could be you now, but for sure it will be you later.
I agree with the comment about the standard of living in other countries, but guess what, the rich just keep getting richer and the poor just keep getting poorer. That’s why it is so bad in other countries, the government could care less about the standard of care for the people, as long as it doesn’t affect them and guess what, we are all living longer. I’m not saying give everyone a free ride, God knows I have issues with that system, but I do think something will work, we just have to get it fine tuned somehow. I’ve worked hard my whole life. Raised two fantastic children with great work ethics, but being a single parent with “Dead Beat Dads,” my fault, I accept that, I never qualified for any assistance, because I worked two jobs, but I still couldn’t afford health care for my children and I struggled with the decisions daily of how to afford dental, shots, school cloths and supplies, but the main thing was food and health care. I’m not asking anyone or have I ever asked anyone to feel sorry for me, but as little as we had, I could always spare a sandwich and some milk for someone with less. All I’m saying is “Somethings Gotta Give.”
– Life isn’t fair
– You are correct, “the government could care less” and there lies the problem. Take the government out of the equation and things would get better.
– “We are living longer” – correct. That is due to the excellent PRIVATIZED health care industry that has been created in America. We have the best health care providers in the world, but guess what… it costs money to have that. Can’t afford it, no problem, you can probably get it anyways. Don’t want to be a burden on society, no problem, go to another country.
– I have been to many other countries and I have seen the differences. Even the lower classes of America have it real good. “Struggling” as we Americans see it is “luxery” to a majority of humans.
– Rich get richer because they have the knowledge and drive to do so. If you work harder you deserve more. They (“the rich”) create jobs which in return helps other achieve more for themselves. This is the basis of our economic system and it has been proven successful. The downfall of this is government interference, greedy politicians, and the progression of welfare.
– It’s up to us as individuals and groups to help each other. We need to stop being lazy by having our government do the work for us. If you are upset about society “not being equal” and want to help someone then get up off your rear and go help someone.
You can always care less….I think you mean the government could NOT care less…
October 17, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Mike N says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Perhaps you should have waited to have children until you had the ability to afford them. Also, just because you made a bad decision regarding a husband, leaving you and your children to fend for yourself, please tell us exactly why WE should pay for your mistake. I have made a couple bad decisions with investments, should I now expect YOU to pay for all my future investments, and pay me my money back? Why not? After all, it seems you want us to pay for your mistake, but you do not want to pay me back for mine.
You are right. “Something’s gotta give.” Unfortunately, it is those who aren’t doing any giving at all (roughly 47% who DO NOT PAY A DIME IN FEDERAL INCOME TAXES) who are causing the problem. Primarily those who decided not to get an education, decided to marry the wrong person, got pregnant at 15, etc. These are the people who are killing the rest of us who actually work and pay the bills!
My only counter – there are some who have just been dealt a bad hand (like those with special needs, those who have been injured as a result of criminal activity, etc.). I think the focus should remain on helping people in these types of situations – something can probably be specifically written up for this kind of stuff.
October 17, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Mike N says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Carrier (below) – I agree entirely. Plenty of people have bad things happen. This is why there are safety nets and private/non-profit organizations, many of which have been around for over 100 years. The primary distinction, to me, is the local versus national aspects of this approach. The best approaches are local, as each locale has different issues. This is how the Constitution was written. This is why it is WRONG for the feds to overstep their bounds.
The best programs to stem hunger, support children’s healthcare, and provide services are locally based, serving a population that is known by those devising the programs and can be managed to the local customs and needs of the state or locality. Not some bozo in D.C., who was placed in his/her position due to political patronage and payback, and with a national political machine skimming money off the top to line their pockets.
October 17, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Carrier says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I agree with you Mike. In addition, individual Americans and private groups/churches still donate and give more than any other country in the world. There is so much out there – so many people giving their time and resources to others without Washington telling them to do so.
I encourage everyone to start up or join one of these organizations. The more we do as individuals the less our government will try to do to interfere.
October 17, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Mike N says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Paula – That is why people who truly care actually give of their time and treasure to LOCAL, NON-GOVERNMENT health organizations. Those who do not care about their fellow man, sit around and wait for the government to act. Or, they sit around with a hand out, waiting for politicians to give them something that’s been stolen from someone else. The unfortunate part is, the right side of the aisle seems to give a lot more of their time and treasure than the left side. Which means the left side is primarily inhabited by those who either do not care enough to give (“the government handles that”), or have their hands out to take advantage of goodies paid for by the hard work of others, from which time was taken away from their friends and families to pay for those who are users, draining the system, while having worked not a lick to prop it up.
I am the 53%. The 53% who actually pays income taxes to pay for benefits for you!
Any fellow Californian know exactly how our system works here? I talk to so many people who list their occupation as “caregiver”. They stay at how and care for an eldery or handicap relative and are paid by the state. Seems we already have some sort of long term care the state pays for. Any clarification? Thanks in advance.
Anejo – Here’s how to make that system work for you. Purchase long term care or long term disability, and buy up the benefits as high as you can. You essentially buy a monthly dollar benefit. For example, say your benefit will cover up to $8,000 per month. With many of these voluntary plans you could automatically receive a check for $8,000/month, on a indemnity basis (which means you receive the check, and spend the money as you like). If you are a family with a sick relative with a well though-out plan, it isn’t hard to see how one relative could actually take the time off work and help out with the sick family member, and still make more money than in their previous job.
There are a lot of fantastic voluntary products out there.
Mike, I have a nice private plan. I pay $700 amonth between the wife and myself. I know how that works. I’m wondering if someone else in California knows how the State works it. Unless the caregiver was working minimum wage I doubt they’d make more staying at home, but I don’t know. Does anyone know the system that can clarify?
The only way to fix the Long Term Care issue is to create a tax credit , yes credit, for private policies. Medicare will not be able to financial handle the future claims that are going to be generated in this area Private polices with private insurance carriers is the only solution. You get to write off your premiums and the government is not on the hook for your coverage.
Why can,t congress figure this out. The lack of taxes vs. the cost of care is worth it to the the American tax payers.
THIS IS JUST ANOTHER VERSION OF “2 STEPS FORWARD, 1 STEP BACKWARD” FROM THE COMMUNIST PARTY PLAYBOOK OF THE 60’S. THIS IS A SMALL VICTORY BUT THEY WILL TRY TO POINT AT IT AND USE THIS ELIMINATION AS A REASON THE OBAMACARE TRAVESTY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO ON. THE WHOLE LAW NEEDS TO GO !!
Mike, you’re absolutely right. Look at it this way:
You get sick, so you go to the doctor, who, for a fee, (hopefully)find a cure for you. Who are the players in this transaction? You and your doctor. Who makes a profit? Your doctor.
Now add in a private health insurance company to the equation. Same fact patter, you get sick and go to the doctor, but now, there are three parties, two of which have to make a profit. The doctor and the private health insurance company.
Anyone can see the problem with that. The cost of care has to go up because there are now two profit centers to feed.
How do you eliminate that? Make health insurance a single payer, non profit operation. Take the profit out of health insurance and costs will go down.
There are still three players in your formula. You take out the private company and replace it with a government beauracracy as facilitator. Which one does history say is most efficient?
Always amazes me when people think government bureaucracy is the answer. Where is the evidence to support this?
October 17, 2011 at 11:02 pm
mike says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Private insurance is not efficient when it comes to delivering health care. I think it does a fine job when it comes to its traditional business model insuring commerical risks.
October 18, 2011 at 8:32 am
Wayne says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Private insurers negotiate a lower price for services than the patient would be able to get on their own so the cost of health insurance actually reduces the cost of health care.
In a single payer system, you can anticipate that the government will not negotiate price but rather, mandate the price. This will result in doctors, hospitals and pharmacies having an underground practice that generates better care for cash or trade.
This is exactly what happens in ALL of the countries where a single payer system exists.
You are either grossly unschooled in economics, or you are unaware of how socialized medicine (i.e. rationing) works in nearly all countries in which it exists. Which is it?
Do you like how many doctors are now refusing to see Medicare and Medicais patients? That is the logical end of the road of your little pipe dream. Apparently, you want grandparents and children to die, as you want Medicare, Medicaid, and private health insurance destroyed. Now, THAT’S a bright idea.
You might want to think things out before spouting off. Please.
…and everyone will have unicorns…and lillies…and there will be free candy for everybody, with a river of chocolate…and nobody will ever have to clean up their room or pay taxes…ever.
(can we hold hands and skip, too? I mean, if we’re going to throw out silly, childish ideas, shouldn’t we also have recess time?).
Reasons to NEVER, EVER let the Federal Government NEAR OUR HEALTHCARE:
– Social Security (Feds raided the trust fund – no more money)
– Medicare – The numbers of doctors no longer accepting Medicare patients is soaring…and growing daily. Oh, and Obama cut $500 BILLION from the program, too.
– The Federal Budget – The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) cannot even balance the books, as there are millions of items where NOBODY KNOWS WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!). But I’m sure they’ll do much, much better managing the countries’ private health network. Sure.
– The VA – Cutting benefits for our soldiers for decades! You think the same won’t happen to our healthcare?
– The majority of costs are driven by REQUIREMENTS PLACED UPON INSURANCE BY POLITICIANS (Chiropractic – even if you don’t see a chiropractor, Maternity – Even though my wife cannot have kids and I have had a vasctomy, Doctors Visits – whcih should be paid for out of pocket – see definition of “insurance”.
Nearly ALL of the problem with health insurance are due to bastard politicians and bastard lawyers. The politicians have larded up coverage with mandates (in exchange for campaign cash), precluding buyers from access to affordable care. Then the lawyers, who have paid plenty of campaign cash to politicians, get to feast on the system through frivolous lawsuits and extortion.
Yeah, the government sure does a great job, don’t they!
Single payer – HMMM – the same government that has given us the Postal Service, Social Security (robbing the trust) the EPA with excessive regulations, the Energy Dept that was formed to guarantee energy INDEPENDENCE and other stellar incompetent, insensitive beaurocracies will make health insurnace less expensive than the capitalistic system that runs on competitiveness!!
Clearly you folks missed your economic classes and you ARE drinking way too much Obama socialistic Kool-Aid!!!
President Obama did not, as you know, originate the idea of single payer health care. Nor are democrats the only party to have acknowledged that single payer health care is the most rational approach. However, if one looks at health care as a service and product divorced from the consequences of need as opposed to demand (demand assumes $$ to purchase) then a wholly private system would be quite rational.
I find it ironic, all you folks who think the government can do nothing right…I would be willing to bet that you support government run executions, aka capital punishment, because the government always gets it right when it comes to executing only the guilty. Amirite?
Typical left response. Biased, without supporting evidence.
Actually I would argue that a majority or Republicans are against the death penalty – I personally believe the government (more specifically the judicial branch) does get it wrong a lot of the time.
I didn’t say it was a fact, I said that I would bet it’s true (read: I’m guessing). But you wouldn’t know I was wrong judging from the crowd reaction at the Republican debates wildly cheering the fact that Texas executed more people than any other state, or people cheering Herman Cain’s suggestion that we have a electric fence capable of killing people on our border.
I guess I wasn’t clear earlier! I have worked, since I was 14 years old, baby sat prior to that age. I had to fight to get those jobs, NOT because I was uneducated, although society did attempt to keep me from getting one, placing me in a class room with blind, deaf, mute, malformed and retarded children, I fought hard for my education. Check your dates and facts on the ADA Laws, main stream did begin in my area, DFW, until 1964. No, I’m not an illegal alien…can’t guess? I contracted the Polio virus at age 16 months and before you say, so sorry your parents were to dumb to get you vaccinated, they were professionals,thank you very much. Just in case you aren’t up-to-date on when the vaccine was available it was March 1954, I was born 1952, and as far as to dumb to wait to have children, well, I was to dumb to pick a man that was worth a dime and liked to beat me, but was well into my twenty’s when I started giving birth, so, I have been through a lot and once again did it on my own, NOT WITH YOUR MONEY, and I have paid more than my share of taxes, but still care about my brother! I guess that just leaves the issue of your poor judgement in stock investments, bet you got a tax break on that, didn’t you. You must be one of the ones with the money and maybe even born into it, Hmmmm. Sorry all this became so personal, must have hit some nerve, I can tell you have one. Thank you so much!
Paula – I have known many, many people who have also had polio. Of the three I know very well, one is a retired chemical engineer, one is a retired professor, and one is a retired accountant. All did very well, and did not wish to have others pay for their, of their kids’ existence.
At the same time, each of these people were married, had children, and paid for their educations through college. These individuals also paid for their own healthcare and weren’t asking politicians to steal money from others to pay the way for them and their families.
You chose a man who beat you. You chose a bad marriage. You chose to have children under those curcumstances. No taxpayer forced you to make those bad decisions. Why, then, should taxpayers be on the hook to support your family’s healthcare because of your awful decision making?
As for your question, no I did not receive a “tax break” for stock market losses. Nor did I receive a tax break for all the losses from real estate investments, brought on primarily by leftists in Congress, WHO FORCED BANKS TO MAKE BAD LOANS TO UNWORTHY RECIPIENTS. Then, once the leftists had poisoned the well with bad loans, they allowed the banks to securitize and package the loans, so as to (hopefully) not get caught holding the entire bag of losses once the government’s scam reared its ugly head, via the current recession. Obviously you do not understand that, much like gambling in Vegas, the government always takes your individual earnings, but does not refund, or even take into account, your individual losses.
I personally give to adoption agencies (Sierra), local public health organizations, The Red Cross, Catholic Charities (health, feeding the poor), The Salvation Army, and many other public health organizations. Why? Because this country was founded on a foundation of individuals, working with and through local communities and organizations, helping one another. This country was not founded on the principle that the federal government has the wherewithall, means, or capability to handle such items on a local basis. In fact, the Constitution prohibits such intervention by the feds. Well, until politicized judges with agendas place greed and the desire to skim off the top over adherence to the law.
I commend the fact you work, and have done so since 14 (like the rest of the 53% of Americans who pay income taxes). I only wish you had made better decisions regarding your relationships. And I wish you could replace the idea that paying taxes is actually “care(ing) about your brother”, with one that includes actually doing something. Paying taxes is not helping your brother. Paying taxes is simply handing over money to greedy politicians, who take their cut, hand out other cuts to their cronies and those who feed them campaign donations, then give teh table scraps to suckers who in-turn elect re-elect them. Taxes, in and of themselves, are not moral. It seems you have replaced morality with big government. You might want to rethink that.
Hey buddy, I pay taxes too and have worked since I was 14 as well. Unlike you and your retired friends however, I did not come of age and get to build my career during the greatest period of economic expansion in US history. I WAS lucky enough to graduate from college in between two recessions caused by YOUR generation’s poor financial decision making, so I have a job, unlike the poor saps demonstrating down on wall street who had the misfortune of being a few years younger than me.
To address something else you said, how did the leftists “allow” the banks to repackage the junk-mortgages they originated? That was the free market at work. The FREE MARKET. The infallible invisible hand, worshipped and revered by many. I and my generation watched this cult-like faith in the free market drive our economy right into the ground, meanwhile the old folks who were served well by the free market continue to blame our problems on the gummint and poor people.
What’s a matter with kids these days? They are unemployed.
@youngin Amen: employees previously on private health insurance have lost it in a number of ways, including but not limited to lossing their jobs; job loss was happening in early 2008 and before then; then we had the economic zsunami in Sept 2008 and govt’s share of the burden of health has been growing and growing. All the time, the govt has been giving tax breaks to private companies who have a health insurance program for their employees. because of the extremely high cost of individual private insurance, many people have only catastrophic coverage with very high deductibles and limited PPO options. In 2010, before we health care overhaul federal and state govt was covering 42% of health care coverage under the then current system. The notion of a govt take over of health care is simply paranoia. The defacto govt take over of health care was the problem of the system in place before President Obama took office. This is not a leftist or rightist issue. It is a big problem for our country and name calling does nothing to help.
mike – Just so you know, private health insurance costs less than group insurance. And, you are correct in teh assertion government has been involved with healthcare for a long time. That is why it is completely screwed up. The mandates government has placed on coverage (“free” doctor visits, “free” preventive care, maternity coverage, chiropractic coverage, etc.) has caused costs to necessarily skyrocket. When one adds greedy, immoral lawyers – and the democrat party, to whom 90% of the trial bar’s campaign donations go – one can easily see why the system is being destroyed daily. So, we have the government larding services (due to special interest lobbying) and one party allowing the lawyers to fleece the system. Yet you think MORE government is the answer?
October 19, 2011 at 5:39 pm
Mike N says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
youngin’ – I imagine this post was in respone to mine above, since it was attached at the bottom.
1. I’m 40. My generation has yet to operate the levers of power. So, your first assumption is completely wrong.
2. When I was “build(ing) my own career”, we had a number of recessions and bubbles burst. I was in high tech when that bubble burst. I lost over $300,000 in commissions, and had the company I worked for go belly up. My wife is the president of a finance company, whose business was decimated by the government’s and large banks’ misdeeds (which the government encouraged, demanded, and pressured). So, don’t come whining to me about my “generation” not having to deal with this. At the same time, we had a WORSE stock crash than the most recent in ’87 (claimed my father’s career), and nearly as bad in ’91. Funny how we recovered from those downturns much faster without wasting A TRILLION DOLLARS. So, stop your complaining. Crying never got anyone anything of substance in this world. Plus, it’s pathetic.
3. Please explain to me how, when the government FORCED large banks to loan to unworthy debtors (and placed every single investor in those banks at risk) via the CRA of ’77, refused to allow Republicans on the Hill to curtail the practices, then had GSEs Fannie and Freddie guarantee the bad loans the government required them to make – even as Harold Raines (Clinton cabinet) and Jamie Gorelic (deputy AG for Clinton) gobbled up these bad loans at a pace never before seen in American history, one could even consider this a free market system. The government forcing businesses to act against their shareholders’, and the market’s, best interests, by forcing the banks to do business with unworthy creditors, is somehow “free market”? Please, do us all a favor and stop smoking crack!
So, just to be clear, your definition of “free market” includes federal government regulating banks, forcing them to make bad loans, then using the taxpayers money to back all the bad loans? If that is your definition of a “free market”, then you ought to sue the college that provided you with a degree for gross negligence, as well as failure to perform.
4. The reason Clinton signed the bill, allowing banks to securitize the risk, was to keep the banks from being sued by shareholders for doing the government’s work of making bad loans to unworthy people, which would ultimately leave shareholders on the hook for the government mandated bad loans. You see, unlike the politicians you wished controlled our economy far more, C-level executives and BOD members can be sued by shareholders and thrown in jail for breaking laws. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about Dodd, Frank, Raines, Gorelick, and the other (primarily leftist, though there were some jackass RINOs in there as well) government thieves who gamed the system.
And, please, the only people here with a “cult-like faith” are the ones, like you, claiming government control or socialism is the answer. That has been tried, over and over (Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, etc.), with similar results every time it is tried. Millions starving, dead or killed, with everything from healthcare to food to housing rationed. Why the rationing? Because the system being called for by the “kids these days” protesting (socialism) naturally produces limited output, due to a lack of motivation to create, improve, or manufacture. You see, unless one sees reward for the hard work, and the countless hours taken from their limited time with friends and family in order to work, there is zero reason to work.
You might want to brush up on some history and economics, just so you don’t come off sounding so vacuous. At the same time, perhaps some of the “kids these days” might want to choose a major which actually has some utility (math, sciences, accounting, finance, engineering, chemistry, biology, business, kinesiology, etc.), rather than one which usually leads to heavy use of the words “You want to Supersize that?” (literature, womyns studies, sociology, history, education, visual and performing arts, anthropology, urban studies, etc., etc., etc, ad infinitum).
I live in a small town in CA. I just looked on CareerBuilder.com, and found many, many jobs available. And that is in an area with around 20% unemployment, in the state with the worst finances and leadership in the country. I also made the point of speaking with a local head hunter, who tells me she has PLENTY OF JOBS AVAILABLE. It’s just that people do not want to take the jobs when they are getting money from the state and feds for doing NOTHING. Once again…NOTHING.
@Mike N – I believe GW Bush also used his pulpit to encourage Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to encourage private home ownership; I also have first hand experience with real estate professionals which includes mortgage departments of banks pushing bad purchases in order to get a closing, to get that commission, and to sell that asset before it became no-producing. Too bad there is no claw back on those commissions. I note there was no mention of the responsibility of standard & poors or moody’s in your response.
October 19, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Chris says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Mike,
You hit almost every aspect I said I didn’t want to go over
:)
Thank you. The only part not in there is that insurance companies like AIG decided that as these companies were taking part in government endorsed activities, they foolishly invested in the real estate companies directly or through credit default swaps. Not many people know this youngin’ but trick question:
What took down AIG? It was their investment team. Why? They put huge amounts of capital into those companies which did government encouraged loans that Nancy Pelosi called “100% home loans” and Barney Frank said had no signs of “financial problems”.
Second question: Do you know how many insurance companies and financial instituions rely on investments in real estate to survive and followed that AIG model? Here’s a hint: There’s a reason why many insurance companies and financial institutions went down. It XXisXX (was rather) incrediby popular. They bet on the same loans.
There’s my last two cents. Very well posted Mike.
October 19, 2011 at 6:43 pm
Chris says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Mike,
I didn’t realize there were two of you. Mike N and you. My last comment was to Mike N. Sorry about that.
I agree with what you stated with the credit, but I don’t believe you are tracing back the main area. The credit comment is definiely accurate and is what drove the situation to be worse. All the lending was based on shotty markets, layered on top of each other, which after unwinding all blew up. Out of control credit issues was definitely a large factor, now then the question is what caused that? Without a proximate cause, the rest of the credit would not have been a problem. We’re in insurance after all, I don’t need to know what made it worse, I need to know what caused it. And if you look back on it that originates with home loans. 1.5 trillion between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to be precise. AIG falling was a capital crises that was I believe a bit larger than you realize and it came from the real estate bubble popping. I spoke with a politician who stated that if the capital from AIG was thrown out of the market, they were literally afraid that the value of the dollar would decrease as AIG has that large of an output of dollars. Including the other financial institutions who all failed for similar reasons and you have the source as home loans. That is what I was getting at but probably did not thoroughly explain as I’ve really done it too many times for liberals and had no return arguement as to how this crises was caused.
I use the “free market” phrase in the perspective of the liberal. As they see a “free market” it doesn’t even exist so it couldn’t have caused the crises. It’s intended for some irony too if the liberal is more clever
:)
October 19, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Chris says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Regular Mike,
No, Bush was the only person to fight against Fannie Mae Freddie Mac.
Interestingly enough only one media source even reported on this one, but here’s the link:
Kind of makes you worry about media bias doesn’t it?
October 20, 2011 at 11:01 am
Amazed says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Mike N – Bravo!!
October 19, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Chris says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Youngin’
Clever, but incorrect. The free market didn’t cause the housing collapse.
I’ve researched this one like crazy. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the two largest institutions with sub prime mortgages. They were forced into the market, regulations built the environment for these types of junk mortgages.
You really believe that everyone was dumb enough to not see that the bubble would pop? No. Multi billion dollar companies don’t “accidentally” all do the same thing at the same time to risk their ass…ets. It doesn’t happen in a free market. That’s a tall tale sign of a common factor with all of them. A common factor with all loans bringing down all companies points to regulation being the source. I’d explain the specifics (as I happen to also have inside knowledge of how AIG failed, and it’s very much so tied into Fannie Mae Freddie Mac, and lenders, as well as other insurance carriers who did the same thing causing a domino effect with financial institutions) but I’ll leave you to look that up. Just know the free market did not cause the housing crises.
@Chris the phrase a “free market” is misleading just like the phrase “efficient markets.” The phrases are too often used as a rhetorical short hand but about without much critical analysis in the way they are used. For example, I agree a number of factors went into the Sept 2008 financial tsumani resulting directly from the collapse of housing prices – no shortage of finger pointing for sure. Being one of the most disliked members in this debate, I argue that our current economic problems relate to a lack of demand, not supply. Artificial demand funded by lines of credit (HELOCs) based on equity that evaporated drove our consumer economy up to unsustainable heights, to a standard of living that has not and likely is not maintainable.
October 20, 2011 at 11:01 am
youngin' says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Chris,
Do more research, there are numerous inaccuracies in your statement.
First of all, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not purchase or guarantee sub-prime mortgages. By definition, sub-prime mortgages are loans which do not conform to Fannie Mae guarantee standards. The default risk was born by the investors in the mortgage-backed securities.
No, many people saw the bubble coming, but no one knew quite when it would pop. In the meantime, there was lots of money to be made, and no one wanted to stop dancing. This is greed, which in moderation is good, but taken to excess is what fed the housing bubble.
The multi-billion dollar companies are what drove the demand for the mortgage-backed securities! Everyone wanted to hold triple-A rated securities, and the folks at the rating agencies were happy to keep slapping top ratings on mortgage-backed securities and other CDO’s, and even were instrumental in designing the tranches to manufacture even MORE AAA rated securities. It was the blind leading the blind and the institutional investors are as much at fault for not doing their due diligence on the quality of the securities.
The pro-housing government agenda provided the first snowflake, but it was out of control “free markets” that turned the housing market into a ten foot snowball.
October 20, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Chris says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Mike –
The housing market is not just “marginally” regulated. It’s highly regulated. Regulations have not been decreased. See my other post. Bush even attempted more regulations and it failed in 2003. See my other link. That means no changes were made, and the market failed. I don’t suggest traditional “de-regulation”. I suggest the removal or regulation that forces loans to be given. Regulations haulting loans may in fact be decent. Regulations forcing them though, are extremely harmful.
The market that failed was not a “free market”. It was entirely regulated.
The rhetorical arguement of which you speak isn’t rhetorical. Look at my other facts. They are quite specific.
October 20, 2011 at 12:19 pm
Chris says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Youngin:
Did I even once use the phrase “sub prime” in my posts? Let me answer that for you: No. Do not, and I mean this absolutely do not label my words and then twist them to make my theories what you want them to be.
Further: Every single one of your statements are “ideological”. Not one can be proven and not one is a “sequence” as to how this crises happened. “greed” “multi billion dollar corporations” “pro housing”. Not one is a factorable or tangible number that can translate into how the crises happened. If it can’t be applied, it can’t be the source.
Fact one: Home loans failed on a huge scale. See Mike N’s post and mine. We said the specifics as to how it happened.
Fact two: AFTER 1977 and the act Mike N referred to, housing increased. This is part of the bubble. Housing markets can’t fail without expanding to begin with. Housing increased past that day at an alarming rate. It really increased after the 1995 revisions though.
Fact three: When the housing act was modified again and signed by Clinton in 1995 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac barely existed. Nor did a subprime market. The subrime bubble begain to grow in this time period. 1.5 trillion in loans were given. Sub prime is not the sole area of these loans which is why I was very, very, intentional not to say “sub prime”. Also a side note: Bush did not ONCE touch the housing regulations. He didn’t modifiy them. There’s the kicker. He certainly tried. The housing regulations were changed a least two times in Clinton’s presidency, and those two times were significant changes that lead to this crises. Look up the code regarding the minority changes especially.
Fact four: The other institutions did fail (such as insurers) due to investing in home loan companies, whether directly (credit default swaps) or indirectly (through their captial investment divisons. You may not know this but every single insurer takes premiums and invests it. Almost every insurance company few yeas back invested in companies that engaged in the type of loans that housing regulations encouraged. The reason is due to a market type they thought would never fail. This further proves my point. Why else would they all do it Yougin? It was predictable. They knew that all those companis were regulated into a regulated marktet. It was not a free market Betting on a government area is a fairly good bet.)
Fact five: Multi billion dollar companies which have been around over 50 years would not make short term decisions or they would not be around and would have failed long ago. Your comment about them intentionally creating an environment where agents focused on temprary profit is laughable. They had to allow it due to regulations regarding loans.
Fact six: In a free market all markets do not make the same type of loans. It is not profitable to make a loan that won’t be paid back. You may try to argue the agents making the loans wanted the money, and made the loans, and therefore they were not regulated. But what you are missing is: The agents who made the loans would not have been able to make the loans if the owners of the corporations were making the rules. It is just a fact that the government allowed, encouraged, and forced the subprime market to exist, as well as others. Without these regulations, the corporations would not make the loans. Minorities suffered worse in the crises. Do you know why? Have you looked at the housing acts provisions for minority loans? It forces an amount to be given. The regulations messed with many areas. Each area it messed with was hit hardest. Are you going to tell me minorities just happened to be targeted and it was the big bad corporations? It was just coincidence we passed regulations forcing more home loans to be given to minorities, it was just coincidence that those loans faild, and it was just coincidence that the corporations gave out those loans, and that it was spawned by “greed” and “multi billion” dollar decisions from companies that suddenly thought on a temporary basis? I’m going to call you on that one. Do more research.
@Chris, you are conflating a lot of critical and complex issues into a rhetorical argument to dismantle an economy. Where would you begin deregulation? would you just want to unwind evertying back to pre-1873 and start over? was there a free market prior to 1873? isn’t a “free-market economy” really a hypothosis after all? what criteria would you use to evaluate/judge the “success” of “free market economy” if one could exist? is there a point in time in american history where we had a “free market” economy?
October 20, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Chris says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Youngin’
Ah, I got it. You thought that my post referencing two of the specific biggest companies to fail due to sub prime market conditions meant all my posts were regarding the sub prime market. Well they weren’t. After that point I said “regulated” markets, quite intentionally.
I just thought you caught that…but now I see how one could apply one of my examples to my whole concept. My whole concept was housing regulation. Obviously, sub prime is a part. But it is not the only part.
You know what, Mike, once again you have turned every word I typed to your own misconception. I never asked anyone to take care me financially and certainly, once again, I am not asking for sympathy from anyone. We all make mistakes and misjudge peoples caricature. I too know many many people who have Post Polio and Post Polio Syndrome, which was only considered a disability in the early 1980’s, so, no benefits there, only a few with very mild forms of damage or that lived in states with benefits to aid the disabled, your tax dollars at work, or that had parents with a more than a comfortable life were able to actually get degrees, but that is neither here nor there, I never said what level of education I achieved, I only said I had to fight for my education. You talk about all the charities you give to, but what about all the tax breaks you get from those donations? As soon as the government put a topper on the amount of credit people could claim the donations dropped and most of the charities out there only assist in emergency, which is great when you are wiped out by fire, flood, etc. A lot of charities the money goes strictly into research, again which is great. I never stated I didn’t give to charities, but I certainly have never made the income that aloud me the luxury of taking any tax credits, I did it just straight from my heart. I always loved going through the checks paid to register to play golf to benefit a charity, but they would win a car or a great trip to the Islands and they would always mark it as a donation, gotta get that TAX CREDIT so they can really enjoy that prize. I’m not saying it’s a perfect world or that it ever will be, but there are people right here in this country that are honest hard working people that haven’t had the breaks some have and it didn’t have anything to do with being lazy. I do agree there are some real lazy “A H’s” out here taking advantage of the system, but there are also the ones that do work very hard at jobs someone has to do, but it wouldn’t be you, these are the ones that need the help! The hard workers that break their backs everyday to just pay rent and try to put food on the table, THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT REALLY NEED HELP and they don’t qualify! Do you not see the difference? You seem to just be an angry person that feels you do your part and “F” the rest and you know what, I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU, you are the one with the blackened heart and I do I feel sorry for you. Thanks for the chat, but I’m through playing this who is right game with you, you are not worth MY time, you are too bitter and I dearly pray you are never one of the ones that “needs”.
Paula’s posts pretty much explain how Obama got elected.
It’s true… it does not matter how much truth is advertised because there are always people out there who don’t have the ability to understand it or are just to stubborn to accept it.
Many people live their lives playing the V or “victim” cards. Their circumstance is the fault of someone else and it is only fair that they receive something in return for their troubles – no matter what the cost is to others. This is not what America was founded on and this will ultimately be the demise of our great nation.
“Greed and selfishness” come in many different forms and is spread amoung all economic classes.
Now let me get the facts, I pay $200+-300+ premiums a month for $50 back per month. No thank you!! I agree lets scrap the rest of this obama care, its math like this that makes me worry!
Time to end this conversation!
The solution is very simple:
Throw Obama and his multitude of Czars along with Obamacare out to !
Gut the out of control EPA;
Limit the Energy Dept’s scope to focus on energy independence – this department has over 100,000 employees and a #22B budget and it only took them 35 years to build this incompetive and insenstive overseer of energy – and no energy indendence;
Terminate the Department of Education and move educational matters back to the States.
Cut the size of all government agencies by 25% through ATTRITION.
Now wasn’t that easy!!
I enjoy paying $6600 a year for health insurance and deductibles for me and my two children. Additional $2268 a year for Medicare and supplementals for my husband on our $75000 year income. Yes, please repeal so I can purchase two additional high deductible policies with pre existing clauses with low limits for my teenage children. I’ll enjoy that to. I’m bleeding money from the 401K, health insurance, homeowners insurance, life insurance, AD&D insurance, property taxes, federal taxes and my corporate employer decided to give us a 5% pay cut just ’cause it felt good for their stock holders. I enjoy not having money so that others can have their riches. Makes me a proud American. When I don’t have money to buy groceries from the skyrocketing prices and gasoline at a $100 a tank, I say to myself “It’s ok, maybe next week you can help the rich man”. After all he has done so much for you. Given you the opportunity to work for him at low wages, given you the opportunity to invest in his stock market, the opportunity to … well, uh.. Ah, sounds so bleak who cares anymore!
Some of you have put a lot of thought into your posts, gone on your rants, standing tall on your soap boxxes. Even engages Jesus into the conversation.
One common theme seems to come through the ones I have read – Obumba came to his senses on this line item. Maybe soon, hopefully, the rest will be shot down in flames.
Now, its time for me to get back to work – remember worK> Its what pays the bills.
How may times can a man look up, before he sees the sky?
So from the beginning the right told you and every other American that you did not like the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. So you don’t. They also told you to hide Grandma and that there would be “Death Panels”. Did you hide Grandma or has she been
before the Panel. I fail to see how people can be so gullible. Keep
throwing Jello on the ceiling. Eventually some will stick. I guess you like the price you are paying for Health Care pre-“Obama Care”.
Well I don’t. I appreciate the President trying to help the least of us.
Great step in the right direction. Now how about appealing all of Obamacare so small business will start to gain some confidence in the future of their viability!!
I think you mean “repeal”. Nevertheless, I am a small business who
has watched premiums for 2 employees go from less than $400 a month to over $1800 before President Obama was elected. That really
makes me want to hire some more people. I would like to see what The Patient Protection and Affordable Care act could accomplish before the right just kills it because they tell me I don’t like it. I would like to decide whether I like it or not.
SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE………………..
I look forward to the day when the US finally gets past the paranoia and adopts a single payer system.
hope your having fun at your local ‘occupy’ protest.
@Hillsborough agent, no, fortunately I am self-employed, cleaning the mess left by risk managers and other insurance professionals.
Looks like free is more expensive than they thought?
No one, not the President, not the Congress, no one has ever said that the Affordable Health Care Act was free health insurance.
Obama is not an anti-war socialist who gives away free health care…you’re thinking of Jesus.
You obviously don’t know the real Jesus.
“don’t f with the jesus…”
I missed the part in the law where medicaid is fully paid for by its users.
What page is that?
We’re talking about the Affordable Health Care Act, not Medicaid.
Obamacare is mostly free (or low cost) for everyone except those who work and pay for it (in other words, the majority of Americans).
(Just to elaborate – Jesus would never steal or forcefully take anything from someone to give to another – which is why he is not a socialist. I don’t mind the “anti-war part”, although that is a much broader subject :))
Its in the law.
http://docs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf
TITLE II—ROLE OF PUBLIC PROGRAMS
Subtitle A—Improved Access to Medicaid
This is just one of MANY references to MEDICAID.
Socialism says nothing about forcefully taking or stealing. The Soviets molded socialism to their whim as we mold capitalism to our own whim(Adam Smith would frown upon the concept of Wall Street as it basically replaces his ideal of capitalism with institutionalized gambling).
Here is why Jesus is a socialist:
32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. (King James Version) Acts 4:32-37
Social Jesus, you incorrectly interprety scripture (as many do).
“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.”
– God possesses all and we have nothing. We are all responsible for taking care of what has been given to us.
“Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. (King James Version) Acts 4:32-37”
– These people gave freely as individuals. Where does it say that it is the government’s responsibility to provide? Yes, none of us should be lacking and everyone should share – that is what God desires we do. But it is not the government’s job to do that. No where in the Bible is that proclaimed. It should be done by the individual.
It may not be free, but it’s hardly “affordable” either.
This is the second time this administration has ignored the advice of experts (1st was Solara – I think that was the company name).
It’s now fact… those in the White House don’t have a clue about what they are doing.
I think it’s time for actual change.
It was Solyndra and they did know what they were doing. It was all about the green agenda and pushing the agenda. To them, it wasn’t their money so they were willing to risk our money on a losing proposition. They did it on several others as well. I disagree that these people do not know what they are doing. They are rapidly ruining this country on purpose and really don’t care if it goes bankrupt on their watch. It will be easier to re-build on their Socialist/Marxist model if Capitalism is gone. I agree with you that it is time for real change and America will do that in the next election with overwhelming landslide.
As the song says “Just Another Day In Paradise”, can we as humans not see taking care of our fellow human beings is our responsibility. Are we so selfish and uncaring? Maybe we should go back about 30 years and just lock all the ones we don’t want to look at or act as though they do not exist away in a building some where w/o any real health or physical care, so they are not real….Like the Skin Horse with the Velveteen Rabbit? At one time I wasn’t real, until someone finally loved me. Just think about what is really important, it could be you now, but for sure it will be you later.
Paula, in a perfect world this would all work. But in reality it (being Obamacare) will do more harm than good.
We should be taking care of each other. However the government is not the entity to do the job.
We live in an entitlement society – everyone should be rich and everyone should live forever. Sorry to break the news to you… that isn’t possible.
People need to get that out of their heads. Even the poorest Americans enjoy a standard of living most other countries would die for.
Keep it in perspective.
I agree with the comment about the standard of living in other countries, but guess what, the rich just keep getting richer and the poor just keep getting poorer. That’s why it is so bad in other countries, the government could care less about the standard of care for the people, as long as it doesn’t affect them and guess what, we are all living longer. I’m not saying give everyone a free ride, God knows I have issues with that system, but I do think something will work, we just have to get it fine tuned somehow. I’ve worked hard my whole life. Raised two fantastic children with great work ethics, but being a single parent with “Dead Beat Dads,” my fault, I accept that, I never qualified for any assistance, because I worked two jobs, but I still couldn’t afford health care for my children and I struggled with the decisions daily of how to afford dental, shots, school cloths and supplies, but the main thing was food and health care. I’m not asking anyone or have I ever asked anyone to feel sorry for me, but as little as we had, I could always spare a sandwich and some milk for someone with less. All I’m saying is “Somethings Gotta Give.”
Just a few comments in response:
– Life isn’t fair
– You are correct, “the government could care less” and there lies the problem. Take the government out of the equation and things would get better.
– “We are living longer” – correct. That is due to the excellent PRIVATIZED health care industry that has been created in America. We have the best health care providers in the world, but guess what… it costs money to have that. Can’t afford it, no problem, you can probably get it anyways. Don’t want to be a burden on society, no problem, go to another country.
– I have been to many other countries and I have seen the differences. Even the lower classes of America have it real good. “Struggling” as we Americans see it is “luxery” to a majority of humans.
– Rich get richer because they have the knowledge and drive to do so. If you work harder you deserve more. They (“the rich”) create jobs which in return helps other achieve more for themselves. This is the basis of our economic system and it has been proven successful. The downfall of this is government interference, greedy politicians, and the progression of welfare.
– It’s up to us as individuals and groups to help each other. We need to stop being lazy by having our government do the work for us. If you are upset about society “not being equal” and want to help someone then get up off your rear and go help someone.
You can always care less….I think you mean the government could NOT care less…
Perhaps you should have waited to have children until you had the ability to afford them. Also, just because you made a bad decision regarding a husband, leaving you and your children to fend for yourself, please tell us exactly why WE should pay for your mistake. I have made a couple bad decisions with investments, should I now expect YOU to pay for all my future investments, and pay me my money back? Why not? After all, it seems you want us to pay for your mistake, but you do not want to pay me back for mine.
You are right. “Something’s gotta give.” Unfortunately, it is those who aren’t doing any giving at all (roughly 47% who DO NOT PAY A DIME IN FEDERAL INCOME TAXES) who are causing the problem. Primarily those who decided not to get an education, decided to marry the wrong person, got pregnant at 15, etc. These are the people who are killing the rest of us who actually work and pay the bills!
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
My only counter – there are some who have just been dealt a bad hand (like those with special needs, those who have been injured as a result of criminal activity, etc.). I think the focus should remain on helping people in these types of situations – something can probably be specifically written up for this kind of stuff.
Carrier (below) – I agree entirely. Plenty of people have bad things happen. This is why there are safety nets and private/non-profit organizations, many of which have been around for over 100 years. The primary distinction, to me, is the local versus national aspects of this approach. The best approaches are local, as each locale has different issues. This is how the Constitution was written. This is why it is WRONG for the feds to overstep their bounds.
The best programs to stem hunger, support children’s healthcare, and provide services are locally based, serving a population that is known by those devising the programs and can be managed to the local customs and needs of the state or locality. Not some bozo in D.C., who was placed in his/her position due to political patronage and payback, and with a national political machine skimming money off the top to line their pockets.
I agree with you Mike. In addition, individual Americans and private groups/churches still donate and give more than any other country in the world. There is so much out there – so many people giving their time and resources to others without Washington telling them to do so.
I encourage everyone to start up or join one of these organizations. The more we do as individuals the less our government will try to do to interfere.
Paula – That is why people who truly care actually give of their time and treasure to LOCAL, NON-GOVERNMENT health organizations. Those who do not care about their fellow man, sit around and wait for the government to act. Or, they sit around with a hand out, waiting for politicians to give them something that’s been stolen from someone else. The unfortunate part is, the right side of the aisle seems to give a lot more of their time and treasure than the left side. Which means the left side is primarily inhabited by those who either do not care enough to give (“the government handles that”), or have their hands out to take advantage of goodies paid for by the hard work of others, from which time was taken away from their friends and families to pay for those who are users, draining the system, while having worked not a lick to prop it up.
I am the 53%. The 53% who actually pays income taxes to pay for benefits for you!
Any fellow Californian know exactly how our system works here? I talk to so many people who list their occupation as “caregiver”. They stay at how and care for an eldery or handicap relative and are paid by the state. Seems we already have some sort of long term care the state pays for. Any clarification? Thanks in advance.
Anejo – Here’s how to make that system work for you. Purchase long term care or long term disability, and buy up the benefits as high as you can. You essentially buy a monthly dollar benefit. For example, say your benefit will cover up to $8,000 per month. With many of these voluntary plans you could automatically receive a check for $8,000/month, on a indemnity basis (which means you receive the check, and spend the money as you like). If you are a family with a sick relative with a well though-out plan, it isn’t hard to see how one relative could actually take the time off work and help out with the sick family member, and still make more money than in their previous job.
There are a lot of fantastic voluntary products out there.
Mike, I have a nice private plan. I pay $700 amonth between the wife and myself. I know how that works. I’m wondering if someone else in California knows how the State works it. Unless the caregiver was working minimum wage I doubt they’d make more staying at home, but I don’t know. Does anyone know the system that can clarify?
The only way to fix the Long Term Care issue is to create a tax credit , yes credit, for private policies. Medicare will not be able to financial handle the future claims that are going to be generated in this area Private polices with private insurance carriers is the only solution. You get to write off your premiums and the government is not on the hook for your coverage.
Why can,t congress figure this out. The lack of taxes vs. the cost of care is worth it to the the American tax payers.
@ Ron: I like the idea but how would it address the needs of citizens who would not benefit from the tax credit.
The fact that the government officials, congress and such, do not have pay for any health care cost, ever, why should they get it right?
There is no reason to “fix” longterm care. One only has to apply and pay for the insurance. Pay the bill. That’s the fix.
THIS IS JUST ANOTHER VERSION OF “2 STEPS FORWARD, 1 STEP BACKWARD” FROM THE COMMUNIST PARTY PLAYBOOK OF THE 60’S. THIS IS A SMALL VICTORY BUT THEY WILL TRY TO POINT AT IT AND USE THIS ELIMINATION AS A REASON THE OBAMACARE TRAVESTY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO ON. THE WHOLE LAW NEEDS TO GO !!
Health care should be a single payer system; it would save huge sums of money and improve health care for all citizens.
Mike, you’re absolutely right. Look at it this way:
You get sick, so you go to the doctor, who, for a fee, (hopefully)find a cure for you. Who are the players in this transaction? You and your doctor. Who makes a profit? Your doctor.
Now add in a private health insurance company to the equation. Same fact patter, you get sick and go to the doctor, but now, there are three parties, two of which have to make a profit. The doctor and the private health insurance company.
Anyone can see the problem with that. The cost of care has to go up because there are now two profit centers to feed.
How do you eliminate that? Make health insurance a single payer, non profit operation. Take the profit out of health insurance and costs will go down.
There are still three players in your formula. You take out the private company and replace it with a government beauracracy as facilitator. Which one does history say is most efficient?
Always amazes me when people think government bureaucracy is the answer. Where is the evidence to support this?
Private insurance is not efficient when it comes to delivering health care. I think it does a fine job when it comes to its traditional business model insuring commerical risks.
Private insurers negotiate a lower price for services than the patient would be able to get on their own so the cost of health insurance actually reduces the cost of health care.
In a single payer system, you can anticipate that the government will not negotiate price but rather, mandate the price. This will result in doctors, hospitals and pharmacies having an underground practice that generates better care for cash or trade.
This is exactly what happens in ALL of the countries where a single payer system exists.
You are either grossly unschooled in economics, or you are unaware of how socialized medicine (i.e. rationing) works in nearly all countries in which it exists. Which is it?
Do you like how many doctors are now refusing to see Medicare and Medicais patients? That is the logical end of the road of your little pipe dream. Apparently, you want grandparents and children to die, as you want Medicare, Medicaid, and private health insurance destroyed. Now, THAT’S a bright idea.
You might want to think things out before spouting off. Please.
…and everyone will have unicorns…and lillies…and there will be free candy for everybody, with a river of chocolate…and nobody will ever have to clean up their room or pay taxes…ever.
(can we hold hands and skip, too? I mean, if we’re going to throw out silly, childish ideas, shouldn’t we also have recess time?).
Reasons to NEVER, EVER let the Federal Government NEAR OUR HEALTHCARE:
– Social Security (Feds raided the trust fund – no more money)
– Medicare – The numbers of doctors no longer accepting Medicare patients is soaring…and growing daily. Oh, and Obama cut $500 BILLION from the program, too.
– The Federal Budget – The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) cannot even balance the books, as there are millions of items where NOBODY KNOWS WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!). But I’m sure they’ll do much, much better managing the countries’ private health network. Sure.
– The VA – Cutting benefits for our soldiers for decades! You think the same won’t happen to our healthcare?
– The majority of costs are driven by REQUIREMENTS PLACED UPON INSURANCE BY POLITICIANS (Chiropractic – even if you don’t see a chiropractor, Maternity – Even though my wife cannot have kids and I have had a vasctomy, Doctors Visits – whcih should be paid for out of pocket – see definition of “insurance”.
Nearly ALL of the problem with health insurance are due to bastard politicians and bastard lawyers. The politicians have larded up coverage with mandates (in exchange for campaign cash), precluding buyers from access to affordable care. Then the lawyers, who have paid plenty of campaign cash to politicians, get to feast on the system through frivolous lawsuits and extortion.
Yeah, the government sure does a great job, don’t they!
Single payer – HMMM – the same government that has given us the Postal Service, Social Security (robbing the trust) the EPA with excessive regulations, the Energy Dept that was formed to guarantee energy INDEPENDENCE and other stellar incompetent, insensitive beaurocracies will make health insurnace less expensive than the capitalistic system that runs on competitiveness!!
Clearly you folks missed your economic classes and you ARE drinking way too much Obama socialistic Kool-Aid!!!
President Obama did not, as you know, originate the idea of single payer health care. Nor are democrats the only party to have acknowledged that single payer health care is the most rational approach. However, if one looks at health care as a service and product divorced from the consequences of need as opposed to demand (demand assumes $$ to purchase) then a wholly private system would be quite rational.
I find it ironic, all you folks who think the government can do nothing right…I would be willing to bet that you support government run executions, aka capital punishment, because the government always gets it right when it comes to executing only the guilty. Amirite?
Typical left response. Biased, without supporting evidence.
Actually I would argue that a majority or Republicans are against the death penalty – I personally believe the government (more specifically the judicial branch) does get it wrong a lot of the time.
I didn’t say it was a fact, I said that I would bet it’s true (read: I’m guessing). But you wouldn’t know I was wrong judging from the crowd reaction at the Republican debates wildly cheering the fact that Texas executed more people than any other state, or people cheering Herman Cain’s suggestion that we have a electric fence capable of killing people on our border.
I know of a guy who learned the hard way about what can conduct electricity when he pee’d on an electric fence on a cattle ranch.
Haha! Now that is funny
The irony in this post makes giggle inside.
I guess I wasn’t clear earlier! I have worked, since I was 14 years old, baby sat prior to that age. I had to fight to get those jobs, NOT because I was uneducated, although society did attempt to keep me from getting one, placing me in a class room with blind, deaf, mute, malformed and retarded children, I fought hard for my education. Check your dates and facts on the ADA Laws, main stream did begin in my area, DFW, until 1964. No, I’m not an illegal alien…can’t guess? I contracted the Polio virus at age 16 months and before you say, so sorry your parents were to dumb to get you vaccinated, they were professionals,thank you very much. Just in case you aren’t up-to-date on when the vaccine was available it was March 1954, I was born 1952, and as far as to dumb to wait to have children, well, I was to dumb to pick a man that was worth a dime and liked to beat me, but was well into my twenty’s when I started giving birth, so, I have been through a lot and once again did it on my own, NOT WITH YOUR MONEY, and I have paid more than my share of taxes, but still care about my brother! I guess that just leaves the issue of your poor judgement in stock investments, bet you got a tax break on that, didn’t you. You must be one of the ones with the money and maybe even born into it, Hmmmm. Sorry all this became so personal, must have hit some nerve, I can tell you have one. Thank you so much!
Paula – I have known many, many people who have also had polio. Of the three I know very well, one is a retired chemical engineer, one is a retired professor, and one is a retired accountant. All did very well, and did not wish to have others pay for their, of their kids’ existence.
At the same time, each of these people were married, had children, and paid for their educations through college. These individuals also paid for their own healthcare and weren’t asking politicians to steal money from others to pay the way for them and their families.
You chose a man who beat you. You chose a bad marriage. You chose to have children under those curcumstances. No taxpayer forced you to make those bad decisions. Why, then, should taxpayers be on the hook to support your family’s healthcare because of your awful decision making?
As for your question, no I did not receive a “tax break” for stock market losses. Nor did I receive a tax break for all the losses from real estate investments, brought on primarily by leftists in Congress, WHO FORCED BANKS TO MAKE BAD LOANS TO UNWORTHY RECIPIENTS. Then, once the leftists had poisoned the well with bad loans, they allowed the banks to securitize and package the loans, so as to (hopefully) not get caught holding the entire bag of losses once the government’s scam reared its ugly head, via the current recession. Obviously you do not understand that, much like gambling in Vegas, the government always takes your individual earnings, but does not refund, or even take into account, your individual losses.
I personally give to adoption agencies (Sierra), local public health organizations, The Red Cross, Catholic Charities (health, feeding the poor), The Salvation Army, and many other public health organizations. Why? Because this country was founded on a foundation of individuals, working with and through local communities and organizations, helping one another. This country was not founded on the principle that the federal government has the wherewithall, means, or capability to handle such items on a local basis. In fact, the Constitution prohibits such intervention by the feds. Well, until politicized judges with agendas place greed and the desire to skim off the top over adherence to the law.
I commend the fact you work, and have done so since 14 (like the rest of the 53% of Americans who pay income taxes). I only wish you had made better decisions regarding your relationships. And I wish you could replace the idea that paying taxes is actually “care(ing) about your brother”, with one that includes actually doing something. Paying taxes is not helping your brother. Paying taxes is simply handing over money to greedy politicians, who take their cut, hand out other cuts to their cronies and those who feed them campaign donations, then give teh table scraps to suckers who in-turn elect re-elect them. Taxes, in and of themselves, are not moral. It seems you have replaced morality with big government. You might want to rethink that.
Hey buddy, I pay taxes too and have worked since I was 14 as well. Unlike you and your retired friends however, I did not come of age and get to build my career during the greatest period of economic expansion in US history. I WAS lucky enough to graduate from college in between two recessions caused by YOUR generation’s poor financial decision making, so I have a job, unlike the poor saps demonstrating down on wall street who had the misfortune of being a few years younger than me.
To address something else you said, how did the leftists “allow” the banks to repackage the junk-mortgages they originated? That was the free market at work. The FREE MARKET. The infallible invisible hand, worshipped and revered by many. I and my generation watched this cult-like faith in the free market drive our economy right into the ground, meanwhile the old folks who were served well by the free market continue to blame our problems on the gummint and poor people.
What’s a matter with kids these days? They are unemployed.
@youngin Amen: employees previously on private health insurance have lost it in a number of ways, including but not limited to lossing their jobs; job loss was happening in early 2008 and before then; then we had the economic zsunami in Sept 2008 and govt’s share of the burden of health has been growing and growing. All the time, the govt has been giving tax breaks to private companies who have a health insurance program for their employees. because of the extremely high cost of individual private insurance, many people have only catastrophic coverage with very high deductibles and limited PPO options. In 2010, before we health care overhaul federal and state govt was covering 42% of health care coverage under the then current system. The notion of a govt take over of health care is simply paranoia. The defacto govt take over of health care was the problem of the system in place before President Obama took office. This is not a leftist or rightist issue. It is a big problem for our country and name calling does nothing to help.
mike – Just so you know, private health insurance costs less than group insurance. And, you are correct in teh assertion government has been involved with healthcare for a long time. That is why it is completely screwed up. The mandates government has placed on coverage (“free” doctor visits, “free” preventive care, maternity coverage, chiropractic coverage, etc.) has caused costs to necessarily skyrocket. When one adds greedy, immoral lawyers – and the democrat party, to whom 90% of the trial bar’s campaign donations go – one can easily see why the system is being destroyed daily. So, we have the government larding services (due to special interest lobbying) and one party allowing the lawyers to fleece the system. Yet you think MORE government is the answer?
youngin’ – I imagine this post was in respone to mine above, since it was attached at the bottom.
1. I’m 40. My generation has yet to operate the levers of power. So, your first assumption is completely wrong.
2. When I was “build(ing) my own career”, we had a number of recessions and bubbles burst. I was in high tech when that bubble burst. I lost over $300,000 in commissions, and had the company I worked for go belly up. My wife is the president of a finance company, whose business was decimated by the government’s and large banks’ misdeeds (which the government encouraged, demanded, and pressured). So, don’t come whining to me about my “generation” not having to deal with this. At the same time, we had a WORSE stock crash than the most recent in ’87 (claimed my father’s career), and nearly as bad in ’91. Funny how we recovered from those downturns much faster without wasting A TRILLION DOLLARS. So, stop your complaining. Crying never got anyone anything of substance in this world. Plus, it’s pathetic.
3. Please explain to me how, when the government FORCED large banks to loan to unworthy debtors (and placed every single investor in those banks at risk) via the CRA of ’77, refused to allow Republicans on the Hill to curtail the practices, then had GSEs Fannie and Freddie guarantee the bad loans the government required them to make – even as Harold Raines (Clinton cabinet) and Jamie Gorelic (deputy AG for Clinton) gobbled up these bad loans at a pace never before seen in American history, one could even consider this a free market system. The government forcing businesses to act against their shareholders’, and the market’s, best interests, by forcing the banks to do business with unworthy creditors, is somehow “free market”? Please, do us all a favor and stop smoking crack!
So, just to be clear, your definition of “free market” includes federal government regulating banks, forcing them to make bad loans, then using the taxpayers money to back all the bad loans? If that is your definition of a “free market”, then you ought to sue the college that provided you with a degree for gross negligence, as well as failure to perform.
4. The reason Clinton signed the bill, allowing banks to securitize the risk, was to keep the banks from being sued by shareholders for doing the government’s work of making bad loans to unworthy people, which would ultimately leave shareholders on the hook for the government mandated bad loans. You see, unlike the politicians you wished controlled our economy far more, C-level executives and BOD members can be sued by shareholders and thrown in jail for breaking laws. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about Dodd, Frank, Raines, Gorelick, and the other (primarily leftist, though there were some jackass RINOs in there as well) government thieves who gamed the system.
And, please, the only people here with a “cult-like faith” are the ones, like you, claiming government control or socialism is the answer. That has been tried, over and over (Pol Pot, Mao, Castro, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, etc.), with similar results every time it is tried. Millions starving, dead or killed, with everything from healthcare to food to housing rationed. Why the rationing? Because the system being called for by the “kids these days” protesting (socialism) naturally produces limited output, due to a lack of motivation to create, improve, or manufacture. You see, unless one sees reward for the hard work, and the countless hours taken from their limited time with friends and family in order to work, there is zero reason to work.
You might want to brush up on some history and economics, just so you don’t come off sounding so vacuous. At the same time, perhaps some of the “kids these days” might want to choose a major which actually has some utility (math, sciences, accounting, finance, engineering, chemistry, biology, business, kinesiology, etc.), rather than one which usually leads to heavy use of the words “You want to Supersize that?” (literature, womyns studies, sociology, history, education, visual and performing arts, anthropology, urban studies, etc., etc., etc, ad infinitum).
I live in a small town in CA. I just looked on CareerBuilder.com, and found many, many jobs available. And that is in an area with around 20% unemployment, in the state with the worst finances and leadership in the country. I also made the point of speaking with a local head hunter, who tells me she has PLENTY OF JOBS AVAILABLE. It’s just that people do not want to take the jobs when they are getting money from the state and feds for doing NOTHING. Once again…NOTHING.
That speaks VOLUMES about YOUR GENERATION.
@Mike N – I believe GW Bush also used his pulpit to encourage Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to encourage private home ownership; I also have first hand experience with real estate professionals which includes mortgage departments of banks pushing bad purchases in order to get a closing, to get that commission, and to sell that asset before it became no-producing. Too bad there is no claw back on those commissions. I note there was no mention of the responsibility of standard & poors or moody’s in your response.
Mike,
You hit almost every aspect I said I didn’t want to go over
:)
Thank you. The only part not in there is that insurance companies like AIG decided that as these companies were taking part in government endorsed activities, they foolishly invested in the real estate companies directly or through credit default swaps. Not many people know this youngin’ but trick question:
What took down AIG? It was their investment team. Why? They put huge amounts of capital into those companies which did government encouraged loans that Nancy Pelosi called “100% home loans” and Barney Frank said had no signs of “financial problems”.
Second question: Do you know how many insurance companies and financial instituions rely on investments in real estate to survive and followed that AIG model? Here’s a hint: There’s a reason why many insurance companies and financial institutions went down. It XXisXX (was rather) incrediby popular. They bet on the same loans.
There’s my last two cents. Very well posted Mike.
Mike,
I didn’t realize there were two of you. Mike N and you. My last comment was to Mike N. Sorry about that.
I agree with what you stated with the credit, but I don’t believe you are tracing back the main area. The credit comment is definiely accurate and is what drove the situation to be worse. All the lending was based on shotty markets, layered on top of each other, which after unwinding all blew up. Out of control credit issues was definitely a large factor, now then the question is what caused that? Without a proximate cause, the rest of the credit would not have been a problem. We’re in insurance after all, I don’t need to know what made it worse, I need to know what caused it. And if you look back on it that originates with home loans. 1.5 trillion between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to be precise. AIG falling was a capital crises that was I believe a bit larger than you realize and it came from the real estate bubble popping. I spoke with a politician who stated that if the capital from AIG was thrown out of the market, they were literally afraid that the value of the dollar would decrease as AIG has that large of an output of dollars. Including the other financial institutions who all failed for similar reasons and you have the source as home loans. That is what I was getting at but probably did not thoroughly explain as I’ve really done it too many times for liberals and had no return arguement as to how this crises was caused.
I use the “free market” phrase in the perspective of the liberal. As they see a “free market” it doesn’t even exist so it couldn’t have caused the crises. It’s intended for some irony too if the liberal is more clever
:)
Regular Mike,
No, Bush was the only person to fight against Fannie Mae Freddie Mac.
Interestingly enough only one media source even reported on this one, but here’s the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Kind of makes you worry about media bias doesn’t it?
Mike N – Bravo!!
Youngin’
Clever, but incorrect. The free market didn’t cause the housing collapse.
I’ve researched this one like crazy. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the two largest institutions with sub prime mortgages. They were forced into the market, regulations built the environment for these types of junk mortgages.
You really believe that everyone was dumb enough to not see that the bubble would pop? No. Multi billion dollar companies don’t “accidentally” all do the same thing at the same time to risk their ass…ets. It doesn’t happen in a free market. That’s a tall tale sign of a common factor with all of them. A common factor with all loans bringing down all companies points to regulation being the source. I’d explain the specifics (as I happen to also have inside knowledge of how AIG failed, and it’s very much so tied into Fannie Mae Freddie Mac, and lenders, as well as other insurance carriers who did the same thing causing a domino effect with financial institutions) but I’ll leave you to look that up. Just know the free market did not cause the housing crises.
@Chris the phrase a “free market” is misleading just like the phrase “efficient markets.” The phrases are too often used as a rhetorical short hand but about without much critical analysis in the way they are used. For example, I agree a number of factors went into the Sept 2008 financial tsumani resulting directly from the collapse of housing prices – no shortage of finger pointing for sure. Being one of the most disliked members in this debate, I argue that our current economic problems relate to a lack of demand, not supply. Artificial demand funded by lines of credit (HELOCs) based on equity that evaporated drove our consumer economy up to unsustainable heights, to a standard of living that has not and likely is not maintainable.
Chris,
Do more research, there are numerous inaccuracies in your statement.
First of all, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not purchase or guarantee sub-prime mortgages. By definition, sub-prime mortgages are loans which do not conform to Fannie Mae guarantee standards. The default risk was born by the investors in the mortgage-backed securities.
No, many people saw the bubble coming, but no one knew quite when it would pop. In the meantime, there was lots of money to be made, and no one wanted to stop dancing. This is greed, which in moderation is good, but taken to excess is what fed the housing bubble.
The multi-billion dollar companies are what drove the demand for the mortgage-backed securities! Everyone wanted to hold triple-A rated securities, and the folks at the rating agencies were happy to keep slapping top ratings on mortgage-backed securities and other CDO’s, and even were instrumental in designing the tranches to manufacture even MORE AAA rated securities. It was the blind leading the blind and the institutional investors are as much at fault for not doing their due diligence on the quality of the securities.
The pro-housing government agenda provided the first snowflake, but it was out of control “free markets” that turned the housing market into a ten foot snowball.
Mike –
The housing market is not just “marginally” regulated. It’s highly regulated. Regulations have not been decreased. See my other post. Bush even attempted more regulations and it failed in 2003. See my other link. That means no changes were made, and the market failed. I don’t suggest traditional “de-regulation”. I suggest the removal or regulation that forces loans to be given. Regulations haulting loans may in fact be decent. Regulations forcing them though, are extremely harmful.
The market that failed was not a “free market”. It was entirely regulated.
The rhetorical arguement of which you speak isn’t rhetorical. Look at my other facts. They are quite specific.
Youngin:
Did I even once use the phrase “sub prime” in my posts? Let me answer that for you: No. Do not, and I mean this absolutely do not label my words and then twist them to make my theories what you want them to be.
Further: Every single one of your statements are “ideological”. Not one can be proven and not one is a “sequence” as to how this crises happened. “greed” “multi billion dollar corporations” “pro housing”. Not one is a factorable or tangible number that can translate into how the crises happened. If it can’t be applied, it can’t be the source.
Fact one: Home loans failed on a huge scale. See Mike N’s post and mine. We said the specifics as to how it happened.
Fact two: AFTER 1977 and the act Mike N referred to, housing increased. This is part of the bubble. Housing markets can’t fail without expanding to begin with. Housing increased past that day at an alarming rate. It really increased after the 1995 revisions though.
Fact three: When the housing act was modified again and signed by Clinton in 1995 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac barely existed. Nor did a subprime market. The subrime bubble begain to grow in this time period. 1.5 trillion in loans were given. Sub prime is not the sole area of these loans which is why I was very, very, intentional not to say “sub prime”. Also a side note: Bush did not ONCE touch the housing regulations. He didn’t modifiy them. There’s the kicker. He certainly tried. The housing regulations were changed a least two times in Clinton’s presidency, and those two times were significant changes that lead to this crises. Look up the code regarding the minority changes especially.
Fact four: The other institutions did fail (such as insurers) due to investing in home loan companies, whether directly (credit default swaps) or indirectly (through their captial investment divisons. You may not know this but every single insurer takes premiums and invests it. Almost every insurance company few yeas back invested in companies that engaged in the type of loans that housing regulations encouraged. The reason is due to a market type they thought would never fail. This further proves my point. Why else would they all do it Yougin? It was predictable. They knew that all those companis were regulated into a regulated marktet. It was not a free market Betting on a government area is a fairly good bet.)
Fact five: Multi billion dollar companies which have been around over 50 years would not make short term decisions or they would not be around and would have failed long ago. Your comment about them intentionally creating an environment where agents focused on temprary profit is laughable. They had to allow it due to regulations regarding loans.
Fact six: In a free market all markets do not make the same type of loans. It is not profitable to make a loan that won’t be paid back. You may try to argue the agents making the loans wanted the money, and made the loans, and therefore they were not regulated. But what you are missing is: The agents who made the loans would not have been able to make the loans if the owners of the corporations were making the rules. It is just a fact that the government allowed, encouraged, and forced the subprime market to exist, as well as others. Without these regulations, the corporations would not make the loans. Minorities suffered worse in the crises. Do you know why? Have you looked at the housing acts provisions for minority loans? It forces an amount to be given. The regulations messed with many areas. Each area it messed with was hit hardest. Are you going to tell me minorities just happened to be targeted and it was the big bad corporations? It was just coincidence we passed regulations forcing more home loans to be given to minorities, it was just coincidence that those loans faild, and it was just coincidence that the corporations gave out those loans, and that it was spawned by “greed” and “multi billion” dollar decisions from companies that suddenly thought on a temporary basis? I’m going to call you on that one. Do more research.
Later!
@Chris, you are conflating a lot of critical and complex issues into a rhetorical argument to dismantle an economy. Where would you begin deregulation? would you just want to unwind evertying back to pre-1873 and start over? was there a free market prior to 1873? isn’t a “free-market economy” really a hypothosis after all? what criteria would you use to evaluate/judge the “success” of “free market economy” if one could exist? is there a point in time in american history where we had a “free market” economy?
Youngin’
Ah, I got it. You thought that my post referencing two of the specific biggest companies to fail due to sub prime market conditions meant all my posts were regarding the sub prime market. Well they weren’t. After that point I said “regulated” markets, quite intentionally.
I just thought you caught that…but now I see how one could apply one of my examples to my whole concept. My whole concept was housing regulation. Obviously, sub prime is a part. But it is not the only part.
You know what, Mike, once again you have turned every word I typed to your own misconception. I never asked anyone to take care me financially and certainly, once again, I am not asking for sympathy from anyone. We all make mistakes and misjudge peoples caricature. I too know many many people who have Post Polio and Post Polio Syndrome, which was only considered a disability in the early 1980’s, so, no benefits there, only a few with very mild forms of damage or that lived in states with benefits to aid the disabled, your tax dollars at work, or that had parents with a more than a comfortable life were able to actually get degrees, but that is neither here nor there, I never said what level of education I achieved, I only said I had to fight for my education. You talk about all the charities you give to, but what about all the tax breaks you get from those donations? As soon as the government put a topper on the amount of credit people could claim the donations dropped and most of the charities out there only assist in emergency, which is great when you are wiped out by fire, flood, etc. A lot of charities the money goes strictly into research, again which is great. I never stated I didn’t give to charities, but I certainly have never made the income that aloud me the luxury of taking any tax credits, I did it just straight from my heart. I always loved going through the checks paid to register to play golf to benefit a charity, but they would win a car or a great trip to the Islands and they would always mark it as a donation, gotta get that TAX CREDIT so they can really enjoy that prize. I’m not saying it’s a perfect world or that it ever will be, but there are people right here in this country that are honest hard working people that haven’t had the breaks some have and it didn’t have anything to do with being lazy. I do agree there are some real lazy “A H’s” out here taking advantage of the system, but there are also the ones that do work very hard at jobs someone has to do, but it wouldn’t be you, these are the ones that need the help! The hard workers that break their backs everyday to just pay rent and try to put food on the table, THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT REALLY NEED HELP and they don’t qualify! Do you not see the difference? You seem to just be an angry person that feels you do your part and “F” the rest and you know what, I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU, you are the one with the blackened heart and I do I feel sorry for you. Thanks for the chat, but I’m through playing this who is right game with you, you are not worth MY time, you are too bitter and I dearly pray you are never one of the ones that “needs”.
Paula’s posts pretty much explain how Obama got elected.
It’s true… it does not matter how much truth is advertised because there are always people out there who don’t have the ability to understand it or are just to stubborn to accept it.
Many people live their lives playing the V or “victim” cards. Their circumstance is the fault of someone else and it is only fair that they receive something in return for their troubles – no matter what the cost is to others. This is not what America was founded on and this will ultimately be the demise of our great nation.
“Greed and selfishness” come in many different forms and is spread amoung all economic classes.
Now let me get the facts, I pay $200+-300+ premiums a month for $50 back per month. No thank you!! I agree lets scrap the rest of this obama care, its math like this that makes me worry!
Time to end this conversation!
The solution is very simple:
Throw Obama and his multitude of Czars along with Obamacare out to !
Gut the out of control EPA;
Limit the Energy Dept’s scope to focus on energy independence – this department has over 100,000 employees and a #22B budget and it only took them 35 years to build this incompetive and insenstive overseer of energy – and no energy indendence;
Terminate the Department of Education and move educational matters back to the States.
Cut the size of all government agencies by 25% through ATTRITION.
Now wasn’t that easy!!
I enjoy paying $6600 a year for health insurance and deductibles for me and my two children. Additional $2268 a year for Medicare and supplementals for my husband on our $75000 year income. Yes, please repeal so I can purchase two additional high deductible policies with pre existing clauses with low limits for my teenage children. I’ll enjoy that to. I’m bleeding money from the 401K, health insurance, homeowners insurance, life insurance, AD&D insurance, property taxes, federal taxes and my corporate employer decided to give us a 5% pay cut just ’cause it felt good for their stock holders. I enjoy not having money so that others can have their riches. Makes me a proud American. When I don’t have money to buy groceries from the skyrocketing prices and gasoline at a $100 a tank, I say to myself “It’s ok, maybe next week you can help the rich man”. After all he has done so much for you. Given you the opportunity to work for him at low wages, given you the opportunity to invest in his stock market, the opportunity to … well, uh.. Ah, sounds so bleak who cares anymore!
Some of you have put a lot of thought into your posts, gone on your rants, standing tall on your soap boxxes. Even engages Jesus into the conversation.
One common theme seems to come through the ones I have read – Obumba came to his senses on this line item. Maybe soon, hopefully, the rest will be shot down in flames.
Now, its time for me to get back to work – remember worK> Its what pays the bills.