patrick.net

dtower1 says

It's the awful, stupid, unconstitutional, central planning, big government, corruption, job killing, anti-liberty, Big-Brother, government knows best bureaucracy that we can't stand.

Yet these things were perfectly acceptable during the Bush years to the right.

"A Republican president could propose the EXACT same poliicies as Obama and there would be ZERO outrage from the Tea Party. Where were all the protests when Romney was governor and he implemented RomneyCare? Where were the protests when Bush enacted the bailouts? There were none."

BS. I don't live in Taxachusetts or I would have. And the bailouts, evryone I know was against them and they passed them anyway. remember the votes at midnight?

You can't guarantee government health care. Youll only guarantee waste and rationing.

Think about this.

DMV
Traffic Court
County Building Permits
School Teachers
Police

Most of us deal with these people once in a while. Mostly in negitive circumstances. How did that go last time?

Some of us, deal with them all of the time. How much does that cost your buisness?

Add your OGBYN to the list ladies.

thunderlips11 says

SS Checks are written from the SSA, not the IRS.

Why do you repeat what I said? SSA's job is printing up checks and printing up ficticious statements.

How much does it cost the IRS to collect SSI payments? I doubt more than 1 or 2%.

Regardless cost, the job of collecting SS tax payment is carried out by IRS. The real cost of collecting SS tax payment is in lost jobs: employers and employees unable to meet at a feasible wage because of the 15% tax that the government insists on taking.

What's the advantage to private accounts? If they stole SSI, they can steal your IRA, 401k or Roth money too.

They have already stolen your SS payment. The account statements are about as valuable as the monthly/quaterly statements from Bernie Madoff. The entire $2.6T SS "trust fund" is in non-marketable Treasury IOU's, in other words, worthless paper that can fetch exactly zero in the market place, just like Madoff's book entries.

As for IRA, 401k and Roth, yes, they are coming for that too.

Unlike Lehman Brothers, the Gov't can print money. They don't have to print it all the missing trillions at once either, just enough to cover some of the difference between receipts and owed amounts.

This isn't optimal, but it's probably what they'll do.

Iraq and Afghanistan wars are running at least $1T, that could have gone a big way to replenishing SSI.

Of course, we could always raise the record-low taxes a bit. Just raising the top bracket 5% would give us more than a trillion over ten years.

In fact, cutting the military 30% and raising the top margin rate would more than save SSI.

The deficit is solvable without too much hardship. The problem is it isn't politically practical as the uber-rich have a massive sense of entitlement, they want all the benefits of living in a first world country without paying the price in taxes.

drintrnet says

You can't guarantee government health care. Youll only guarantee waste and rationing.

That's not really a good argument. No one has ever successfully explained how government plans "ration" healthcare and how that's different from how insurance companies "ration" healthcare.

Government health plans would guarantee a particular level of coverage. If you want a $1M procedure that will extend your life for 2 weeks, the government plan may not cover it, but that's not rationing. If the insurance company did not cover this procedure, would you also call it rationing? If not, then your whole argument falls apart.

Any health care plan, private or public, requires determining a basic level of coverage.

drintrnet says

Think about this.

DMV
Traffic Court
County Building Permits
School Teachers
Police

Most of us deal with these people once in a while. Mostly in negitive circumstances. How did that go last time?

That's also a dumb argument. Think about this:

Customer service calls
Banks
Cable companies
Phone companies
Rental car agencies

These are all private companies that provide the same frustrations. Why would these sorts of things be unique to government services?

Mentioning OB/GYNs is just uselessly stirring the pot with a strawman -- no one has suggested socialized healthcare like in the UK. Have you ever waited in a doctor's office for 25 mins and then seen the doctor for 10 mins? Was it a VA doctor or a private doctor?

anything that runs on tax money is GODLESS COMMUNISM to Republicans.

Except banks. Banks are ok. You can use taxpayer's money to run them. They are too big to fail. More Kool-Aid please.

corntrollio says

Second, Social Security has a far higher return than some piddly CD you'd get today.

What does SS invest in to achieve the alleged return? hmm? It doesn't actually invest in anything that has market value. SSA just exchanges the real revenue for some non-marketable Treasury IOU's. The General Fund is where real investment of the money takes place . . . how is that investment in Iraq or Afghanistan or any government program turning out? Profit and return on capital are not the forte for government bureaucracy.

All talks of "better return" is not about actual return on capital but instead about how much the recipients were able to get out of the system than put in thanks to increasing subscription base in a Ponzi scheme. This is point is not even up to debate, as even pro big government stalwarts like Krugman and Samuelson even admit the point.

corntrollio says

Reality wrote

The regulators were encouraging people to take out variable interest loans

These sorts of statements are mostly useless. I totally imagine

You don't have to imagine at all. Read up on Greenspan's 2004 congressional testimony encouraging adjustable mortgage.

The statistics show that government loans went down during the boom, and private loans went way up. If you would like to dispute the stats, please explain why.

The FED's artificially low interest rate was what got the bubble started. "Private" loans by government insured institutions mushroomed faster than government loans initially only becaus the private sector was quicker to discover and arbitrage the government-caused market distorsion. The government bureaucracy was simply too slow to latch onto the new "money making opportunity" created by itself initially. Then the bureaucrats became the johnny-come-lately, and joined the party just when the bomb went off.

>>>They died at 35 from an infection of the mouth, raving incoherently as common dental problems became infections that spread to their brain.

>>>That's just absurd.

No, actually, it's too real.

"Few examples better illustrate the changing times we face then the death of Kyle Willis. Mr. Willis, age 24, died from a tooth infection. Why? According to WLWT-TV in Cincinnati, the unemployed and uninsured father and aspiring paralegal could afford either pain medication or antibiotics — but not both. His face swollen, he got the pain medication. Meanwhile the infection spread to his brain.

"You have to wonder what the daughter left behind by Mr. Willis will think when she grows up. Is the cost of treating a toothache really worth the loss of a parent?

Read more: http://www.ourbroker.com/news/labor-day-does-america-need-a-second-bill-of-rights-090511/#ixzz1Y8rDk0LB

corntrollio says

Think about this:

Customer service calls
Banks
Cable companies
Phone companies
Rental car agencies

These are all private companies that provide the same frustrations. Why would these sorts of things be unique to government services?

Customer service calls are usually handled very well where there is competition. Banks under the central banking system are government enforced cartel members. Cable/phone/rental car companies all become much more attentive when there is competition offering consumers real choice.

The real question is not government vs. private, but competition vs. monopoly, freedom-of-choice vs. mandatory coersion.

marcus says

The most interesting politician in the world.

marcus says

I tried to put it on Reddit, but it just faded rather than becoming popular.

I like it very funny and poignant, but the text is a little hard to read that may be why it was not so popular on Reddit. I played with the typography a bit for you. Not perfect but looks a little better like this.

OurBroker says

According to WLWT-TV in Cincinnati . . .

So which pre-20th century feudalistic juridiction is WLWT-TV in Cincinnati broadcasting from?

It is government regulations that have deprived the poor man access to cheap antibiotics . . . and deprived the young girl her father.

The story was originally posted on August 31st.

http://www.wlwt.com/news/29044524/detail.html

leoj707 says

marcus says

The most interesting politician in the world.

marcus says

I tried to put it on Reddit, but it just faded rather than becoming popular.

I like it very funny and poignant, but the text is a little hard to read that may be why it was not so popular on Reddit. I played with the typography a bit for you. Not perfect but looks a little better like this.

Programs that citizens are forced to pay into, like Social Security and Medicare, are what pay for wars and corporate welfare. Where do you think the $2.6 Trillion "SS trust fund" went?

Leo --

Very nice work. Okay to re-use?

Thanks.

Peter

OurBroker says

The story was originally posted on August 31st.

http://www.wlwt.com/news/29044524/detail.html

Peter at OurBroker.com

Which year in pre-20th century was that August 31st? Otherwise, how does this case relate to the earlier contention that before SS/MM, people died young for lack of medicine?

Are you incapable of pressing a link? This year, 2011.

You dont have to deal with the cable company or a bank. Thats a real choice. Although an inconveinent one.

Reality says

All talks of "better return" is not about actual return on capital but instead about how much the recipients were able to get out of the system than put in thanks to increasing subscription base in a Ponzi scheme. This is point is not even up to debate, as even pro big government stalwarts like Krugman and Samuelson even admit the point.

Not true. Social Security has a defined formula. If you contribute $X, you get back $Y. This mapping can change sometimes, although does so quite infrequently. Maybe you should learn about it.

Reality says

The FED's artificially low interest rate was what got the bubble started. "Private" loans by government insured institutions mushroomed faster than government loans initially only becaus the private sector was quicker to discover and arbitrage the government-caused market distorsion.

Oh good, a capitalized "Fed." :p I think you're misunderstanding how private loans work. Private loan rates are index + risk premium. It's pretty clear that private loan rates did not have an adequate risk premium. That had nothing to do with government.

When the federal funds rate goes down, price goes up, so that payment stays static and vice versa (e.g. a $720K loan at 4% is the same payment as a $468K loan at 8%). Only if the rate *continues* to decrease does pricing go up because of the rate. However, as you can see from history, the federal funds rate went up from 2004 to 2006 during the heart of the boom. Yet, pricing still went up during this time -- how did the rate going up during the heart of the boom make pricing go up during the heart of the boom?

http://www.moneycafe.com/library/fedfundsrate.htm

Again, government loans went way down during the boom, private loans went way up (and with extremely poor underwriting standards), and the government-backed loans were never of the extremely poorly underwritten variety that the private sector made. You're going through contortions to ignore that, but it's not working.

Reality says

The real question is not government vs. private, but competition vs. monopoly, freedom-of-choice vs. mandatory coersion.

Yes, let's have competing DMVs and competing police forces like anarcho-capitalism. That would be awesome.

drintrnet says

You dont have to deal with the cable company or a bank. Thats a real choice. Although an inconveinent one.

You also do not have to get a driver's license or get a business license or report crimes to the 5-0. That's a real choice, although an inconvenient one.

shrekgrinch says

Holy Shit! Corntrollio and I are advocating the same thing...not just agreeing on the same thing but advocating it.

I'm not clear on what we agree on. I'm saying it's good as a savings plan. What are you saying?

not true.
You dont need to drive.
But you do need a business lic for your lemonade stand.

OurBroker says

Probably the best thing the "elderly" did was to raise kids who largely don't see other people through the lens of race or religion.

Gen X ended the propagation of racism by simply rejecting the idea of it. Gen X was not raised by the boomers. We were raised by television as latchkey kids. Gen X kids were largely ignored by their boomer parents and as such did not adopt the ideologies and prejudices of that generation.

I suppose that was an advantage of being the ignored generation.

Rent a movie called "The Breakfast Club". It's pivotal scene:

ANDREW

[They both are crying silently.]

Pretty much sums up the relationship between the Boomers and Gen X.

OurBroker says

Leo --

Very nice work. Okay to re-use?

Thanks.

Peter

Peter at OurBroker.com

Of course, it is just a tune up of marcus's idea.

corntrollio says

Not true. Social Security has a defined formula. If you contribute $X, you get back $Y. This mapping can change sometimes, although does so quite infrequently. Maybe you should learn about it.

That formula is worth about as much as Madoff's account statements. A fund has to have real money and marketable asset in order to have any basis to calculate return. Otherwise it's just an empty promise that can be stopped at any time . . . speaking of which, there is already court precedence that the social security payouts are not real government obligations. That's why social security obligation is not counted as real government debt. The government can stop payment on it at any time.

It's pretty clear that private loan rates did not have an adequate risk premium. That had nothing to do with government.

Clear in hindsight 20/20. Clear also to some contrarians . . . however, the ones dived in head-first helping pumping the bubble made out hand-over-fist in bonuses during the time . . . which gave every incentive to overlook the concern as well as use regulations to force the ignorance. e.g. FNM and FRE were regulated into buying subprime loans just when they were about to blow up.

Regulations are not made by God or enforced by God. They are made by men and enforced by men, who have every incentive to take advantage of the regulatory structure for personal gains.

Yes, let's have competing DMVs and competing police forces like anarcho-capitalism. That would be awesome.

The freedom to travel from one jurisdiction to another mitigates the harm of such monopolies. That's why freedom of mobility makes for a better society than serf systems where the individual is indeed attached to the land with its monopolistic police force.

OurBroker says

Are you incapable of pressing a link? This year, 2011.

Peter at OurBroker.com

Just to make it obvious to you: which year in the pre-20th century (before SS/MM) was 2011?

corntrollio says

However, as you can see from history, the federal funds rate went up from 2004 to 2006 during the heart of the boom. Yet, pricing still went up during this time -- how did the rate going up during the heart of the boom make pricing go up during the heart of the boom?

Is this some kind of joke? Is the pro-FED crowd now reduced to binary state of mind instead of the previous linear modelling? When the housing market was going up 10%, 20% a year or more, what would a 1/4 point interest rate hike from 3% do? Absolutely nothing. The bubble was already stoked by the previous 1% interest from 2001-2003. As the real money supply / inflation rate went into high single-digits if not double-digits as evidenced by the rapidly rising housing price, it would take far more substantial rate raising to stop the run-away freight train by 2004-05. Instead of doing that, the regulators encouraged people ploughing more money into housing and taking out more risky loans.

Reality says

When the housing market was going up 10%, 20% a year or more, what would a 1/4 point interest rate hike from 3% do? Absolutely nothing. The bubble was already stoked by the previous 1% interest from 2001-2003.

That's nonsense. It's pretty obvious that the 30-year fixed mortgage rate is not even tied directly to the federal funds rate. You can even see the lack of correlation:

http://mortgage-x.com/trends.htm

This whole "encouragement" argument just doesn't work. Without private parties to increase significantly the number of non-prime non-government-backed loans during the boom and without private parties to significantly misjudge the risk premium, the boom does not happen. The stats are all there, you're just ignoring them.

Saying it was "stoked" is practically useless when mortgage rates varied quite a bit during that time, despite the federal funds rate being low. The number of transactions went up significantly during the heart of the boom, and the federal funds rate went up during this time -- how do you explain this if the bubble was "stoked" earlier on? Shouldn't the low interest rates have resulted in a record level of transactions? Saying the bubble was stoked by interest rates seems pretty silly, when it's quite transparently related to lending standards. We have extremely low interest rates now and we still haven't achieved the boomtime level of sales.

I guess the federal funds rate also caused the massive worldwide real estate bubble we had at the same time. Gotta love those low interest rates that weren't even during the boom! :)

I am neither strictly pro- or anti-Fed and don't really care about that argument per se, largely because the anti-Fed arguments aren't usually very good and usually just boil down to poorly argued conspiracy theories. If someone made a coherent argument, I'd be willing to listen, but usually all of them are circular ideological arguments, such as you are making about the housing bubble, despite significant evidence to the contrary.

Reality says

Otherwise it's just an empty promise that can be stopped at any time . . . speaking of which, there is already court precedence that the social security payouts are not real government obligations. That's why social security obligation is not counted as real government debt. The government can stop payment on it at any time.

All the court precedence says is that Congress may change the formula. That doesn't mean the same as "there is no formula."

corntrollio says

That's nonsense. It's pretty obvious that the 30-year fixed mortgage rate is not even tied directly to the federal funds rate.

30yr fixed mortgage was not the driver of bubbles. The variable ones and non-amortizing ARMs and Pick-A-Pay mortgages were the driving force of the bubble.

This whole "encouragement" argument just doesn't work. Without private parties to increase significantly the number of non-prime non-government-backed loans during the boom and without private parties to significantly misjudge the risk premium, the boom does not happen. The stats are all there, you're just ignoring them.

Encouragement as evidenced both by official pronoucements to buy homes and to take out ARM loans, as well as regulations that required banks to make loans to less qualified borrowers.

"Significantly misjudge the risk premium" may not be the correct diagnosis at all: the risk premiums were very correctly judged by those buying puts. It's the anticipated bailouts to pay counter-parties that made those bets profitable.

I'd be willing to listen, but usually all of them are circular ideological arguments, such as you are making about the housing bubble, despite significant evidence to the contrary.

That's only because you are incapable of grasping magnitude or delayed effect of FED policies. Before Paul Volcker became the FED Chairman, G. William Miller and Arthur Burns too raised interest rates, in tiny increments. Are you going to argue that raising interest doesn't stop inflation? or even cause inflation, as they were taking place at the same time? The rates have to be high enough to stop run-away inflation. Any rate raise that fails to meet real money supply growth rate is in effect still subsidizing the purchase of inflationary assets rising at a faster rate.

corntrollio says

All the court precedence says is that Congress may change the formula. That doesn't mean the same as "there is no formula."

Including changing to Zero!

That's the reason why SS obligation is not part of the official government debt.

Reality says

30yr fixed mortgage was not the driver of bubbles. The variable ones and non-amortizing ARMs and Pick-A-Pay mortgages were the driving force of the bubble.

Good, and those latter types of loans increased during the boom, NOT when federal fund rates were low. All of those types of loans were invented by private parties so that they could securitize more loans and gain more fees. So you are agreeing with me now?

Reality says

Encouragement as evidenced both by official pronoucements to buy homes and to take out ARM loans, as well as regulations that required banks to make loans to less qualified borrowers.

Yes, again, Greenspan holding one of those arrows outside a bank (you know, those arrows that some kid waves around for new condo developments). We're back to that, which is an extremely poor argument. "Encouragement" does not cause transactions. In addition, the CRA argument has been defeated numerous times as one solely based on ideology, so let's get rid of that (even beyond the common sense of it being passed well before the boom).

What specific lending programs are you pointing to that targeted less qualified buyers? And how did those programs result in Pick-A-Pay loans, non-amortizing loans, teaser rates, etc.? Any of those lending programs for under privileged people would be a government program, and those loans have performed far far better than private loans, which is demonstrable.

Reality says

Are you going to argue that raising interest doesn't stop inflation? or even cause inflation, as they were taking place at the same time? The rates have to be high enough to stop run-away inflation. Any rate raise that fails to meet real money supply growth rate is in effect still subsidizing the purchase of inflationary assets rising at a faster rate.

No, I'm saying that the lack of ability of people to take out mortgages means they take out fewer mortgages, and the increased ability of people to take out mortgages means they take out more mortgages.

Apparently, the private sector can never fail, even when private banksters and private ratings agencies clearly did.

The problem is that you are consistently making a circular argument in trying to blame it on the Fed. The reality is that the private sector and the government interacted in various ways. Regardless of what the government did, however, lending standards dropped (this is demonstrable), private parties made the absolute worst kinds of loans (demonstrable), these worst kinds of loans were issued in larger and larger numbers during the boom (demonstrable), and none of these three things was caused by government, in addition to the fact that government lending went down during the boom (demonstrable, and you are going through contortions trying to will that away).

leoj707 says

I played with the typography a bit for you. Not perfect but looks a little better like this.

Wow, that looks a lot better. Thanks Leo. Is that the full size version ? If you have the original, I would like to replace it on igmur, and try again to submit it (a little later when the politics are right) on reddit.

Again thanks for improving it. I didn't like the white on white, but I didn't think of that.

corntrollio says

Good, and those latter types of loans increased during the boom, NOT when federal fund rates were low. All of those types of loans were invented by private parties so that they could securitize more loans and gain more fees. So you are agreeing with me now?

ARMs popularity rose in the latest cycle starting in the mid-1990's. ARMs were very popular when the FED held short term rate at 1% from 2001-2003 . . . that was what enabled the FED to reflate the economy. Reflating the economy through housing was the game plan. It was by design, not accident.

As for who invented loan securitization. That goes back to at least the 1925-29 bubble, if not much earlier. What do you think the original Fannie Mae charter was if it's not about loan securitization? Why else do you think the original Glass-Steagal was put in place?

Yes, again, Greenspan holding one of those arrows outside a bank (you know, those arrows that some kid waves around for new condo developments). We're back to that, which is an extremely poor argument.

You are indeed engaging in very poor strawman tactic. Just because your parents never had sex in a porn movie doesn't prove that they never had sex with each other. Greenspan lowered interest rates, and the Bush administration encouraged "ownership society" via borrowing. Heck, the government officials were literally encouraging people to take out ARM mortgages to buy house in 2004-2005. By 2006-2007, the government sponsored agencies were out there buying subprime mortages hand-over-fist.

"Encouragement" does not cause transactions.

Inducement via artificially low interest rate. If "encouragement" and inducement via interest rate doesn't cause people to carry out transactions in a certain hoped for way, why the heck have the FED manipulating interest rate at all?!

In addition, the CRA argument has been defeated numerous times as one solely based on ideology, so let's get rid of that (even beyond the common sense of it being passed well before the boom).

I never brought CRA, but your repeated assertions doesn't make the statement factual. If CRA does not affect loan portfolio composition, why have CRA at all?! In any case, it's besides the point, as I never even touched upon CRA in my previous post.

What specific lending programs are you pointing to that targeted less qualified buyers?

The "Greenspan Put" program lending money to banks taking on irrational risks. The regulatory problem was far more systemic than a particular lending program. It was the entire fiat money landscape with expected government bailouts that encouraged financial malfeasance . . . just like in the 1925-1929 time frame.

No, I'm saying that the lack of ability of people to take out mortgages means they take out fewer mortgages, and the increased ability of people to take out mortgages means they take out more mortgages.

That's not what you said at all. You talked about nominal interest rates. Raising or lowering interest rate in nominal terms alone has little to do with people's ability to take out loans. It's the difference between nominal interest rate vs. money supply growth that defines the real borrowing cost; then loan qualification standards as mandated by the various loan securitization agencies provide another set of gating.

Apparently, the private sector can never fail, even when private banksters and private ratings agencies clearly did.

I never said such thing, so stop the strawman tactic. People make mistakes; to err is to be human. That's precisely the reason why competition (i.e. private sector operation) works out better than monopoly (ie. government run operation). It is precisely because that people are prone to make mistakes, therefore individuals should be allowed to choose their own counterparties, instead of being corralled into dealing with the one and only . . . i.e. government monopoly, which being run by human beings is also prone to errors.

Under a fiat central banking cartel system, it's questionable how "private" banksters really are, vs. considering them as privleged bureaucrats. The 3 rating agencies are explicitly specifed by government regulations. That's a big reason why they did so poorly in housing debacle. Some of the non government endorsed real private rating agencies actually did quite well in predicting the impending disaster, but their ratings carried no weight in the government sanctioned accounting standards.

The problem is that you are consistently making a circular argument in trying to blame it on the Fed. The reality is that the private sector and the government interacted in various ways.

You think the argument is circular only because you failed to distinguish between real market competition in the private sector vs. government sponsored/enforced cartel/monopoly. A government bureaucrat using government-given privileges to stuff his own pockets at taxpayer expense is somehow considered "private" in your mind; that's more or less what the FED-supported banksters were doing.

Regardless of what the government did, however, lending standards dropped (this is demonstrable), private parties made the absolute worst kinds of loans (demonstrable), these worst kinds of loans were issued in larger and larger numbers during the boom (demonstrable), and none of these three things was caused by government,

They did that because the players all thought they had the "Greenspan Put" backstopping them. The same crew who engineered LTCM and Enron went to work for Lehman, Bear-Stern, etc., and are now still working for the Wall Street firms after the 2008 bailout.

It's hard to blame such expectations as the very purpose of the FED is being the "buyer of last resort"; i.e. the FED Put.

government lending went down during the boom.

Yet the actual taxpayer exposure increased because all the toxic loans made by the banks operating under the FED fiat money cartel would have to be dumped on the backs of the taxpayers at some point.

The only thing Democrats accomplished is temporary bailout of debt holders. When that handout stops and deadbeat businesses finally stop holding back the recovery we'll be ok. But that won't happen on obamas watch. He is too busy bailing out mortgage industry.

srschrs says

Obama himself stated that he will side with his Muslim friends if politics turn against him.

No he didn't. Please show some proof. "Rush Limbaugh says so" doesn't count.

srschrs says

It is in his book. Here is the link:
http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2008/02/i-will-stand-wi.html

wthrfrk80 says

why shouldn't people have to buy insurance

My Parents left Ireland due to the high tax rate caused by Socialized Medicine. (Beatles-Taxman) it will be another gubmint run LOSER. The idea is utopia, but hasn't the present gubmint shown us enough bad examples ? Clunker Cash, QE(s), Ferdie & Frany, Solyndra, and other solar companies, G.M. DAMN.... SEC, NLRB, DMV, Any of you ever applied for a building permit ? Gubmint needs to remain OUT of free enterprise in any form. THEY JUST DON'T CARE !!!

I believe both Republicans & Democrats endeavor to reform those OLD SCHOOL gubmint run systems.

TMAC54 says

My Parents left Ireland due to the high tax rate caused by Socialized Medicine.

That's odd. You posted previously that your parents left Scotland because of the high tax rate caused by socialized medicine. How many other countries did they leave because of the high cost of socialized medicine? If you're going to lie, lie consistently.

Scotland & Ireland are not in different hemispheres ? (only 20mi. apart) Nor are they under different rule ? My Parents born in Edinburgh and Glasgow Scotland and lived in Ireland. Stories of the IRA and medical programs were rare in my youth, but vivid. Both Scotland and Ireland were taken over by the British long before the original tea party.

About consistency ? Cab Drivers make the same income as Doctors in SOCIALIZED countries. Are those Doctors motivated to expand their knowledge base ? Are those countries thriving ? Beautiful, warm hearted concept, But it has been tested in too many different countries. Gubmint philosophy always is "We could make it work with MORE MONEY" !!!!

thunderlips11 says

Unlike Lehman Brothers, the Gov't can print money. They don't have to print it all the missing trillions at once either, just enough to cover some of the difference between receipts and owed amounts.

In other words, you agree that "Social Seucrity Trust Fund" is a fictional device.

Iraq and Afghanistan wars are running at least $1T, that could have gone a big way to replenishing SSI.

You are close to the truth but showing a major blind spot on how the political system really works. The SSI had significant positive cash flow in the last two decades. Where did the money go? Hint: war making was the biggest spending items in the General Fund.

Of course, we could always raise the record-low taxes a bit. Just raising the top bracket 5% would give us more than a trillion over ten years.

So more of the people making $300k-$1mil whose money would otherwise enter the local economy at restaurants, dry cleaners and etc. would now see the money going to the federal government to pay for wars and TBTF banksters. Any wonder why real productive jobs are destroyed in this country? and the unemployed young men and women are suited up to be uniformed mercenaries overseas and possibly soon used here too?

In fact, cutting the military 30% and raising the top margin rate would more than save SSI.

A people believing in that line will see the tax raised, and see another 9-11 like event to stop cutting into the military. As Rumsfeld said in recent interview, every time military spending is on the chopping block, Americans would see another major war. War is the health of the State (-- Randolph Bourne). Such melodrama will continue so long as people believe that the government provides solutions. It is high time for people to realize that the government is just a device for some individuals to control and forcibly exploit other individuals.

The deficit is solvable without too much hardship. The problem is it isn't politically practical as the uber-rich have a massive sense of entitlement, they want all the benefits of living in a first world country without paying the price in taxes.

They perpetrate it by floating myths like the Government-God. "Social Security Trust Fund" is a highly effective device for war profiteering.

Thank you for your interesting "take" on the racism.

The fatal flaw of the Democratic Party is that it ignored the horrific racism in America and nominated Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.

Even if Hillary had made EXACTLY the same decisions as Obama, the traitorous Republicans, etc., would not have dared attack her the way they have attacked Obama, for fear of alienating every woman voter in America.

(Of course, she would most definitely not "reached out" to any of those slimebags, as she knows from experience exactly the level of mendacity, racism, and treachery she
would be "reaching out" to.)

When I consider how correct you are about the "older" population and how viciously racist it is (north and south, democratic and republican, now that you mention it), I see
why people have held back and allowed the Republicans and
Tea-Partiers to commit flagrant treason against the best interests of the United States ... beginning the day Obama was inaugurated.)

P.S. I am a white, yellow dog democrat, and proud of it. But I am NOT proud to be living in a country that did not RISE UP
when Bush and Cheney sent America spiraling downward, and then did not join together to get us out of the disastrous
mess (a war of survival) that Obama inherited.

What a disgusting bunch of people ...

wthrfrk80 says

As far as the health debate, why shouldn't people have to buy insurance if they are going to get "free" heath care in the ER?

The USA is not a command economy. There is nothing within the context of the constitution that specifically states that anyone is to buy anything (or not buy anything i.e boycott).

Now states via the 10th amendment can do certain things because they have the prerogative to do so.

Car insurance is not mandatory because there are no laws that one must drive a car. More importantly it is only mandated because you are driving on public roads. If you have your own private road you can do what you want (can't go far naturally). There are no mandates to have insurance when using public transportation (buses, trains, boats etc)

More importantly what if people cannot pay? Then what? Put them in jail? In mass the problem with the mandate is that some businesses simply incorporate things separately to get around it. I won't name names but there is a small chain of restaurants that did that so they didn't have to pay.

The mandate isn't exactly what is costing the public. it is the subsidized pool for those that don't pay. What is it saying if someone cannot pay even a dime for a doctors visit? Even if the state charge dirt cheap amounts it would look better than nothing. $5 for a doctors visit isn't asking for much.

If Hillary was president I'd say she'd be doing a much better job than Obama. Obama frankly cannot make up his mind. President Clinton could triangulate and make it look like art. Obama couldn't even work with democrats. In 2009 the only things that were done was putting off that digital tv transfer and passing the pseudo health care while watching Ted Kennedy gradually pass away.

The funny thing about the debate is that the democrats attempted to court republicans. Why? Because they didn't want to be caught with it if it failed the courts...which is what we are going though now. If they thought it was a sure thing they would have passed it without any republicans at all.

Reading all the ignorant hyperbole just makes my head hurt. I wish I could point the finger at one side and just say 'stop it, children!' but really it's both sides.

Our government has so many shortcomings, both in driving ideology behind government programs and/or in the implementation. There are elements of truth to both 'sides' in this debate, but defenders of each position cling to the craziest notions to make (or fail to) their points.

Often times after reading the drivel some people put out on this forum I find the urge to resort to hyperbole and irony myself - you know, I want to claim so and so is like hitler and this or that group just wants to destroy the nation. Maybe that's what you're all doing - the idiocy of a few truly driven trolls on either side has pressured you to give up with rational debate and focus instead on countering the insanity with insanity from the other direction. Maybe it *will* all balance out.

I'm not even going to bother contesting any points in this thread. There are just so few people who are even trying here. Instead, I'm just going to join in and point out that republicans eat babies (that's why they hate abortions - cutting into food supply) and libruhls are trying to redistribute the wealth so no one has much power - that'll make it easier for them to dismantle our democracy-like political system and replace it with a big brother totalitarian society. On that note I'm going to stop reading these rants and go eat dog food.