Don't Call it a Bailout - Rescue Plan - Slavery

[WhiskeyGirl]

Oct. 3, 2008 | WASHINGTON -- As Wall Street watched anxiously Friday afternoon, the nation learned exactly what the price of a few dozen votes in the House of Representatives is: about $1.2 trillion in stock market value, about $100 billion in new tax breaks and a big vote in the Senate. Oh, and also, a few wooden arrows. Congratulations -- besides some worthless mortgage-backed securities, you and every other taxpayer will also soon own about a 1/300-millionth share of the future of the domestic archery industry.

Given a chance at a do-over, on a bailout bill lawmakers said was much improved from the version they shot down Monday, the House voted easily to send the legislation on to the White House for President Bush to sign. (Which he did, barely two hours after the vote ended -- probably close to a new legislative speed record.) A combination of policy shifts to make the bill a little better for Main Street (as the cliché goes) instead of Wall Street and some good old-fashioned pork (the usual grease for the legislative process, this time in the form of targeted tax credits) did the trick. So a 23-vote deficit Monday turned into a 92-vote majority by Friday. This time, leaders in both parties appeared to have done a better job counting votes; as on Monday, most Democrats backed it (172 to 63) and most Republicans opposed it (108 to 91), but the measure still passed easily, avoiding another unexpected failure, which could have crippled both the stock markets and the reelection bids of a lot of lawmakers. As it was, the Dow Jones average fell 157 points anyway.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/03/bail_out/

I believe this $700 billion plus spending, is the road to slavery,  indentured servitude, for Americans today, and for future generations.

No sooner did they vote, then they moved on to some other SPENDING item.  That's what it seemed like to me.

How will the nation ever get on the road to economic recovery if the 'leaders' don't acknowledge the problem of the ever increasing national debt?  A debt that has been described as besting anything in the third world?

It's fine to want paradise on earth, but someone has to pay for it.  The day of reconing came for junk mortgages in our financial system, now the junk mortgages have been called home to the treasury.

US currency, seems to lose it's value at an alarming rate.  I'm not sure the mattress is safe for money, soon American's will need carts of money to buy a loaf of bread.  Not to worry, we'll have healthcare, better paying jobs, almost everything!

What we won't have is a currency that will have value.  A currency printed 24/7, and without any value.

I believe the time will come when Americans will look in the mirror and have to decide which master they belong to.  Maybe we'll be sorted/divided in the future, the spoils of an economic holocaust against the United States.

just my humble opinions

[WhiskeyGirl]

Porkfest prediction -

Buy Time Now, But Improve In the Future

By TOM GARROT | Special to The Daily News

Tom Garrott is the former president and CEO of National Commerce Financial Corp., the parent company of NBC Bank (now part of SunTrust).

We unarguably face the greatest financial crisis since 1929-1939.

Fact: Those in power positions in government and business today are in their late 20s to mid-50s. Their practical knowledge thus was acquired since about 1980. Their experience was acquired as former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volker and then-President Ronald Reagan managed short-term and long-term interest rates up to 21 percent and 16 percent, respectively, in the early 1980s.

We must have more than a week to consider how best to construct the option of kicking the can further down the road. Once decided, we need to level with the American people in real terms about our predicament so we can collectively take responsibility for our condition. And we must consider that there will be unintended consequences, especially for hasty legislation.

We should also note that the man recommending this plan, former Goldman Sachs CEO and U.S. Treasury Department head Henry Paulson, has a vast net worth in these shares, which raises a conflict of interest question. His every prediction about the financial crisis and the economy in 2007 until now has been proven incorrect. Why trust his judgment now without further review? The old adage of haste making waste could not apply more now!

He is right about one thing, however: The bailout bill should be simple and on one page and disseminated to every taxpayer by the IRS. Otherwise, we’ll have another 1,000-page bill that nobody reads and that will cost the taxpayers much more than we are being told.

http://www.memphisdailynews.com/editorial/Article.aspx?id=38817

I just wonder how much this bailout/rescue will end up costing.

[truthseeker2]

Why are people so shy.  Just call it what it really easy.  One giant leap toward socialism!

[WhiskeyGirl]

The plastic prison 

by Geoff Olson

In a 2007 Saturday Night Live skit, a book-selling huckster appears before a couple sitting at a kitchen table, picking through their credit card bills. “You’re not the only ones,” he tells them. “Did you know millions of Americans live with debt they cannot control? That’s why I’ve developed this unique program for managing your debt. It’s called “Don’t Buy Stuff You Cannot Afford!”

Credit cards are the single biggest factor in all of this increase in debt. While roughly 50 percent of Canadians pay off their credit cards every month, it’s the other 50 percent, the ones who do not pay on time, who are of interest to the pound-of-flesh crowd. You could say the bulk of their profits depend on people behaving like Steve Martin’s dopey, debt-ridden Saturday Night Live character. In both Canada and the US, the avarice of the credit card industry meshes nicely with consumer ignorance. It’s a predator-prey relationship of almost Jurassic perfection.

The ignorance is understandable, given our failure as a culture to instruct our youth in personal finance. Young Canadians, who have the least familiarity with high interest rates, are also the most vulnerable to lifestyle sales pitches. Increasing numbers of them use credit cards for impulse purchases, along with groceries and other essentials. The attitude is with the credit card companies offering points, why not put everything on plastic?

Campbell describes the situation as a “tipping point.” Students are graduating with thousands of dollars of student loan debt. Unable to pay cash for both essentials and impulse buys, they’ve turned to credit cards, following their elders’ lead. In a telephone interview with Common Ground, Campbell noted that, according to figures from 2006, students are coming out of school with an average of $5,000 to $10,000 in credit card debt, on top of $30,000 in student loan debt.

“Our young people are completely uneducated when it comes to financial issues,” Campbell says. “They’re graduating from college and university with the highest debt loads that graduates have had and they’re entering the workforce at incomes they thought would be much higher. Their ability to move forward in life is completely compromised.”

Young people can’t plan their future, Campbell explains. They can’t think about getting married or starting a family or buying a home or even purchasing a car because of debt load. And once young workers start paying with plastic, all it takes is a few missed monthly payments for their credit card interest rate to rise from 18 to 24 percent, in addition to onerously large, added fees. “The ones who can least afford it seem to me to be the ones who are getting hit with these kind of charges,” Campbell says.

Frontline examined how this bad craziness began back in the late ‘70s in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, “a modest town of 140,000 known for its cattle auctions and meat-packing industry.” Today, the little town boasts a huge post office, far bigger than its communal needs, but it serves the credit card industry’s interests just fine.

South Dakota once had a historic cap on interest rates, known as usury law. To encourage banks to make loans, the state decided to suspend the law completely. New York-based Citibank took notice. At the time, its credit card division was “haemorrhaging money” and New York’s usury laws prohibited banks from charging more than 12 percent on most consumer loans. Yet interest rates had gone up 20 percent. “And if you are lending money at 12 percent and paying 20 percent, you don’t have to be Einstein to realize you’re out of business,” Walter Wriston, then chairman of Citibank, told Frontline. The bank saw a big opportunity in South Dakota’s elimination of the usury law, particularly with a surprisingly well-timed Supreme Court decision that said a bank could export its interest rate to other states. Other US states eliminated their usury laws and more big banks joined the gold rush.

Merriam Webster defines usury as an “unconscionable or exorbitant rate or amount of interest – specifically: interest in excess of a legal rate charged to a borrower for the use of money.” The key word here is legal. If the banks do it, and regulators are AWOL, then it’s not illegal or immoral by definition. It’s just sound business practice, for the lenders at least.

Indebtedness, whether it is personal credit or national debt, always involves a reckoning somewhere down the line. And there is an intriguing connection of the credit card agencies’ lending practices to recent events on Wall Street. To explain this, we have to take a trip through the looking glass into the US housing market bubble.

The collapse of the financial houses of Bear Stearns was the first major indication that the US financial/speculative complex is built on sand. The US government recently “bailed out” the bottomless hole that is Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, to the tune of $250 billion. With the subsequent bankruptcy of the Lehman Brothers investment bank, and Bank of America’s buy-up of brokerage house Merrill Lynch, the free market “shakeout” is turning into a rout. Mainstream economists are now speaking in words more suited to the Book of Revelation than BusinessWeek.

When will the day of reckoning come for the US?

Once again, avarice meshed with ignorance. The subprime vultures coached naive homeowners into believing they could have something for nothing – they could refinance by taking out home loans based on their equity and pay off their credit cards at the lower interest rate. What this did was effectively hide trillions of dollars in US credit card debt in the ruinous subprime mortgages. By refinancing bad debt as “good debt,” it hid how precarious the situation had become for millions of homeowners. From 2000 to 2007, the loans were bundled into securities and sold across the world to unsuspecting buyers, effectively making the subprime problem the world’s problem.

When you combine a $12 trillion credit card debt with the billions in subprime mortgages set to reset at higher rates over the next few years, and the trillions in funny money floating around in derivatives and other cryptic financial instruments, you don’t have a bubble. You have a black hole.

Beginning back in the ‘70s, Arab sheiks found themselves flush with credit from OPEC’s oil deals. They had literally more money than they knew what to do with and they invested billions of it in US banks. The bankers now had a problem. To whom could they lend this windfall, and make money themselves? They looked around and saw an opportunity for huge mega projects in the Third World: dams, pipelines and all the big-money infrastructure associated with capitalism’s good life.

The fact that some of the lendees were corrupt dictators, who pocketed significant chunks of money for themselves and their cronies, was outside the banks’ interests. All they wanted was the money back at some point, with interest. So began the great Third World debt crisis, across Latin America, Africa and Asia, with successive governments unable to even service the interest on their interest. This necessitated further rounds of loan arrangements, and often the gutting of social services, along with the privatization of state industries. As Joseph Stiglitz revealed after his tenure as World Bank vice president and chief economist, this miserly misery-creation was simply business as usual for the global loan sharks.

In any case, once you know that the odds are stacked in favour of the house, your attitude to plastic changes. Credit cards aren’t just useful in today’s highly connected world; it’s almost impossible to get by without them. If you make your payments on time, and don’t spend beyond your means, they offer no great risk. But if you fall behind, which is damnably easy to do, you are no longer a “deadbeat” to the credit card industry. You are Argentina, Bolivia or Thailand.

In the end, Henry David Thoreau’s thoughts on debt still apply today: “That man is richest whose pleasures are cheapest.”

read the rest here - http://www.commonground.ca/iss/207/cg207_olson.shtml

[WhiskeyGirl]

Why are people so shy.  Just call it what it really easy.  One giant leap toward socialism!

I think socialism would not be so bad.  I see the US fast forwarding  down that slippery to destruction.  A US divided as the spoils of the new dirty war model, based on financial ruin.  Other countries don't need the bodies, they just want the resources and living space. 

Socialism, would be a nice thing, in comparison to what is happening.  imho

[caesu]

socialism for the rich.

without the good stuff like free health care for all.

[crazybabyborg]

socialism for the rich.

without the good stuff like free health care for all.

Yeah, give me the good stuff. I want my health care distributed by the government. They've done such a stellor job with the economy.............

Let's see, now.....The government has rejected regulation efforts on government sponsored mega mortgages corporations so that politicians and ceos could continue to line their pockets with tax payor money, and then billed the taxpayors billions of dollars to save Wall Street while using the leverage of how public outcry would ruin the lives of our elderly. The 700 Billion dollar bailout was padded with pork to the tune of Billions more to supply the Mental Health Parity alone, but why make that clear before we vote? That pork had to be added because we they had to buy the votes. That's the way the government works.

We just don't understand that we elect congress to represent Snail Darters and Polar Bears. Therefore we can only drill for oil where there isn't any, because we can always buy it from Foreign Countries, right? Of course, that makes the average American pull up to the pump trembling with fear, but hey, that's just a taxpayer, and to our government, that means we're just human ATM machines.

Oh, I'm just shivering with excitment at the prospects of a Government controlled Health Care System!! Yippee!!

[Slogger]

Why are people so shy.  Just call it what it really easy.  One giant leap toward socialism!

I think socialism would not be so bad.  I see the US fast forwarding  down that slippery to destruction.  A US divided as the spoils of the new dirty war model, based on financial ruin.  Other countries don't need the bodies, they just want the resources and living space. 

Socialism, would be a nice thing, in comparison to what is happening.  imho

All those who want Socialism, take a plane to Venezuela with a stopover in Aruba for a preview.  You can see before and after.

[caesu]

socialism for the rich.

without the good stuff like free health care for all.

Yeah, give me the good stuff. I want my health care distributed by the government. They've done such a stellor job with the economy.............

yes, not this government. sure they will screw up anything.

i really don't understand these republicans.
they say they're pro-life. but at same time very pro-war, pro-military. apparently they want to pay for taxes for that.
but universal healthcare, like in every western country - they don't want to pay for that.
now the economy is collapsing - partly due to huge deficit - due to trillion dollar wars.
culture of spending without having money for it.
the narrative is that dems are the party of big spending.
but reality is to the contrary - look at the budget deficit graphs of the last 40 years.
and when Biden says paying taxes is patriotic, he gets attacked for that.
well, i suggest - stop paying taxes - see how long Bush can continue his war on terror with no money.
oh yes, let china/india pay for it. they have now the power the pull the plug in the US economy anytime.

what's the strategy here. do they want Bin Laden to die because of laughter?

[WhiskeyGirl]

Why are people so shy.  Just call it what it really easy.  One giant leap toward socialism!

I think socialism would not be so bad.  I see the US fast forwarding  down that slippery to destruction.  A US divided as the spoils of the new dirty war model, based on financial ruin.  Other countries don't need the bodies, they just want the resources and living space. 

Socialism, would be a nice thing, in comparison to what is happening.  imho

All those who want Socialism, take a plane to Venezuela with a stopover in Aruba for a preview.  You can see before and after.

I think the US is headed for living conditions like in Bangladesh and other lower than third world countries.

Universal healthcare in many westernized countries collapsed years ago.  The rich go to places like Thailand for their treatment.  The rest of the people have little money to travel and no doctors or medical centers to treat them. 

INDEPTH: HEALTH CARE
Introduction

CBC News Online | August 22, 2006

One Supreme Court decision may have done more to change health care in Canada than three major reports and a first ministers conference that ended with a $41-billion infusion into the system.

On June 9, 2005, the high court struck down a Quebec law that prohibited people from buying private health insurance to cover procedures already offered by the public system.

"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," two of the justices wrote in their decision.

The Quebec and federal governments asked the high court to suspend its ruling for 18 months. Less than two months after its initial ruling, the court agreed to suspend its decision for 12 months, retroactive to June 9, 2005.

In the provincial government's response in February 2006, Premier Jean Cherest said the private sector could play a role in health care in Quebec, but said he remained committed to public health care. He also said Quebec will introduce guaranteed wait times for procedures including some radiation treatments and cardiac surgery, as well as
knee and hip replacements and cataract operations.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/

Is Healthcare Armageddon Next?

The current credit crisis has some uncomfortable parallels in the finances of medicine

By Bernadine Healy M.D.
Posted October 2, 2008

Along with millions of Americans, I've watched the unfolding financial crisis in horror. We hear of impending economic collapse, widespread bankruptcies, and threats of rampant joblessness—what the Washington Post calls financial Armageddon—absent a $700 billion taxpayer bailout. The thought that keeps running through my mind is that the underlying pathology is a feverish and long-ignored case of unsustainability—ballooning home prices and mortgage deals that obscured the real costs homeowners were taking on and were bound to blow up—uncomfortably parallel to the finances of medicine.

Healthcare costs are growing so fast that they are eating up state and federal budgets, overwhelming people's ability to afford premiums, and promising to crush families who find they must pay for care on their own. Some 158 million working Americans are at risk, as their total family insurance premiums have risen in round numbers from $6,000 in 1999 to $13,000 in 2008. Of this, the worker contribution is now about $3,400, a hefty sum, but one that obscures the real five-figure expense—which is even greater if one adds on the Medicare payroll tax that can run in the thousands.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the biggest drivers of growth—accounting for roughly half—are new treatments and technologies. Look at Avastin, an important and shockingly priced new drug that treats cancer and prevents blindness. At upwards of $100,000 for a single year, this one drug bears a price tag that vastly exceeds the income of most who need it. Insurers stay solvent as their costs rise by charging higher premiums, increasing copayments and deductibles, and limiting coverage and denying claims. But what's needed is cost reduction, not cost shifting.

This is the age when people cannot afford drugs that cost $1 / day.  Healthcare is not free.  Someone has to pay and the US is broke. 

A lot has to happen for costs to stop growing. Transparency about spending and fairer pricing, for starters. It was a small but meaningful effort at cost control when patients boarded buses to Canada to buy drugs at half price; the U.S. government squashed it. Canada, like most European countries, negotiates prices that are available to everyone. Here, our state and federal governments negotiate wholesale prices for their "own" beneficiaries (veterans and Medicaid recipients, for example) but regard their discounts as trade secrets; manufacturers charge the public as they see fit. Similarly, the government and insurers use their clout to pay only half or a third of retail prices for other care, when wholesale is not available to the average Joe who is underinsured. The bill for one heart operation, for example, may exceed $100,000, while Medicare pays $40,000. No wonder almost 40 percent of the uninsured fend off bill collectors; so do 20 percent of those with insurance. Copays may be bearable for everyday care—but 20 percent of a $500,000 bill can bankrupt a family.

Healthcare is like a monopoly.  I have to believe that if everyone were charged fair prices, the cost of healthcare would be manageable. I see hospitals, hospital systems, etc., building newer and more expensive facilities.  Maybe a plain vanilla building would as well.  However, plain vanilla isn't good enough, so they build gyms, palatial atriums, waiting rooms, and all kinds of goodies that cost money.  jmho

What happened to the $60,000 that Medicare doesn't cover?

Changing our 50-50 blend of private and public spending into a single-payer system clearly is not feasible: Costs in countries with such systems are growing at rates similar to our own, and the $3 trillion federal budget could not swallow an added—and growing—trillion-dollar obligation. The way forward is to set aside rigid ideologies and focus all stakeholders, including doctors and patients, on sustainability—before insurance companies and hospitals go bust and the common folk face healthcare foreclosure.

Where is the US going to borrow trillions to pay for healthcare?

Why not transparency in healthcare pricing?  In my state, beauticians and others that offer services are required to post the prices they charge for services, in a place that the public may inspect. 

Why shouldn't hospitals and other providers make this information public?  Let the public wonder why one person pays $40,000 and another $100,000?

http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/2008/10/02/is-healthcare-armageddon-next.html

[crazybabyborg]

socialism for the rich.

without the good stuff like free health care for all.

Yeah, give me the good stuff. I want my health care distributed by the government. They've done such a stellar job with the economy.............

yes, not this government. sure they will screw up anything.

i really don't understand these republicans............(excerpted)

the narrative is that dems are the party of big spending................(excerpted)

Actually, I think caesu's post brings up an interesting point. This year's election has, in many ways, stood traditional wisdom about each party, on it's head. First, I agree. Wars are expensive. Had the deficit been the culprit in this financial crisis, we'd be looking closely at all the details of that. There's a lot to look at, and I certainly acknowledge that the national debt alone and before the bailout, needed to be addressed. However, there is general concensus across party lines that this particular crisis was a direct result of 2 markets that government has had a big impact with: First and foremost is the Housing Market. The other, less in the spotlight at the moment, is oil. I'm not going to spend time bolstering that premise, because all leading economists, political and otherwise, cite practices within those markets as directly responsible for what's going on.

Let me ask something. In which party would the philosophy of "every American should be middle class and be entitled to home ownership and our government has a moral obligation to aid that objective" be expected? All together now, "Democrats".  Fannie Mae, and Freddy Mac were cruising along with pressure from democrats to make loans to low income borrowers for home mortgages. Things like welfare and unemployment were being allowed to count as income in order to qualify for a mortgage loans. A good sprinkling of overextended speculators who had made a lot of money flipping houses, jumped on the bandwagon as well to capture low interest loans to buy even more. It all worked as long as the housing market was greased by the price of houses going up, up, and up. There was built in protection because even with ridiculous loan criteria, if the owner defaulted, the bank could seize the house and sell it for a profit. It began tumbling down when the housing bubble burst, and defaulted loans left the bank with an asset worth less than the loan. Similarly, homeowners found themselves paying for a mortgage bigger than the value of their house, and they so took the loss, and purposefully defaulted. Others couldn't make the payments consistently because the unemployment ran out, or in essence, found themselves in a reality situation where they had simply qualified for a loan that they shouldn't have.

Where were Republicans while these banking practices, influenced by Democrats, were going on? Traditionally, Republicans have the philosophy of "Keep government out of free enterprise and let the free market, not regulation, dictate markets and business practices." OK, except for one thing.........Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac weren't following free market principles. These giants were government sponsored and were responsive to government influence to begin with. They weren't created under Bush and the underlying rules of operation that allowed for government influence weren't laid in this administration. It did came to a problem under this administration. In fairness, not partisanship, the Bush administration did send legislation to the banking committee in late 2004 as a result of it's investigation into Freddy and Fannie that would bring tough regulations on lending practices, and hearings were held within that committee and later sent to the full house where democrats took a strong stand that the Bush administration was trying to rob poor people of the American Dream. By that time, Fannie and Freddy had also become steeped in corrupt practices and CEOs were taking obscene advantages to line their own pockets, and the pockets of politically friendly members of congress. I'm honestly not trying to present a partisan argument here, but take a look at the what has been recorded within the hearings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p1Wc2NFa3w&feature=related.

Republicans were taking an untraditional stance calling for more strict regulations amidst a united wave of democratic social views. The point has been made that Republicans controlled both houses of congress, but that argument does not account for the fact that the margins between parties were so narrow that the 60% majority required was unobtainable. In 2005, in the wake of the Bush legislation failure, McCain cosponsored the following bill to regulate Fannie and Freddy: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20060525-16&bill=s109-190

What happened to the bill? It never made it out of committee.  Chris Dodd, then the ranking member of the Banking Committee and now its chair, was in the middle of receiving preferential loan treatment from Countrywide Mortgage, one of the companies gaming the system in the credit crisis.  Meanwhile, Barack Obama took hundreds of thousands of dollars from the lobbyists McCain mentions in this speech, making him the #2 recipient of Fannie/Freddie money:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-_HlpZ8azA

That pretty much brings us to right now, in a post bailout day. Casual voters see Republicans in the White House and the price tag that has just been put on their shoulders, and run toward Obama. Biden and Obama know that and hammer home their messages that the traditional Republican view of no regulation is the cause, so we need to throw the bums out. McCain voted for the bailout amidst fear that if it didn't pass, the stock market could collapse and we really would be thrown into a depression. McCain NOT making his case for his role in averting this mess has been a judgement call I respect him for, but may very well cost him the White House. He has chosen to keep the discussions on the need to pass it and underplay the argument in an attempt to hold down the partisanship that could have killed passage.

McCain has risen, in my estimation, from what he has demonstrated through this crisis, and has proven his character once again, by putting his country first over his own benefit. An honest look at this whole thing brings me to fear for myself and all Americans for a future where both houses and the White House will be governed by the Democratic Party. 

[crazybabyborg]

fatcat, I may move your post to a new topic for healthcare. Just wanted you to know in case you came back and couldn't find it. It's just a legistical thing to accomodate those looking specifically for commentary about the bailout. I'm not deleting it, just re-organizing it within the political threads. 

The post was moved, fatcat, but it's right here in the political forum with the topic "healthcare". Thanks for understanding!    

[fatcatlurker]

CBB, that's cool, I just saw health care stuff here and went on a tear.  I had posted several things under the video comparison in response to WhiskeyGirl and none of them were pertinant to the vid's or getting much play time, waa.  And as it's all my thoughts on the other guy I try to post my opinion w/out p/o anybody to bad.  Sorry!  I'am honored to get my own page.  Thank you again.

[Edward]

Why are people so shy.  Just call it what it really easy.  One giant leap toward socialism!

I think socialism would not be so bad.  I see the US fast forwarding  down that slippery to destruction.  A US divided as the spoils of the new dirty war model, based on financial ruin.  Other countries don't need the bodies, they just want the resources and living space. 

Socialism, would be a nice thing, in comparison to what is happening.  imho

All those who want Socialism, take a plane to Venezuela with a stopover in Aruba for a preview.  You can see before and after.

Don't forget to spend a week in Moscow. The way average people live is very depressing.
You do NOT want a surgery in Russia, the government doctors will kill you with there lack of concern AND funding.
The socialist strips ALL the money from the system and leaves very little for the maintenence of the infrastructure for the people.

jmho

‘We have piled deficit upon deficit’
"For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.
You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?" —Inaugural address, Jan. 20, 1981

Ronald Regan

Americans have an obligation to stand up..
Weak Lazy Americans need to sit down or get out. It is time to pay the piper..

What is a socialist ? anyone who works for the social system/
Teachers.
Fire people.
Police.
Any city gov worker.
Any county gov worker.
Any state gov worker.
Any federal governmet worker.
Prison guards.

all of these groups are over paid and pushing socialism.. Money is spent on them like no other class.
They in fact reep the benifit of that with excellent pay and extreme lifetime benifits paid for by all of us through hundreds of taxes we pay.
Without the free worker .. The whole system will implode.

The people are suffering in Venezuela ..NOT Hugo or any of his associates..
That is socialism.
jmho
jmho

[WhiskeyGirl]

Why are people so shy.  Just call it what it really easy.  One giant leap toward socialism!

I think socialism would not be so bad.  I see the US fast forwarding  down that slippery to destruction.  A US divided as the spoils of the new dirty war model, based on financial ruin.  Other countries don't need the bodies, they just want the resources and living space. 

Socialism, would be a nice thing, in comparison to what is happening.  imho

All those who want Socialism, take a plane to Venezuela with a stopover in Aruba for a preview.  You can see before and after.

Don't forget to spend a week in Moscow. The way average people live is very depressing.
You do NOT want a surgery in Russia, the government doctors will kill you with there lack of concern AND funding.
The socialist strips ALL the money from the system and leaves very little for the maintenence of the infrastructure for the people.

jmho

‘We have piled deficit upon deficit’
"For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.
You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?" —Inaugural address, Jan. 20, 1981

Ronald Regan

Americans have an obligation to stand up..
Weak Lazy Americans need to sit down or get out. It is time to pay the piper..

What is a socialist ? anyone who works for the social system/
Teachers.
Fire people.
Police.
Any city gov worker.
Any county gov worker.
Any state gov worker.
Any federal governmet worker.
Prison guards.

all of these groups are over paid and pushing socialism.. Money is spent on them like no other class.
They in fact reep the benifit of that with excellent pay and extreme lifetime benifits paid for by all of us through hundreds of taxes we pay.
Without the free worker .. The whole system will implode.

The people are suffering in Venezuela ..NOT Hugo or any of his associates..
That is socialism.
jmho
jmho

IIRC, I read that many workers/retirees were promised the ability to continue their group coverage after retirement.  Due to the rising cost of covering retirees, many companies have looked to bankruptcy judges to renegotiate the contracts with these workers and force them onto Medicare or other government programs.

Are government workers or retirees part of Medicare?  Why not save money and bundle all these benefits/people under one government program?  Fix a budget?  No more blank checks for healthcare? 

Democracy, socialism, communism, or other forms of government do not guarantee a good life for everyone.  imho

How much can any government do for people when it is broke and in debt?  A debt that may take generations to pay off?

Debt slavery for present and future generations of common Americans?

[crazybabyborg]

I rarely recommend television viewing, particularly when I haven't seen what I'm recommending! However, I've heard now for the fourth time from different people that there is a special on the economy entitled "SAVING OUR ECONOMY; WHAT NEXT" which has played on Fox this week-end that is excellent. I looked up the schedule and it's on tonight at 10:00pm ET. I'm going to watch it, and thought I'd pass it along.

Apparently it covers exactly how Fannie and Freddy came into being, how they changed over time, how they impacted the markets and what caused this mess. It also takes a look at similar dynamics in the past, and examines what those indicators tell us about where we're going and what we can do to impact the direction.

[crazybabyborg]

OMG! One week after AIG was bailed out for 85 Billion of OUR dollars, top executives took a week long retreat to a Spa in California. The bill was over $400,000.00.   

[Edward]

SAMA has again stated that there are no liquidity problems in Saudi Arabia and that it would provide addition liquidity if needed (the three-month interbank rate is currently 4.59 percent compared to 2.16 percent in early May).

SAMA has also stated that bank deposits are safe. There is no formal deposit insurance in Saudi Arabia, but we believe there is a strong implicit government guarantee and the government has stepped in in the past when banks have been in trouble. We do not see any circumstances in which a Saudi bank would be unable to fully honor customer deposits.