Most in US won't be able to escape 'fiscal cliff'
- Thread starter Steve williams
- Start date
I disagree. It's about not dealing with things until they're a crisis.
---- ...And by not learning from our mistakes, and by not admitting our errors of judgements. :b
That would have the effect of raising $40 Billion in tax revenue which covers our borrowing for oh, less than two weeks. The budgetary equivalent of slowing down because you struck a rock outcropping halfway down the cliff.
-- Two words: Accumulative Debt
* How did we get there in the first place (I got few ideas myself), and how do we get out of it. :b
* How did we get there in the first place (I got few ideas myself), and how do we get out of it. :b
+1..
They hate government until they need it then .. it is their inalienable right to use the services provided by government ... Services that up to then they wanted to eliminate .. Remember how some wanted to "shut down" FEMA... then came Sandy ...
How True. For decades I had worked and had company insurance. Then I left Microsoft and 'retired' and all of a sudden faced the situation of no insurance. I tell you, even if you have a few dollars in your pocket, you still worry about a major medical event in your life that would take out hundreds of thousands of dollars out of your retirement fund. So overnight I became a believer in some kind of safety net/insurance for everyone. And was willing to pay even more taxes for it. But a week before that, I would not have remotely done so.
What was the old company line? Having the company executives work on the front line to learn what it is really like? I think the same principal applies here.
Things are worse for guys without hundreds of thousands in retirements funds to fall back on in case of medical emergency. Risk of death among working uninsured is 40% higher than insured (corresponding to 45,000 deaths per year) according to a recent Harvard study.
edorr --
Great post above (#19). A few thoughts...
Actually, the topics are related. All about the argument regarding size and scope of government for which we are willing to pay...
The individual mandate discussion of the health care debate is at best, poorly understood. During the Supreme Court arguments last summer, the government stipulated that the costs of free riders to the system was at most 3% of the nation's health expenditures. (As an aside, this 3% is similar to the amount of pro bono work that the ABA recommends to law firms and no one wants to nationalize the legal system.) What they didn't mention is that underpayments for services are 2-3x larger problem and far and away the largest underpayer is....Uncle Sam. As constituted, the individual mandate will never work. The fine (actually extra tax) is ~$700, far less than the cost of a basic health insurance plan. Since Obamacare includes provisions for pre-existing conditions, you have provided no incentives for the young and healthy to purchase insurance.
Moreover, if your fellow citizens are paying for your health care, is there not an implicit obligation to do everything to be healthy and not utilize these services? For example, the NHS delays or denies joint replacements for the obese or lung cancer treatments for smokers.
The financial meltdown of 2008 was not due to a single problem. It was a confluence of multiple problems including bad government housing policy, poor regulation, and yes, fraud.
Greed also contributed; greed by large financial institutions, greed by mid-size mortgage brokers enhancing commissions by selling mortgages to folks who couldn't afford them and the greed of the folks taking out mortgages that they couldn't afford. People didn't all of a sudden become greedier. Instead, the checks and balances upon greed were relaxed with the inevitable consequences. Just as "too big to fail" is a problem, so is "too small to fail". Capitalism requires a balance of reward (i.e. chance of success) and risk (i.e. chance of failure). Whether we nationalize risk for a few large corporations or for millions of individuals, the result is the same, we make the entire system less risk adverse, increasing systemic risk and making our economy inherently less stable. Greed is like gravity, ubiquitous and risky to ignore.
Few people deny the need for airport security. What they detest is a system the subjects everyone to needless delays and in some cases, abject humiliation in order to conform to a culture of rigid political correctness. When the first Swedish grandmother with a colostomy bag takes down a plane, then I'll be the first calling for universal screenings...By the same token, the government looks foolish when they characterize the Ft. Hood shootings as "workplace violence" or Mayor Bloomberg speculates that the Times Square bomber could be "someone with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something".
Americans aren't against government, they are against, large intrusive government. (Well at least some of there are.) This country was established by men who thought long and hard about the proper role of government. You know that long, boring middle part of the Declaration, i.e the part no one reads?...it's basically a listing of King George's government's inability to provide government and condemnation of his bad governance. Likewise, the Constitution was written to provide limited government with broad deference to the individual and local governments.
Great post above (#19). A few thoughts...
Actually, the topics are related. All about the argument regarding size and scope of government for which we are willing to pay...
The individual mandate discussion of the health care debate is at best, poorly understood. During the Supreme Court arguments last summer, the government stipulated that the costs of free riders to the system was at most 3% of the nation's health expenditures. (As an aside, this 3% is similar to the amount of pro bono work that the ABA recommends to law firms and no one wants to nationalize the legal system.) What they didn't mention is that underpayments for services are 2-3x larger problem and far and away the largest underpayer is....Uncle Sam. As constituted, the individual mandate will never work. The fine (actually extra tax) is ~$700, far less than the cost of a basic health insurance plan. Since Obamacare includes provisions for pre-existing conditions, you have provided no incentives for the young and healthy to purchase insurance.
Moreover, if your fellow citizens are paying for your health care, is there not an implicit obligation to do everything to be healthy and not utilize these services? For example, the NHS delays or denies joint replacements for the obese or lung cancer treatments for smokers.
The financial meltdown of 2008 was not due to a single problem. It was a confluence of multiple problems including bad government housing policy, poor regulation, and yes, fraud.
Greed also contributed; greed by large financial institutions, greed by mid-size mortgage brokers enhancing commissions by selling mortgages to folks who couldn't afford them and the greed of the folks taking out mortgages that they couldn't afford. People didn't all of a sudden become greedier. Instead, the checks and balances upon greed were relaxed with the inevitable consequences. Just as "too big to fail" is a problem, so is "too small to fail". Capitalism requires a balance of reward (i.e. chance of success) and risk (i.e. chance of failure). Whether we nationalize risk for a few large corporations or for millions of individuals, the result is the same, we make the entire system less risk adverse, increasing systemic risk and making our economy inherently less stable. Greed is like gravity, ubiquitous and risky to ignore.
Few people deny the need for airport security. What they detest is a system the subjects everyone to needless delays and in some cases, abject humiliation in order to conform to a culture of rigid political correctness. When the first Swedish grandmother with a colostomy bag takes down a plane, then I'll be the first calling for universal screenings...By the same token, the government looks foolish when they characterize the Ft. Hood shootings as "workplace violence" or Mayor Bloomberg speculates that the Times Square bomber could be "someone with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something".
Americans aren't against government, they are against, large intrusive government. (Well at least some of there are.) This country was established by men who thought long and hard about the proper role of government. You know that long, boring middle part of the Declaration, i.e the part no one reads?...it's basically a listing of King George's government's inability to provide government and condemnation of his bad governance. Likewise, the Constitution was written to provide limited government with broad deference to the individual and local governments.
Last edited:
I've said more in political threads around here than I ever meant to do, but I don't consider myself to be some rabid libertarian that some of you indicate. I am able to see, however, that the US and the European governments have spent more money than they have, yet they continue that spending relatively unchecked. I blame all sides. So, how is it stopped?
It seems that everyone wants that plush Cadillac ride, but hardly anyone wants to pay for it. Now, we are upside down, and we can't pay for it. So, we trust the very same guys to fix the problem who caused it? With them, it's 2% here, 5% there, a few trillion in a few years, etc., etc, ad infinitum. That's what I call tinkering.
From where I sit, we are in a virtually unworkable position with no solution in sight, and no one at the top who really wants to address it at all.
It seems that everyone wants that plush Cadillac ride, but hardly anyone wants to pay for it. Now, we are upside down, and we can't pay for it. So, we trust the very same guys to fix the problem who caused it? With them, it's 2% here, 5% there, a few trillion in a few years, etc., etc, ad infinitum. That's what I call tinkering.
From where I sit, we are in a virtually unworkable position with no solution in sight, and no one at the top who really wants to address it at all.
Last edited:
Obamacare's primary objective is not to stamp out freeloading. It is to get 50 million currently uninsured people covered. Also, it does not nationalize healthcare - Unlike in the UK, service providers will not work for the government
For starters, the young and healthy can stay covered under their parents' plan. Not sure how it works, but if you are young healthy and uninsured and need emergency care, the hospital will still send you a (very hefty) bill. Hopefully avoiding the risk of potentially bankrupting medical bills will be enough incentive for the young and healthy to get coverage. It won't be perfect though.
True. I just observed the typical American mentality of asserting the right to do whatever the hell you please and leave others holding the bag when things go bad was a big part of the problem. This mentality pervaded Wall street as well as borrowers loading up on debt and cashing out home equity.
Political correctness is a big deal in the USA. No matter what you do someone will be pissed off (and if possible will sue). If we don't want racial profiling, some granny is going to get padded down occasionally. The price you pay for living in a big diverse country. I don't see this as a failing of Government. There is no department in Washington with the mission statement to make life of travellers miserable.
That is precisely the cultural aspect I was alluding to.
even i thought so ;-)
Yes, i mean: I like politics, but what's the point to talk besides each other.
Dear WBF's this is not your standard, really truly not!!
Yes, i mean: I like politics, but what's the point to talk besides each other.
Dear WBF's this is not your standard, really truly not!!
-- Is that the main problem in this world; after we realize all the things that aren't right, we simply decide for our ownselves to do things our own way? ...Embark on the same boat as independent capitalists, and make dues by pilling more in our cash machines.
I've heard (and truly believe) that the 1% of the richest people on Earth don't invest their money back into the economy. Instead they build more fortified/reinforced castles for themselves, and they fill them with the most extravagant/useless toys that have no value whatsoever for human kind. ...You know which ones; expensive car's collections, 200" plasma HDTVs, gold this, platinum that, furniture of encrusted diamonds, walls made of all kind of precious stones, all that superficial jazz ....
And because of that all the rest of us suffer from this economic meltdown (fiscal cliff).
Is the world a world of balance for all or a world of capital greed controlled by the richest people living in/on it? ...Yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
...And without even knowing it because they have no formation whatsoever in 'transfer of economic equilibrium'.
The main priority is selfishness within a close circle of family friends.
Is that make sense? ...Harvard graduates in global economy, including America?
I've heard (and truly believe) that the 1% of the richest people on Earth don't invest their money back into the economy. Instead they build more fortified/reinforced castles for themselves, and they fill them with the most extravagant/useless toys that have no value whatsoever for human kind. ...You know which ones; expensive car's collections, 200" plasma HDTVs, gold this, platinum that, furniture of encrusted diamonds, walls made of all kind of precious stones, all that superficial jazz ....
And because of that all the rest of us suffer from this economic meltdown (fiscal cliff).
Is the world a world of balance for all or a world of capital greed controlled by the richest people living in/on it? ...Yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
...And without even knowing it because they have no formation whatsoever in 'transfer of economic equilibrium'.
The main priority is selfishness within a close circle of family friends.
Is that make sense? ...Harvard graduates in global economy, including America?
Last edited:
Bob,
Treading lightly here....you forgot to mention $250,000 speakers and $100,000 amplifiers.
---- I just luv it! We live in a free world where everyone can decide of his own destiny. :b
This is a great subject because it encompasses all segments of our societies.
...Economic, political, philosophical, and social.
...Without frontiers, without classes.
Always respect, the nature first; clean air, clean water, and clean earth. :b
We're all in it together; it's our garden, and the garden of future generations.
Uh Bob
That is their money .. They spend it any way they see fit ... I have no problem with that .. I simply don't want to find ways to make the system work only for them and exclude the rest of us... I don't want them to make of the rest of us subjects .. is all...
-- Yes Frantz, I understand your point very well.
But is there a better 'human value' to 'money'?
But is there a better 'human value' to 'money'?
Frantz,
Here is where you and I agree. However, I suppose it's like the old saying, "The Devil is in the details."
Similar threads
