patrick.net

socal2 says

Who cares how much wealth rich dudes in America have or even the income disparity provided the poor in America are doing OK?

The problem isn't that the very poor are worse than in India--the problem is that there are way too many poor.

There is a finite amount of wealth--when it is concentrated in a few hands, then there is nothing left for the majority.

smaulgld says

Some people are ideologically fixed on the principle that no one should have so much more than any one else and they will make it a goal of theirs to try and take it away and redistribute it- even if it makes the entire society poorer

Nobody thinks that way.

smaulgld says

Here is the answer:

http://patrick.net/?p=1231429&c=1021520#comment-1021520

Sweden has no public radio!!!! Voila!

CL says

Sweden has no public radio!!!! Voila!

That's it!

smaulgld says

Any one care to guess what Sweden doesn't have that the US does?

Large numbers of blacks and Mexicans.

zzyzzx says

smaulgld says

Any one care to guess what Sweden doesn't have that the US does?

Large numbers of blacks and Mexicans.

But, as Smaulgld said above, they import their brown people to do their shit work. We have a semi-permanent semi-aristocracy too, it's called "white".

It's like a great-big Country club!

CL says

zzyzzx says

smaulgld says

Any one care to guess what Sweden doesn't have that the US does?

Large numbers of blacks and Mexicans.

But, as Smaulgld said above, they import their brown people to do their shit work. We have a semi-permanent semi-aristocracy too, it's called "white".

It's like a great-big Country club!

Sweden like other Western European nations allowed immigration for guest workers in the 60 and 70s
Sweden's more recent immigrants are asylum seekers from Iraq Iran Syria and other Arab nations - not necessarily in Sweden as guest workers

smaulgld says

Sweden's more recent immigrants are asylum seekers from Iraq Iran Syria and other Arab nations - not necessarily in Sweden as guest workers

In America, we make you work for your gruel. Arbeit Macht Frei!

Make those asylum seekers work, Sweden, or we'll liberate you next!

Aetna gave me the boot cause they're leaving the individual market in CA. now the "bronze" plan is over $120 more a month but more importantly, my deductible would be raised from $3000 to $5000. Not sure where I "benefit" under this system.

smaulgld says

He should have continued. What I said was "If you like your plan you can keep your plan" and I misspoke and I am sorry for that. Then he could have explained why it was necessary for these people to lose their plans.

Wouldn't have mattered. The right would have latched on to that and made just as big a deal about it. Their government shutdown stunt backfired on them and now they're going to grasp whatever straws they can.

Facebooksux says

Not sure where I "benefit" under this system.

These new exchanges themselves, a needed reform that makes it easier to comparison shop for similar products.

No lifetime limits under this new system.

No preexisting condition screening.

If you're a woman, or married to one, no extra premium for gender-based costs.

If you have a family -- say 4 people -- and make under $94,000 -- you qualify for subsidies that knock the silver premium down from $13,000 to $9000.

Kaiser link

But yeah, if you're a rich single healthy male who already had good coverage, of course PPACA is not all that great a reform.

Guess what, you didn't need it, and the world does not revolve around you!

zzyzzx says

Large numbers of blacks and Mexicans.

aka the new majority later this century. Conservatives are going to have to learn how to suck their cocks like the Dems do (they throw in the gays and cripples for free!) or forever be out of power at the national level.

Your choice, since there's a lot more brown people than glibertarians, theocrats, and plutocrats -- the current conservative power bloc.

Bellingham Bill says

But yeah, if you're a rich single healthy male who already had good coverage, of course PPACA is not all that great a reform.

When he's an old sick male, he'll be glad his insurance can't be taken away from him. But when you're young and rich, you are the center of the universe, and it's impossible to imagine things being any different than they are at this exact moment.

Facebooksux says

Aetna gave me the boot cause they're leaving the individual market in CA. now the "bronze" plan is over $120 more a month but more importantly, my deductible would be raised from $3000 to $5000. Not sure where I "benefit" under this system.

I think Blue cross also is leaving the Individual market

sbh says

AverageBear says

....Just like Greece, and some of the other deadbeat southern European nations. Now that's a model to emulate..... yay.

It's just so hard for you to stay on topic. You started with "6", but you just had to bring up deadbeats. Thank you, so much! Remember how hard it is for you to swallow the fiscal immaturity of your party? You so want to be like Greece and default on your bills! Back up just a bit: You ran with redistribution and we liberals owned it. So you criticize it by comparing it to what YOUR PARTY has already so proudly done: ADVOCATE DEFAULT! BRILLIANT!. When you take off your dunce cap and come back to sit down with the big boys you can restart the discussion, but make sure to be distracted by shiny objects and.....SQUIRREL!........SQUIRREL!.....there goes a......

Technically the US is insolvent because we can only avoid default by borrowing more money!

It's foolish to think that one party is more responsible than the other for this situation- both advocate spending money in excess of revenues

Not paying would be a disaster, borrowing more to pay is also a disaster - just postpones the disaster

http://smaulgld.com/u-s-department-of-the-treasury-warns-value-of-dollar-at-risk/

sbh says

AverageBear says

....Just like Greece, and some of the other deadbeat southern European nations. Now that's a model to emulate..... yay.

It's just so hard for you to stay on topic. You started with "6", but you just had to bring up deadbeats. Thank you, so much! Remember how hard it is for you to swallow the fiscal immaturity of your party? You so want to be like Greece and default on your bills! Back up just a bit: You ran with redistribution and we liberals owned it. So you criticize it by comparing it to what YOUR PARTY has already so proudly done: ADVOCATE DEFAULT! BRILLIANT!. When you take off your dunce cap and come back to sit down with the big boys you can restart the discussion, but make sure to be distracted by shiny objects and.....SQUIRREL!........SQUIRREL!.....there goes a......

^^^ = Unhinged. sbh, I was simply answering a question. Relax sbh, time to take the shaking hand off the CAP Locks. lol.. First off, where did I say I wanted (or 'my party') wanted to be like Greece? Bush may have been fiscally irresponsible, but it's clear that Obama 'double-downed' on Bush's irresponsibility. Please read the thread thoroughly before the name calling. Thanks...

Aside from educating the 'independent voters' that they were knowingly lied to by dear leader Obama 3 years ago, lets not pass up on these little gems that Obama's administration spun, only to be proven false.

---------------------------------
Here’s the thing. This Alinsky-steeped administration has relied on an endless stream of sensationalized, phony personal dramas to sell Obamacare. Last month, Organizing for Action (previously Obama for America) promoted the “success story” of Chad Henderson, a supposedly random young person who miraculously enrolled in Obamacare while everyone else in America experienced major tech meltdowns and sticker shock.

Turned out Lying Chad was actually an OFA volunteer who hadn’t really enrolled in Obamacare yet because he was “joking.” No matter. Yesterday, Obama appeared before OFA to solicit even more stories from the group to help propagandize Obamacare. A refresher course on the White House Fable Factory’s greatest hits:

–Stanley Ann Dunham. Obama cited his mom’s deathbed fight with her insurer several times over the years to support the Obamacare ban on pre-existing condition exclusions by insurers. During a 2008 debate, he shared her plight: “For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.” But New York Times reporter Janny Scott discovered that Dunham’s health insurer had in fact reimbursed her medical expenses with nary an objection. The actual coverage dispute centered on a separate disability insurance policy.

–Otto Raddatz. In 2009, Obama publicized the plight of this Illinois cancer patient, who supposedly died after he was dropped from his Fortis/Assurant Health insurance plan when his insurer discovered an unreported gallstone the patient hadn’t known about. The truth? He got the treatment he needed in 2005 and lived for nearly four more years.

–Robin Beaton. Also in 2009, Obama claimed Beaton, a breast cancer patient, lost her insurance after “she forgot to declare a case of acne.” In fact, she failed to disclose a previous heart condition and did not list her weight accurately, but had her insurance restored anyway after intense public lobbying.

–John Brodniak. A 23-year-old unemployed Oregon sawmill worker, Brodniak’s health woes were spotlighted by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof as a textbook argument for Obamacare. Brodniak reportedly was diagnosed with cavernous hemangioma, a neurological condition, and was allegedly turned away by emergency room doctors. Kristof called the case “monstrous” and decried opponents of the Democrats’ health care proposals as heartless murderers. The truth? Brodniak not only had coverage through Oregon’s Medicaid program, but was also a neurology patient at the prestigious Oregon Health and Science University in Portland (a safety-net institution that accepts all Medicaid patients). Kristof never retracted the legend.

–Marcelas Owens. An 11-year-old boy from Seattle, Owens took a coveted spot next to the president in March 2010 when Obamacare was signed into law. Marcelas’ 27-year-old mother, Tiffany Owens, died of pulmonary hypertension. The family said the single mother of three lost her job as a fast-food manager and lost her insurance. She died in 2007 after receiving emergency care and treatment throughout her illness. Progressive groups (for whom Marcelas’ relatives worked) dubbed Marcelas an “insurance abuse survivor.” But there wasn’t a shred of evidence that any insurer had “abused” the boy or his mom. Further, Washington State already offered a plethora of existing government assistance programs to laid-off and unemployed workers like Marcelas’ mom. The family and its public relations agents never explained why she didn’t enroll.

–Natoma Canfield. The White House made the Ohio cancer patient a poster child for Obamacare in 2010 after she wrote a letter complaining about skyrocketing premiums and the prospect of losing her home. After Obama gave Canfield a shout-out at a health care rally in Strongsville, Ohio, and promised to control costs, officials at the renowned Cleveland Clinic, which is treating her, made clear that they would “not put a lien on her home” and that she was eligible for a wide variety of state aid and private charity care.

Phony manufactured tales built Obamacare. Real stories of Obamacare wreckage will bring it down.

http://michellemalkin.com/2013/11/06/the-white-house-fable-factory/

AverageBear says

but it's clear that Obama 'double-downed' on Bush's irresponsibility.

How is that clear? What specific policies of Obama's have been fiscally irresponsible?

socal2 says

Who cares how much wealth rich dudes in America have or even the income disparity provided the poor in America are doing OK?

America's poor have a better quality of life (based on the OECD's measure of well being) than virtually all other OECD countries.

The issue isn't how many rich dudes nor that there are people with lots-o-money, but rather how we've arrived at the situation we're in now, where somehow despite having this enormous amount of wealth that the country's infrastructure is crumbling before out eyes. This is strictly about mathematics.

The bottom line is that the nation's overall income isn't being utilized correctly. This is going to sound like a worn-out record, but the upper earning populace is not being taxed properly. Seeing as how so much of the nation's wealth is concentrated at the top, this means a huge percentage of the potential tax dollars that would be coming from this group if they too were being taxed accordingly like the rest of isn't being realized.

This has an effect on the overall spending abilities of the government. Things we took for granted- like properly funded schools, social programs, maintenance, new construction, social services like police and fire departments and so on are forever being squeezed because the tax dollars to fund them simply isn't there because so much of that overall taxable income has shifted in a lop-sided manner.

It seems like the GOP always crows with pride about their ideas of how the government should be run like a business. So in that case imagine that the government really is... a business. Let's say that your company makes a wide variety of products. One particular product sells extremely well. But instead of taking those profits and re-investing them you instead choose to cut the price to such a low level that no profits are then made. That is precisely what is happening today. We have a situation where the government's source of revenue- taxation- isn't being run properly.

I'm not saying: "Its all the rich people's fault". The tax situation also isn't exactly their doing either since the GOP has had this Reaganomics thing going on for some time. But in the end, money is money and in order to solve a financial problem it takes sound mathematics and common sense.

edvard2 says

The tax situation also isn't exactly their doing either since the GOP has had this Reaganomics thing going on for some time.

You don't think they lobbied for the code to benefit themselves? Why are the GOP the handmaidens for the rich unless the rich have believed their Atlas Shrugged rhetoric and bought the lawmakers accordingly?

CL says

You don't think they lobbied for the code to benefit themselves?

Probably to a degree. But Reaganomics was mostly about Reagan's successful ploy to convince conservatives that "poor people are lazy" and hence undeserving of anything, and that all of those "hard-working" wealthy people deserved to pay less in taxes... jest because. Reaganomics was perhaps the single most significant factor at getting conservative Americans, whom before had actually embraced unions, fair taxation and job security to suddenly vote against their own self-interests by accepting the shit-end of the stick.

edvard2 says

CL says

You don't think they lobbied for the code to benefit themselves?

Probably to a degree. But Reaganomics was mostly about Reagan's successful ploy to convince conservatives that "poor people are lazy" and hence undeserving of anything, and that all of those "hard-working" wealthy people deserved to pay less in taxes... jest because. Reaganomics was perhaps the single most significant factor at getting conservative Americans, whom before had actually embraced unions, fair taxation and job security to suddenly vote against their own self-interests by accepting the shit-end of the stick.

The Gipper!

edvard2 says

This is going to sound like a worn-out record, but the upper earning populace is not being taxed properly

I would even disagree about that.

Low taxes across the board are helping the 1%, since they live on parasitical rents, and rents are relative to disposable income of their hosts.

All taxes come out of rents! The 1% pocketed everyone's 2001 tax cuts eventually!

Nobody gets this.

Germany has higher taxes across the board and that's partially why their housing cost burdens aren't off the hook like ours.

But yeah, when the top 5% earn 33% of the income, things are going to be unstable.

Unlike what the conservatives believe, this income flow isn't coming from magic machines in Galt's Gulch, it's being ripped out of the middle quintiles who face a daily gauntlet of rent-seeking that looks so much like end-game Monopoly.

$2000/mo+ rents for houses built before they were born. 15%+ credit card interest when 5 year rates are 1%. $30,000 average student loan burden now. $8000 per capita health care costs. $80 to fill up the car.

ka-ching ka-ching ka-ching.

Own or be owned.

smaulgld says

Technically the US is insolvent because we can only avoid default by borrowing more money!

wtf is this?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP

chopped liver?

smaulgld says

Technically the US is insolvent because we can only avoid default by
borrowing more money!

Do you feel the same way about finances when you bought a house or used a credit card in the past?

upisdown says

smaulgld says

Technically the US is insolvent because we can only avoid default by

borrowing more money!

Do you feel the same way about finances when you bought a house or used a credit card in the past?

Ronald Reagan showed us that deficits don't matter.

upisdown says

smaulgld says

Technically the US is insolvent because we can only avoid default by

borrowing more money!

Do you feel the same way about finances when you bought a house or used a credit card in the past?

One should not borrow money to pay the mortgage -if you have to do that you are insolvement and one can not use an extension of a credit card's credit line to pay the credit card monthly payment- the credit card company won't even allow it.

smaulgld says

upisdown
says

smaulgld
says

Technically the US is insolvent because we can only avoid default by

borrowing more money!

Do you feel the same way about finances when you bought a house or used a
credit card in the past?

One should not borrow money to pay the mortgage -if you have to do that you
are insolvement and one can not use an extension of a credit card's credit line
to pay the credit card monthly payment- the credit card company won't even allow
it.

I should have been more specific. You rail about the government debt being equal to 100% of the GDP and it can't ever be paid.

But, if you bought a house with a mortgage amount at 3x's your annual income, 100% of your income for the year wouldn't pay off the house, so you're insolvent and the end is near, or whatever the end-times routine of the day is.

So a significant part of society is about to suffer your prophetic apocalyptic revelations when they realize that or when reality bites them in the ass, right?

UpiSdown says: So a significant part of society is about to suffer your prophetic apocalyptic revelations when they realize that or when reality bites them in the ass, right?
---------------
Correct and millions of Americans did indeed default precisely because they took out too much credit
Governments are no different and many in history have defaulted. No person or country is immune to the laws of economics

smaulgld says

Correct and millions of Americans did indeed default precisely because they took
out too much credit
Governments are no different and many in history have
defaulted. No person or country is immune to the laws of economics

But a household cannot do the same things as our government can. For example the time constraint for earning income does not apply to the government just as much as the ability to fund ANY spending doesn't apply to households. There's also the credit limit households eventually hit, but the only limit to our government is the total debt limit, which can and usually will be hit and raised.

Why do you continue to assume our government is limited in it's actions as if it were a household?

Why do people think if the government defaults it'll be the end of the world?

France defaulted multiple times in the 19th Century and entered the 20th as the 2nd or 3rd most powerful nation in the world in terms of industry, prestige, population, colonial possessions, and military power.

thunderlips11 says

Why do people think if the government defaults it'll be the end of the world?

France defaulted multiple times in the 19th Century and entered the 20th as the 2nd or 3rd most powerful nation in the world in terms of industry, prestige, population, colonial possessions, and military power.

No reason to default when you can print up another 18 Trillion and be out of debt.

upisdown says

Why do you continue to assume our government is limited in it's actions as if it were a household?

I don't assume our government is limited in its actions as if it were a household. That is the problem, the government has no restraint on its borrowing, printing and spending.

thunderlips11 says

Why do people think if the government defaults it'll be the end of the world?

France defaulted multiple times in the 19th Century and entered the 20th as the 2nd or 3rd most powerful nation in the world in terms of industry, prestige, population, colonial possessions, and military power.

It's not the end of the world- it would just be painful for a long spell. And therein lies the hope that a default would structurally transform the US back to a producing nation

tatupu70 says

How is that clear? What specific policies of Obama's have been fiscally irresponsible?

Giving out Obamaphones and increasing food stamps as part of a stimulus.

Only 5 people signed up for Obamacare in DC? OOF!!!

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/obamacare-enrollments-washington-dc-99589.html

These are brave souls. Let's pray they don't encounter identity theft by the obamacare 'navigators'....

.... and speaking of Obamacare navigators...

It’s possible for convicted felons to become Obamacare navigators

wa??

http://michellemalkin.com/2013/11/06/sebelius-totally-re-establishes-americas-confidence-its-possible-for-convicted-felons-to-become-obamacare-navigators/

....."Sebelius said that screening potential navigators for criminal backgrounds is “not part of the federal requirement.” If crooks are smart they’ll first start by creating an account through the website — sometimes the system will just give you somebody else’s confidential information.

Those who Sebelius says have been contracted to take responsibility to ensure navigators are on the up-and-up wouldn’t include organizations like this one, would they? ....This can’t end well."........

Soooo, let me get this straight. Since Obama was elected, he's FORCING everyone to get healthcare under his rules. And now that those rules are being enforced, he and Sebelius can't guarantee that these navigators (that handle the most important data you have) aren't criminals, and that it's "NOT THE FEDERAL GOV'T's RESPONSIBILITY". WTF is that all about?

Obama and sebelius are clowns. This is yet another example of how thoughtless and inept the obama administration is, at handling 1/6th of the economy, and how gov't has intruded on your most personal interest: YOUR OWN HEALTH. Not vetting out the backgrounds of navigators? Pathetic!.... Hey independent voters: Time to eat your shit pie. You voted for this dunce TWICE! (here, let me get you a napkin. you're gonna need it).....

AverageBear says

Not vetting out the backgrounds of navigators?

I know you may find this hard to believe, but people LIE and slip through employment screening all the time. Might be all kinds of people you encounter in your daily life. Shit there's always the odd story about DOCTORS who aren't supposed to be practicing, but are. Unless we build those walls around NYC and dump all felons in there for life, it's gonna happen. They get released, they vanish into society, and some of them want to conceal their past because frankly they have higher aspirations than cleaning toilets the rest of their life.

Deal with it baby bear!

AverageBear says

t’s possible for convicted felons to become Obamacare navigators

Why exactly would convicted felons who have served their time and been released not be able to get a job as a navigator? I would think it would depend on the crime commited whether it mattered or not. Do you seriously believe convicted felons don't work at insurance companies that have exactly the same information?

Get a grip.

bob2356 says

Do you seriously believe convicted felons don't work at insurance companies that have exactly the same information?

Get a grip.

What's your point? Just because ex-cons wind up at insurance agencies, it's OK for them to wind up as one of Obamacare's navigators? That you are OK w/ your gov't not caring about who handles the most intimate data you could ever possess? Is this the best your logic can come up with? If so, God help you.