Originally Posted by playwrite

Nobody can have income without someone else spending, period.

Flatly false. As a simple example off the top of my head, a subsistence farmer has income -- that is, over the course of the year the stuff he consumes to sustain his life -- due solely to his own efforts and the productivity of the land he works. You MMT-believers persist in refusing to realize that the true things you say about fiat money (the exact same things, it's worth pounding at your heads till you get them, that the austrian school, among others has been saying for well nigh a century now) do not hold for actual wealth -- that is, the things human beings have, make, or use to directly impact their lives.

The claim that taxes are no more than a way to stem-off 'demand-pull inflation' is simply a monetarist obfuscation of a fairly simple thing. The fiat-issuer (and/or its direct beneficiaries) bids for real goods with it's paper* in competition with the rest of humanity, bidding for those real goods with other real goods. A fiat-issuer who continues issuing without taking-back is going to flood the world with its issue and drive down the trading-value of those already circulating as well as those being issued going forward. To the extent that most all people use the fiat paper as an intermediary, then, 'prices' will rise for all participants in the economy.
This is, if the fiat-issuer does not take back its issue. Since the fiat-issuer itself does not have or produce real goods in sufficient quantity to get ahead of its ongoing issue, it cannot simply buy-back its own paper to keep the situation from getting out-of-hand. It therefore is limited to taking back the paper in exchange for no goods of value. That'd be your taxation.

Simply put, taxation completes the circle wherein a fiat-issuer gets to 'buy' goods of real value for paper it makes itself, then take that paper back for nothing to ensure that it will be able to continue 'buying' in the future. Any inflation that is offset by taxation is inflation caused by fiat issue in the first place.


----
*'paper' - shorthand for bills, plastic or zinc coins, electrons, balance-sheet scribblings, etc, etc. Obviously real paper is only the smallest part of that, but it's quicker this way.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

The Republicans didn't have enough power to influence the legislation at all?

Have you ever heard of something called a filibuster?

Indeed, this was the reason that even a public option, let alone single-payer, was never even introduced.

The Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. I guess you really do have to be completely ignorant to believe what the Democrats are selling.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There's a lot of truth to that. Just the simple process of accumulation at the top and less for the rest, is always followed by a general collapse of the economy. This has been the historical norm since the concept of capitalism emerged. It killed Venice as the paragon of economic accumen in the 15th century, and had been busy working its magic ever since.

It amazed me to find that the American Republic was modeled after the Republic of Venice.

Capitalism succeeds at first because it depends upon reciprocity. The capitalist system depends upon a preponderance of good-for-good, quality-for-quality exchanges for it to work. Such usually works well during a time of technological innovations. McCormick mass-produces a reaping machine, farmers buy it, farmers get more food production to sell, industrial workers get cheaper food and are able to buy some housewares....

Eventually the aristocratic principle appears as the economic order stagnates, power and wealth become intertwined, the powerless get the shaft and no opportunities for the improvement of their lives (but plenty for ruin), and wealth and power begin to be passed down almost as an inheritance. Heck, the nomenklatura of the alleged 'classless societies' began to act much like aristocracies.

The business acumen in America has gone from 'How to make a deal good for both' to 'How to treat people badly for profits or executive compensation' Maybe our political institutions were tailor-made for an agrarian order in which just about everyone is a small farmer or a small-scale shopkeeper and not for the MBA culture.

This was posted on Facebook by an in-law of my aunt. Does it make sense to anyone gracing these forums?

• the stock market is a leading indicator of about 6 -12 months ahead of the economy. The reason the market was on a free fall when Obama took office was because the market knew that the direction of the country was not going to be headed in the right direction under his leadership, or lack thereof. If I remember right the stock market dropped by the largest percentage the day after he was elected then any other president in history...what happened 6-9 months later? Unemployment shot up, even after after the president promised the nation it would not rise above 8% if we past his economic plan, his stimulus plan. What happened?
  
  The reason companies are not hiring people like A. [my aunt] has less to do with her sex. it has to do with the uncertainty that the president has created with the passage of Obamacare, frank-Dodd, and spending like a drunken sailor on leave (Bush was no saint about his spending, but Obama makes him look like an almost saver). Further, their are very strict laws against discrimination of any kind, especially in CA, why would employer risk violating these by not hiring women? They just were not hiring anyone. Why, because of uncertainty about the rules. I will not start in on the unemployed that have given up or are underemployed...this number has doubled or tripled under the policies of the current president and some estimate that this number is in 20% range...
  
  Regarding gas prices: if the oil companies could set gas prices then this would be collusion and that is against anti-trust laws. Gas is one of, if not the most competitive items out there. If one company could, they would lower the prices and make a killing, why don't they? Why can't Shell or Chevron lower their prices by a dollar and sell more gas then anyone else? because, they would loss money and then they would have lay off even more people, etc. this is Economics 101. High gas prices an issues, why not approve the Keystone pipeline or allow exploration domestically? Canada is now looking to sell its oil to China... That would not be good. Remind me who stopped this project...it was not Bush...
  
  Talk to any healthcare provider, cost have and will continue to rise because of Obamacare. Less people covered and more cost. Where is the affordability or the uninsured getting coverage? If you want to decrease health care costs the get the Attorneys out of the picture. 75% of what I paid to have a child earlier this year went to cover insurance premiums of my wife's OBGYN...Tort Reform is the first step to reduce cost, not a "buy insurance or else" mandate from big brother...
  
  Did you know that if the Bush tax cuts expire the economy will fall into another recession? Both the chairman of the federal reserve and the CBO has said this under oath? Also, did you know that the lowest income earners among us will have at least a 5%, in some cases a 10% tax increase? Seniors who are living off of their saving will have their taxes triple because of the dividend tax rate? And this from someone who cares about the little guys...action speak very loud.
  
  President Obama has no legs to stand on when talking about economy because his policies have stunted the growth of this nation, they hurt business, destroy confidence (I don't know who you talk to but no one I know is positive about the economy under the current administration), increase dependency on the government, put us in so much debt that it will take generations to pay it back, offends our closest friends, and tries to court our enemies. There has been change, but hope and prosperity has been stifled by the actions and policies of this administration as well as Harry Reed and Nancy Pelosi. Actions speak louder than words and the actions we have seen over the past four years have been...well devastating for our country.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Flatly false. As a simple example off the top of my head, a subsistence farmer has income -- that is, over the course of the year the stuff he consumes to sustain his life -- due solely to his own efforts and the productivity of the land he works. You MMT-believers persist in refusing to realize that the true things you say about fiat money (the exact same things, it's worth pounding at your heads till you get them, that the Austrian school, among others has been saying for well nigh a century now) do not hold for actual wealth -- that is, the things human beings have, make, or use to directly impact their lives.

Subsistence farmers are rare in the advanced industrial world. The 'income' is bare sustenance, and any surplus goes to a landlord (the State under the Soviet system) or taxing authorities. It is possible to have income without having cash go through one's fingers or through any tangible bank account -- as was the norm for peasants and isolated small farmers years ago. That is before I even discuss barter of farm goods for textiles, farm implements, and housewares which was once the norm. The cash economy was originally an urban phenomenon.

Any commodity can be a de facto currency. Tobacco was the currency in Virginia at one time. Requirements are that it be standardized, fungible, and non-perishable. Usable for other purposes? Motor fuels or certain grades of steel would fit that just as well as dried corn, rice, beans, or wheat. Of course one has to keep producing them.

The claim that taxes are no more than a way to stem-off 'demand-pull inflation' is simply a monetarist obfuscation of a fairly simple thing. The fiat-issuer (and/or its direct beneficiaries) bids for real goods with it's paper* in competition with the rest of humanity, bidding for those real goods with other real goods. A fiat-issuer who continues issuing without taking-back is going to flood the world with its issue and drive down the trading-value of those already circulating as well as those being issued going forward. To the extent that most all people use the fiat paper as an intermediary, then, 'prices' will rise for all participants in the economy.
This is, if the fiat-issuer does not take back its issue. Since the fiat-issuer itself does not have or produce real goods in sufficient quantity to get ahead of its ongoing issue, it cannot simply buy-back its own paper to keep the situation from getting out-of-hand. It therefore is limited to taking back the paper in exchange for no goods of value. That (would be) taxation.

Taxes depress economic activity at levels below full employment. Government spending increases economic activity at levels below full employment. Economic activity that pushes demand above the means of meeting it creates inflation. That is demand-pull, and one way to stop demand-pull inflation is to raise taxes without increasing government services. Another is to freeze wages. but that could be impractical.

Cost-push inflation comes from the sudden disappearance of a big chunk of a vital component of the economy. Objects and services requiring the use of that component (let us say petroleum) become less available, and people are obliged to either find substitutes or do without. In the old days one cause of such inflation was crop failures that led to famines.

Hyperinflation results from a government using the printing press to repudiate its bills. Does cost-push or demand-pull inflation lead to hyperinflation? Not likely. Hyperinflation usually means a political order in trouble -- like the Confederate States of America, Germany toward the end of WWI...

Simply put, taxation completes the circle wherein a fiat-issuer gets to 'buy' goods of real value for paper it makes itself, then take that paper back for nothing to ensure that it will be able to continue 'buying' in the future. Any inflation that is offset by taxation is inflation caused by fiat issue in the first place.


----
*'paper' - shorthand for bills, plastic or zinc coins, electrons, balance-sheet scribblings, etc, etc. Obviously real paper is only the smallest part of that, but it's quicker this way.

Monetary policy is tricky. One wants the money supply to encourage economic activity.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So let's hear your ideas, instead of a steady drone of why Obamacare is bad. Yes, we should manage costs. How would YOU do it? So far the only ideas I'v e seen form anyone in the GOP are wishful thinking (vouchers) and throwing Grandma under the bus.

Anything else? Any good options?

The Democrats are the ones throwing old people under the bus, by cutting off treatment to those they deem "not worth it". The government will be deciding when granny has outlived her usefulness.

As for the Republicans, the voucher thing is Medicare, not health care in general. The things they generally propose to cut costs are allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, and limiting malpractice lawsuits. Other ideas like increasing co-pays to get people not to over-use their insurance have been suggested.

Originally Posted by Earl and Mooch

This was posted on Facebook by an in-law of my aunt. Does it make sense to anyone gracing these forums?

the stock market is a leading indicator of about 6 -12 months ahead of the economy. The reason the market was on a free fall when Obama took office was because the market knew that the direction of the country was not going to be headed in the right direction under his leadership, or lack thereof. If I remember right the stock market dropped by the largest percentage the day after he was elected then any other president in history...what happened 6-9 months later? Unemployment shot up, even after after the president promised the nation it would not rise above 8% if we past his economic plan, his stimulus plan. What happened?

The reason companies are not hiring people like A. [my aunt] has less to do with her sex. it has to do with the uncertainty that the president has created with the passage of Obamacare, frank-Dodd, and spending like a drunken sailor on leave (Bush was no saint about his spending, but Obama makes him look like an almost saver). Further, their are very strict laws against discrimination of any kind, especially in CA, why would employer risk violating these by not hiring women? They just were not hiring anyone. Why, because of uncertainty about the rules. I will not start in on the unemployed that have given up or are underemployed...this number has doubled or tripled under the policies of the current president and some estimate that this number is in 20% range...

Regarding gas prices: if the oil companies could set gas prices then this would be collusion and that is against anti-trust laws. Gas is one of, if not the most competitive items out there. If one company could, they would lower the prices and make a killing, why don't they? Why can't Shell or Chevron lower their prices by a dollar and sell more gas then anyone else? because, they would loss money and then they would have lay off even more people, etc. this is Economics 101. High gas prices an issues, why not approve the Keystone pipeline or allow exploration domestically? Canada is now looking to sell its oil to China... That would not be good. Remind me who stopped this project...it was not Bush...

Talk to any healthcare provider, cost have and will continue to rise because of Obamacare. Less people covered and more cost. Where is the affordability or the uninsured getting coverage? If you want to decrease health care costs the get the Attorneys out of the picture. 75% of what I paid to have a child earlier this year went to cover insurance premiums of my wife's OBGYN...Tort Reform is the first step to reduce cost, not a "buy insurance or else" mandate from big brother...

Did you know that if the Bush tax cuts expire the economy will fall into another recession? Both the chairman of the federal reserve and the CBO has said this under oath? Also, did you know that the lowest income earners among us will have at least a 5%, in some cases a 10% tax increase? Seniors who are living off of their saving will have their taxes triple because of the dividend tax rate? And this from someone who cares about the little guys...action speak very loud.

President Obama has no legs to stand on when talking about economy because his policies have stunted the growth of this nation, they hurt business, destroy confidence (I don't know who you talk to but no one I know is positive about the economy under the current administration), increase dependency on the government, put us in so much debt that it will take generations to pay it back, offends our closest friends, and tries to court our enemies. There has been change, but hope and prosperity has been stifled by the actions and policies of this administration as well as Harry Reed and Nancy Pelosi. Actions speak louder than words and the actions we have seen over the past four years have been...well devastating for our country.

Wow! More wandering than a skid-row drunk.

These are the leading indicators:

• Average weekly hours (manufacturing) — Adjustments to the working hours of existing employees are usually made in advance of new hires or layoffs, which is why the measure of average weekly hours is a leading indicator for changes in unemployment. and also
  Average weekly jobless claims for unemployment insurance — The CB reverses the value of this component from positive to negative because a positive reading indicates a loss in jobs. The initial jobless-claims data is more sensitive to business conditions than other measures of unemployment, and as such leads the monthly unemployment data released by the U.S. Department of Labor.
  Manufacturers' new orders for consumer goods/materials — This component is considered a leading indicator because increases in new orders for consumer goods and materials usually mean positive changes in actual production. The new orders decrease inventory and contribute to unfilled orders, a precursor to future revenue.
  Vendor performance (slower deliveries diffusion index) — This component measures the time it takes to deliver orders to industrial companies. Vendor performance leads the business cycle because an increase in delivery time can indicate rising demand for manufacturing supplies. Vendor performance is measured by a monthly survey from the National Association of Purchasing Managers (NAPM). This diffusion index measures one-half of the respondents reporting no change and all respondents reporting slower deliveries.
  Manufacturers' new orders for non-defense capital goods — As stated above, new orders lead the business cycle because increases in orders usually mean positive changes in actual production and perhaps rising demand. This measure is the producer's counterpart of new orders for consumer goods/materials component (#3).
  Building permits for new private housing units.
  The Standard & Poor's 500 stock index — The S&P 500 is considered a leading indicator because changes in stock prices reflect investor's expectations for the future of the economy and interest rates.
  Money Supply (M2) — The money supply measures demand deposits, traveler's checks, savings deposits, currency, money market accounts, and small-denomination time deposits. Here, M2 is adjusted for inflation by means of the deflator published by the federal government in the GDP report. Bank lending, a factor contributing to account deposits, usually declines when inflation increases faster than the money supply, which can make economic expansion more difficult. Thus, an increase in demand deposits will indicate expectations that inflation will rise, resulting in a decrease in bank lending and an increase in savings.
  Interest rate spread (10-year Treasury vs. Federal Funds target) — The interest rate spread is often referred to as the yield curve and implies the expected direction of short-, medium- and long-term interest rates. Changes in the yield curve have been the most accurate predictors of downturns in the economic cycle. This is particularly true when the curve becomes inverted, that is, when the longer-term returns are expected to be less than the short rates.
  Index of consumer expectations — This is the only component of the leading indicators that is based solely on expectations. This component leads the business cycle because consumer expectations can indicate future consumer spending or tightening. The data for this component comes from the University of Michigan's Survey Research Center, and is released once a month.

The stock-price indices probably lag most of the others, and could not have anticipated the election of Barack Obama. The stock-market peak in 2007 came roughly fourteen months before the 2008 election. Large day-to-day changes in stock-market indices due to political events tend not to stick. "Manufacturers' orders of raw materials" had to be way off since the corrupt speculative boom in real estate failed in the middle of the Double-Zero decade. Maybe it was the end of the Big Dig in Boston -- a devourer of construction materials.

President Obama may have underestimated how bad the economic meltdown would be or at least understated the consequences of an economic meltdown that was only starting. A physician does not tell a patient having a heart attack "You're going to die!" and no stockbroker is willing to tell his clients that the stock market is about to lose 55% of its valuation (which it did). A competent teacher does not tell his students that they are bunch of losers who will never learn under him. If you are going to give a self-fulfilling prophecy, then make it a benign one.

http://advisorperspectives.com/dshor...-bad-bears.gif

The chart shows the four nastiest economic downturns in the last 85 years. Considering how closely the jagged line for the economic downturn beginning in October 2009 and September 1929 were when the market was down 30% to 56% and apparently going down -- the economic meltdown of 2007-2009 was similarly dangerous. About a year and a half into the downturn beginning in 1929 the market had a little rally and started going toward the abyss. At the analogous time in 2009 a little rally in the stock market stuck.

Gas prices? Until recently Americans could influence the gas prices by using less gasoline -- not taking pleasure trips when the prices are high, people seeking jobs closer to their homes (a convenience store or fast-food place five miles away instead of twenty), people taking the bus instead of driving... now much of the consumption of motor fuels is in new markets like Russia, India, and China where millions of people have cars for the first time. This would be a good time to build alternatives to long-distance auto use, like high-speed rail... but Big Oil doesn't want that. Face it -- 'your' Congressional representatives probably better serves the lobbyists of corporations that financed his campaign than you. his supposed constituent. Keep voting Republican and that will be even more so.

Don't fool yourself: more energy production is unlikely to make its way into an economy likely to be much poorer for most Americans if Romney is elected and the Democrats lose the Senate, the dream of people who see the working person at best as livestock and at worst vermin. The Keystone Pipeline goes through the Ogallala Aquifer, the underground source of water for irrigation of crops from the Dakotas to Texas. A rupture of that pipeline will make a new Dust Bowl of much of the High Plains.

Expiration of the Bush tax cuts? My heart bleeds. They didn't exist in the last good times for America, when Bill Clinton was President and budget surpluses were the norm. The upper 1% of income-grabbers need no help.

Now for health care -- we are the only advanced industrial economy without a national health care system. The optimum would be Medicare for All, basically folding Medicaid into Medicare. We also have the world's highest medical costs... solutions? Like negotiating down pharmaceutical costs? If we ran our transportation system as we run medicine a little econobox car would cost $100K, you would pay about $500 to take a jetliner from Dallas to Houston, even dirt roads would be fiendishly-expensive toll roads whose proprietors would be getting government subsidies, public transport would be non-existent, and you would be prohibited from using a bicycle or a horse -- and you would pay $20-a-gallon for gasoline. We would also scratch our heads when we could not figure why we can't compete internationally. You would wonder why it costs less to get from New York to London by sea than from Poughkeepsie to New York.

I suggest that people look carefully at the chart to which I linked. The low point on the chart for the blue line is (coincidence?) the day on which Bernie Madoff was arrested for his Ponzi scheme. It has since been going up. Erratically, but the general direction is up.

We no longer have politics of trust.

Wide expectation of voter fraud in Presidential race

The election may be three weeks away but voters on both sides of the partisan divide are already prepared to blame voter fraud if their candidate loses.

PPP polls over the weekend found:

-In Ohio 62% of Republicans think Democrats will engage in voter fraud to make sure that Barack Obama wins. 50% of the Democrats think that the GOP will engage in voter fraud to ensure a Romney victory.

-In Florida 60% of Republicans think Democrats will engage in voter fraud to make sure that Barack Obama wins. 55% of the Democrats think that the GOP will engage in voter fraud to ensure a Romney victory.

-In North Carolina 69% of Republicans think Democrats will engage in voter fraud to make sure that Barack Obama wins. 51% of the Democrats think that the GOP will engage in voter fraud to ensure a Romney victory.

If it's a close election it's safe to say it's going to get ugly.

Full results here

The distrust works both ways.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Flatly false. As a simple example off the top of my head, a subsistence farmer has income -- that is, over the course of the year the stuff he consumes to sustain his life -- due solely to his own efforts and the productivity of the land he works. You MMT-believers persist in refusing to realize that the true things you say about fiat money (the exact same things, it's worth pounding at your heads till you get them, that the austrian school, among others has been saying for well nigh a century now) do not hold for actual wealth -- that is, the things human beings have, make, or use to directly impact their lives.

No, sorry, subsistence farming to feed yourself is not about income. Granted, you can build wealth that way, but it still is not income until you SELL something, goods or services, to someone else for something. Outside of magic pony land, that typical involves something called money by the way.

Us MMTers always center our arguments on real resources. For example, Social Security is just a claim on future real economic production. That's why we can argue that its pretty silly to think that SS spending in the future is going to be a negative; the demand it creates is going to help mitigate deflation from an over abundance of the economy to provide real goods and services with less and less labor and therefore less and less incomes, and therefore less and less demand generated from wages. The future is going to need SS spending to keep the economy viable.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

The claim that taxes are no more than a way to stem-off 'demand-pull inflation' is simply a monetarist obfuscation of a fairly simple thing. The fiat-issuer (and/or its direct beneficiaries) bids for real goods with it's paper* in competition with the rest of humanity, bidding for those real goods with other real goods. A fiat-issuer who continues issuing without taking-back is going to flood the world with its issue and drive down the trading-value of those already circulating as well as those being issued going forward. To the extent that most all people use the fiat paper as an intermediary, then, 'prices' will rise for all participants in the economy.
This is, if the fiat-issuer does not take back its issue. Since the fiat-issuer itself does not have or produce real goods in sufficient quantity to get ahead of its ongoing issue, it cannot simply buy-back its own paper to keep the situation from getting out-of-hand. It therefore is limited to taking back the paper in exchange for no goods of value. That'd be your taxation.

Simply put, taxation completes the circle wherein a fiat-issuer gets to 'buy' goods of real value for paper it makes itself, then take that paper back for nothing to ensure that it will be able to continue 'buying' in the future. Any inflation that is offset by taxation is inflation caused by fiat issue in the first placAnde.

I'm not sure if you're getting some things right or wrong here, but on the whole its pretty screwy.

Yes, taxes allow the govt to buy goods and services but indirectly in that the taxes reduce money in the economy, and thereby purchasing power or demand in the economy, which then allows the govt to buy without putting pressure on taxes.

But it is beyond silly to believe the feds have to wait for their imagined piggy bank to fill up with revenue before they can spend. When the federal govt wants to buy some good or service or have some one else (beneficiary) capable of buying a good or service, all it does is use computer keystrokes to credit the bank accounts of those providers or beneficiaries, period. Those folks in the govt that do that keystroking don't first check with the IRS to see how much money has been collected before they credit bank accounts (i.e. spend). The money is simple created out of ether by federal spending and it goes back to that ether from which it was issued when the feds tax. There isn't anything magical about it.

And its a little silly to suggest that the govt issuing money into the economy is going to necessarily "flood" the market place. Colonial America got along with less than a billion dollars circulating in the economy and markets; if we had stayed at that level of money supply, today you would be able to buy all of Manhattan with a single dollar. How would you even be able to eat at McDonald's when a single penny could buy the whole restaurant???

Most money supply growth is merely keeping up with an expanding population and expanding economy. When it doesn't keep up, you get deflation; when it exceeds economic growth you can get demand inflation.

You guys sure are screwy. You're so concerned about being alarmist, you don't even get the basics right.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The Democrats are the ones throwing old people under the bus, by cutting off treatment to those they deem "not worth it". The government will be deciding when granny has outlived her usefulness.

Utter bullshit.

The original "death panel" Palin bullshit was about allowing health insurance coverage for medical providers to talk to patients about end-of-life options, i.e. whether and when to pull-the-plug ala Terri Schiavo. A discussion most people who have grown up and behave as adults would likely want to have. Turning it into "death panels" is just another ploy by the Right to manipulate sheeple like yourself.

The only thing left in the ACA that the Right wing nut manipulators try to use as the latest "death panel" is a 15 member board made up of some of the best medical doctors and researchers to identify best practices for most effective care as recommendations for what it is that Medicare should cover. It is a not only a modest cost-control measure but also a means to highlight and transfer best proven methods through the health care community.

Given its modest cost control intent, you're bringing it up as a means to throw grandma under the bus is not only asinine but pretty damn hypocritical given just a few post backs you were complaining about the lack of any cost control efforts. Just how do you think cost controls will be achieve? Either you're a hypocrite or abject moron.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. I guess you really do have to be completely ignorant to believe what the Democrats are selling.

No, they never had the 60 votes on the floor of the Senate due to Senator Kennedy being in the hospital with the brain tumor that eventually killed him and totally screwed the rest of us with the election of Scott Brown.

On top of that, we had Blue Dogs Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln sucking up to t-baggers.

You're either ignorant or pretty forgetful.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

We no longer have politics of trust.



Full results here

The distrust works both ways.

Yes, although the actual fraud is only on one side.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, although the actual fraud is only on one side.

Of course. It's clear that with Rick Scott as Governor of Florida, the Democrats have no chance of winning Florida dishonestly. Such should be obvious -- but it isn;t to Republicans who get much of their news from GOP Pravda, a/k/a FoX News.

The real reason is the Feds need Obama's new Health care reform.There is nothing they care if people can benefit from it or not. They just wantit to frame a target in their case with which they have created OKC bombing,911 attack to get the Patriot Act.

You can see it from the surprise turn around of the Chief JusticeRoberts.


726. The surprise turnaround of Chief Justice (7/4/2012)

On 6/28, Supreme Courtissued a pass for Obama's Health care policy. What surprised people was ChiefJustice Roberts sided with four liberal justices in voting 5-4 to declare thelaw's "individual mandate" constitutional.


Why did John Roberts, a Bushappointee who generally votes with his conservative colleagues, suddenly changehis opinion to vote with the liberal? Just three months ago, he still opposedthat "individual mandate" law.

Chief JusticeRoberts: Can government require you to buy a cell phone?

Mar. 27, 2012 - ChiefJustice Roberts asks the Solicitor General Verrilli if the government canrequire the purchase of cell phones for emergency services, just as thehealth-care law requires for health insurance.(The Washington Post)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/chief-justice-roberts-can-government-require-you-to-buy-a-cell-phone-042/2012/03/27/gIQA9kkreS_video.html

There are different theoriesabout this mysterious turnaround. Mostly were from disinformation office of theFeds to cover up their puppet Roberts. None could solve the puzzle. I know why- the Feds want that "individual mandate" provision. When the Fedswant to put Kat Sung under surveillance, they forced the law makers passingthrough the Patriot Act. (Through OKC bombing and 911 bombing) When the Fedswant to restrict Kat Sung in US, they activate the TSA search, (blockingleaving from air flight) blocking the entering of Canada and Mexico; (by"Operation Fast and Furious") see "697. TSA search, Canada andMexico (12/11/2011)". Now when they want Kat Sung to have a healthinsurance, they activate their proxy- John Roberts.

Six years ago when Roberts was selected asChief Justice, I have written already,
"344. Roberts, a secretagent of D.O.J. (9/18/05)"
http://katsung47.yuku.com/topic/4/The-dark-side-of-the-USA?page=4
This case proves I was very,very accurate at that judgement.

I'll talk about why the Fedswant that "individual mandate" provision.

Save your time and your sanity. Ignore katsung and the conspiracy the theories therefrom.

Obamacare is bad for the same reason all leftist nonsense is bad: it is an issue of consent, and no such consent is allowed to the people.

If one were to approach a woman and ask her, "Ma'am, will you agree to buy this product?", that would be an example of seeking consent. If one approaches a woman and says "You will do as I say, or else.", that foregoes consent and forces your will upon her. Does it start to make sense why people do not see this "Obamacare" silliness as a solution to anything?

Forcing people to buy health insurance and saying it solves the problem is more or less the same as forcing people to buy auto insurance and saying that they all have cars as a result. It's a load of ridiculous nonsense, and everyone knows it.

Moreover, the one thing that would actually cover poor people has been stricken from the law by the Supreme Court decision that upheld "Obamacare". States cannot be forced to expand the Medicaid rolls to cover the working poor, leaving that same gap that existed before. So now all that Obamacare does is create a huge payoff to insurance companies, and surreptitiously raise taxes on all the working poor who cannot afford the crazy prices of health insurance. Nice job Democrats, you found a way to support corporatism AND screw over poor people directly this time.

That's why Obamacare needs to go to hell in a handbasket, in short. And by the way "Playwrite", if you keep calling everyone else stupid, you will look so very, very smart. Good tactic, everyone knows a winner when they see one.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. I guess you really do have to be completely ignorant to believe what the Democrats are selling.

Yes they did, for just under two years. Of course, unlike Republicans, Democrats have some diversity in their party. With 60 votes (the bare minimum needed), just one defection woudl kill their fillibuster killing power. Most of the time, that service was provided by Ben Nelson (DINO - Nebraska).

Of scourse, you already knew that.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The Democrats are the ones throwing old people under the bus, by cutting off treatment to those they deem "not worth it". The government will be deciding when granny has outlived her usefulness.

Oh, "Death Panels", of course ... except they don't exist and won't exist. The "don't" part has to do with the effective date the advisory panels begin to function, and the "won't" part has to do with their authority (essentially, the panels provide guidance on cost cutting, but are several layers removed from patient care decisions).

So back to my quiestion: what's your plan? Are we back to "market mechanisms". where the deathly ill negoiate prices with their providers, or has some new non-functional alterntive been selected as whipping boy.

As for the Republicans, the voucher thing is Medicare, not health care in general. The things they generally propose to cut costs are allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, and limiting malpractice lawsuits. Other ideas like increasing co-pays to get people not to over-use their insurance have been suggested.[/QUOTE]
Killing malpractice insurance claims may save enough to pay for one day of insurance care for a medium to large city. Not much gain for screwing the patients screwed by their health providers. And shopping insurance across state lines guarnatees that the only states that will have resident insurance companies, and hence regulate the insurance industry, will be those states that agree to do nothing.

So your plan is to screw those already screwed and provide insurance that has zero credibility. Remember, I know how easy it is to get denied on a claim, and adding the abilty to cut-and-run to the insurance company tool kit seems like a deal made in heaven ... if you're the CEO of Wellpoint, Anthem, or any other for-profit insurer.

My my... So many pom-poms in this thread. I can almost feel the excitement building for the big vote! Go on and improve that country boys and girls.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The Democrats are the ones throwing old people under the bus, by cutting off treatment to those they deem "not worth it". The government will be deciding when granny has outlived her usefulness.

As for the Republicans, the voucher thing is Medicare, not health care in general. The things they generally propose to cut costs are allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, and limiting malpractice lawsuits. Other ideas like increasing co-pays to get people not to over-use their insurance have been suggested.

Thanks for again proving that you are completely out of touch with reality by spouting the "Death Panels" BS.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

Obamacare is bad for the same reason all leftist nonsense is bad: it is an issue of consent, and no such consent is allowed to the people.

There is no consent on drug laws or the minimum ages (18 and 21, respectively) on consumption of cancerweed and alcohol, respectively. There is none on paying into Social Security or Medicare, either.

If one were to approach a woman and ask her, "Ma'am, will you agree to buy this product?", that would be an example of seeking consent. If one approaches a woman and says "You will do as I say, or else.", that foregoes consent and forces your will upon her. Does it start to make sense why people do not see this "Obamacare" silliness as a solution to anything?

Because one's life is heavily constrained if one does not drive a car, the purchase of automobile insurance is a mandate for all practical purposes. The problem is of course that medical insurance is either a monopoly or near-monopoly in most places. Both give horrible service if the monopolist has no incentive for cost constraint or good service. Of course we as a nation committed ourselves to a private, for-profit trust long ago.

Forcing people to buy health insurance and saying it solves the problem is more or less the same as forcing people to buy auto insurance and saying that they all have cars as a result. It's a load of ridiculous nonsense, and everyone knows it.

Most people must buy food and keep utilities... maybe we have the wrong way of paying for medical insurance. Contrast the US to Canada -- we Americans get the benefit of people being so underpaid that they could never buy health insurance. If children of those underpaid employees of low-paying businesses get deathly ill, then perhaps they die. Remember the one sure competition for overpriced medical insurance -- being priced into the grave. The poor might not get such cheap all-you-can-eat buffets or clutter from dollar stores, but medical costs will not price them into the grave.

Moreover, the one thing that would actually cover poor people has been stricken from the law by the Supreme Court decision that upheld "Obamacare". States cannot be forced to expand the Medicaid rolls to cover the working poor, leaving that same gap that existed before. So now all that Obamacare does is create a huge payoff to insurance companies, and surreptitiously raise taxes on all the working poor who cannot afford the crazy prices of health insurance. Nice job Democrats, you found a way to support corporatism AND screw over poor people directly this time.

For an advanced industrial country the United States treats the poor worse than any other country. That is how the political system works... maybe we have something to change. But note that there are far more poor people in America than there are than there are tycoons, big landowners, and executives who are so unsatisfied with having to share any power or prosperity with anyone else that they have bought a political party, turned it into a fascist party, and seek even greater control of politics and take over all wealth and income.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The Democrats are the ones throwing old people under the bus, by cutting off treatment to those they deem "not worth it". The government will be deciding when granny has outlived her usefulness.

You forget how the great demagogue Sarah Palin interpreted the payment of end-of-life counseling for people for whom further treatment other than palliative care is futile. Physicians get to tell people how degrading, crippling, or dangerous some drastic treatments are. If a treatment for certain cancers implies that I will become a quadriplegic I might elect to not use the treatment. Preservation of life is the objective of medicine; preservation of a state of agonizing death is cruelty.

As is normal with people who promote totalitarian ideologies, she exploits the intellectual laziness of people like you who prefer to think in sound bites so that they never have to look deeply into anything. Just believe what you are told and act as you are told. That's how people were expected to behave under autocratic rulers, and I am not going to name names.

Political reality is more complicated and subtle than astrophysics, and astrophysics is difficult enough. People who try to reduce it to sound bites as Karl Rove does do so to deceive fools like you.

As for the Republicans, the voucher thing is Medicare, not health care in general. The things they generally propose to cut costs are allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, and limiting malpractice lawsuits. Other ideas like increasing co-pays to get people not to over-use their insurance have been suggested.

Bullhist! The idea is to sell off the assets of the government with the monopolistic gougers deciding what services the public program used to provide, and monopolistic gougers as a rule return as little as they can get away with for what they get.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...maybe we have something to change. But note that there are far more poor people in America than there are than there are tycoons, big landowners, and executives who are so unsatisfied with having to share any power or prosperity with anyone else that they have bought a political party, turned it into a fascist party, and seek even greater control of politics and take over all wealth and income.

Aww now, don't sell yourself so short. They bought your team too.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Aww now, don't sell yourself so short. They bought your team too.

Not so completely. The Republican Party is beyond reform.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

Scrooge McDuck is a Walt Disney character; The rich uncle of Donald Duck and grand-uncle
to Huey, Dewey, and Louie. Personally, I'm way more of a Warner Bros. fan(ie: Bugs Bunny).

You would probably connect better with the worn-out comparison of
the GOP to "Rich "Uncle" Pennybags"(J.P. Morgan) from Monopoly.



Prince

PS: Don't say I never did nothing for you.

Yes, perfect likeness.