Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
lord_casek

Obama: The New George Bush

Recommended Posts

I agree I always say it when the power shifts from tory to labour over here, it doesn't matter what they promise during elections because when they get into power they can't do a thing because big businesses that help fund the parties etc don't want certain policies, also it takes so long for these changes to go through that if they aren't done by the end of their term it will just get scrapped by the next election winner - it's a farce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
Are you seriously telling me you trust that things will get better after the change to Obamacare?

 

No, but I would be able to go get a checkup and get some answers about a couple of health issues I have that are troubling me.

 

AOD has explained over and over again in this thread how the cost of medical treatment could and should be lowered if our government truly cared about our well being and benefit.

 

And I like what he says but the problem is that the free market seldom brings out the best in people. If there were no checks and balances on the health care industry, what do you think would happen? Really think about this for a minute. Do you think all of these claims adjusters and executives at the HMOs are going to suddenly have moments of clarity and realize "Wow, we've really been screwing poor people, we should take care of everyone regardless of income." Not likely.

 

If you would like me to post articles that support my opinion than I will. You probably won't read them anyway.

 

Actually, I do read articles and links people use to back up their case. I don't have much else to do these days.

 

I could only see the irony of people lying on their deathbeds after supporting such a change, being denied the treatment they needed because that perticular drug or that perticular procedure just doesn't fit to well into the governments cost cutting agenda. That is if you are among the millions of people that won't be able to afford private insurance.

 

This happens in the private sector already. It appears that what you're doing is projecting this onto the government. Maybe it's just a symptom of large scale managed health care?

 

In fact, I've experienced it personally. I have a few preexisting conditions (cervical stenosis, hypertension, depression, arthritis, asthma, chronic bronchitis) that some, if not most, insurance companies would want nothing to do with. The only way I can get insurance is to sneak in under group coverage through a job and pray that I don't have to have a check up to qualify, and even then the HMO will probably opt out or stall on anything I needed unless it was a matter of life or death....and even then they might hedge.

 

I'm not saying this system doesn't need reform, because it most certainly does, it is just being reformed into a much worse system.

 

More projection. To me it sounds like "Nothing is better than something that benefits people who are poor if it's screwed up by design...and especially if I have to pay for it."

 

Bring the troops home. Stop this run away spending on our defense. Scale back on the global empire. Billions of dollars are suddenly free to move around anywhere it is needed.

 

I agree with all of this, but it's not gonna happen any time soon. And when it does happen and the money is free, what guarantee is there that it will be spent wisely?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agree with you on every point there Shai, I don't see how people think that having their health managed by an insurance company is in anyway beneficial to anyone other than the shareholders of the insurance company.

 

Look into the NHS in the UK, while it may not be perfect at least I can go to the Doctor whenever I please and be looked after, I can go to hospital and get fixed up and not get billed for it. Just because when I was younger and crashed a bike and fucked up a vertebrae in my back does not mean that if I pull my back tomorrow I won't get treatment for some pre-existing condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

omg we cant let people make their own decisions and contracts!... we need big bro to help! he always does what is egalitarian, humanitarian and RIGHT!

i dont see how people want the same people who run the MVA and the post office, who spend 300$ for a $20 hammer in the army and who sent troops to a country that did not attack us, did not have wmd's and did not want war with us... you want these people to run your healthcare.

 

i guess im just cut from a different mold.

 

again, i'll say it. easiest way to solve the problem....

let the people who want government healthcare HAVE IT. and let those who dont, suffer under the tyrannical oppression of the insurance companies and doctors. just leave each other alone.

but the meddlers would never have this. there is no way any government extremist would allow citizens to decide certain decisions on their own merit and let them keep their own money. this is absolutely out of the question.

the issue really isnt healthcare.

its force. forcing people to do something they may or may not want to do.

in slavery the issue wasnt the work, it was the force. the whip. the fact they couldnt leave. that they were forced to be a part of the slave system.

and so it is with government/'citizen' relationships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
again, i'll say it. easiest way to solve the problem....

let the people who want government healthcare HAVE IT. and let those who dont, suffer under the tyrannical oppression of the insurance companies and doctors. just leave each other alone.

 

I never advocated anything besides this, seeing as there's no reason why public and private health care can't coexist.

 

but the meddlers would never have this.

 

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are any govt programs 'voluntary?'

absolutely not.

if we dont use schools do we have a choice to fund them? if we dont want social security, why do we have to fund it? as it is with obamacare... if you dont want obama care, why cant i just simply NOT FUND IT?

 

if you dont want to partake in a government program funded through taxation, such as social security, medicare, obama care, schools, etc you will be jailed or if you resist forcibly enough, the government will shoot you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But don't you think that it is good to have a society that is built in a way that everyone has a chance? Just because you don't maybe have kids doesn't mean that your taxes shouldn't go to education? I think if you choose where your tax money goes then your society will be screwed no one would fund the simple things like lighting or roads things like that. While you may be intelligent AOD there are huge numbers of people that can't grasp these things and society would be worse off with a bunch of rednecks putting all their taxes into defense and letting everything else go to he'll

 

In the uk we have private and nhs healthcare and it works fine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
are any govt programs 'voluntary?'

absolutely not.

if we dont use schools do we have a choice to fund them? if we dont want social security, why do we have to fund it? as it is with obamacare... if you dont want obama care, why cant i just simply NOT FUND IT?

 

if you dont want to partake in a government program funded through taxation, such as social security, medicare, obama care, schools, etc you will be jailed or if you resist forcibly enough, the government will shoot you.

 

Well, that's an issue with the tax code.

 

I actually agree with you here, to a point. If people send their kids to parochial school and have full medical coverage, they SHOULD be able to opt out of paying into a large portion of the taxes since they aren't directly benefiting from it.

 

But...what happens if they lose their jobs and have to send their kids to public school and take advantage of state health care? Most Americans would hop right on the gravy train without a second thought, because they like having it both ways.

 

I feel like the model you propose would only work if everyone had a conscience and unfailingly did the right thing, didn't try to cheat or game the system, etc. But if it's wide open- no regulation, no checks and balances, no nothing- then it sounds like it has all the makings for a Dickens novel. The imbalance of wealth would be even more obscene than it is now and there would be nothing in the way of people creating monopolies.

 

I'm not advocating egalitarianism, but deregulation and lack of oversight is a big part of the reason Wall Street got over on America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, that's an issue with the tax code.

 

I actually agree with you here, to a point. If people send their kids to parochial school and have full medical coverage, they SHOULD be able to opt out of paying into a large portion of the taxes since they aren't directly benefiting from it.

 

But...what happens if they lose their jobs and have to send their kids to public school and take advantage of state health care? Most Americans would hop right on the gravy train without a second thought, because they like having it both ways.

 

I feel like the model you propose would only work if everyone had a conscience and unfailingly did the right thing, didn't try to cheat or game the system, etc. But if it's wide open- no regulation, no checks and balances, no nothing- then it sounds like it has all the makings for a Dickens novel. The imbalance of wealth would be even more obscene than it is now and there would be nothing in the way of people creating monopolies.

 

I'm not advocating egalitarianism, but deregulation and lack of oversight is a big part of the reason Wall Street got over on America.

 

cool.

the main thing is the unvoluntary nature of the programs, not really the programs.

if they were voluntary all people could really say is...'well, thats pretty stupid...' (or inefficient, etc etc)

but because all of these are not voluntary, that is why we have all the fuss. this is 'democracy' where a portion of the population tell the other portion what to do.

 

the tax system creates resentment.

its a dangerous cycle. for instance. if you are against social security, but are forced to pay into it, then you damn well want to 'reclaim' your money out of it when it comes time to retire. so you have some level of hypocrisy, but its not technically hypocrisy on the part of some, its reclaiming their property.

 

its 100% false to say wall street wasnt regulated 'enough.' it was government policy along with the FED that created the collapse. it wasnt unregulated capitalism because we didnt have unregulated capitalism, we had corporatism/fascism with a good dose of socialism for good measure. moral hazard. easy credit by the federal reserve. banks being backed by the feds and lending to risky 'sub prime' borrowers who cant pay the debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But don't you think that it is good to have a society that is built in a way that everyone has a chance? Just because you don't maybe have kids doesn't mean that your taxes shouldn't go to education? I think if you choose where your tax money goes then your society will be screwed no one would fund the simple things like lighting or roads things like that. While you may be intelligent AOD there are huge numbers of people that can't grasp these things and society would be worse off with a bunch of rednecks putting all their taxes into defense and letting everything else go to he'll

 

In the uk we have private and nhs healthcare and it works fine

 

it doesnt matter what i 'think.' it matters if the society is voluntary. after all people 'thought' it was good to hold slaves and to keep them disarmed.

do you believe in voluntary interaction? and if so, then why do you like to use violence against people to get what YOU think is good for the collective?

 

because there isnt government involvement, doesnt mean certain institutions wont exist.

im 100% against forced charity.

my neighbors house burned down 2 weeks ago, and i gave them over a months worth of food. over 30 people did the same in the way of clothing, gift cards, etc etc. we didnt need the government to handle this problem. society can exist without a central plan.

 

what makes you think its just the 'rednecks' that put all the taxes into defense? the liberal establishment has been part of the military industrial complex since the military industrial complex came into being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if the Market had been left unchecked with no regulation we would have been in this situation much sooner because the bankers would have made their personal fortune then left with their millions leaving all their investors shafted. Why would they have considered anyone other than themselves, and it isn't like it was a rogue bunch of bankers that caused this problem it was all of them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what made all the bankers turn rogue and act irrationally?

the federal reserve and the federal regulatory apparatus which created incentives to earn large returns on sub prime loans.

 

saupload_meltdown1.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it doesnt matter what i 'think.' it matters if the society is voluntary. after all people 'thought' it was good to hold slaves and to keep them disarmed.

do you believe in voluntary interaction? and if so, then why do you like to use violence against people to get what YOU think is good for the collective?

 

because there isnt government involvement, doesnt mean certain institutions wont exist.

im 100% against forced charity.

my neighbors house burned down 2 weeks ago, and i gave them over a months worth of food. over 30 people did the same in the way of clothing, gift cards, etc etc. we didnt need the government to handle this problem. society can exist without a central plan.

 

what makes you think its just the 'rednecks' that put all the taxes into defense? the liberal establishment has been part of the military industrial complex since the military industrial complex came into being.

 

well I'm not quite sure what you mean about using violence I never once suggested that

 

with taxes you need to ensure that you have enough money to fund the schools etc and if you the have people determine where their tax goes then you might not meet the required educational budgets and kids will suffer for it

 

I'm glad you helped your neighbour with food it was very charitable of you but would you have done the same for someone you don't know on the otherside of the country? I see my taxes helping educate kids helping people get healthcare when they need it, yes I disagree with paying for wars I disagree with but nothing is perfect and I am happy some of my taxes are used for good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what made all the bankers turn rogue and act irrationally?

the federal reserve and the federal regulatory apparatus which created incentives to earn large returns on sub prime loans.

 

saupload_meltdown1.jpg

 

 

The bankers did it themselves they got paid huge bonuses for selling worthless stocks and high risk portfolios. You can't just blame the fed when this was a worldwide problem involving bankers from all over the world. Bankers are self satisfying greedy scum bags who only think of themselves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you really want to learn about what happened, you should just read that book.

or listen to peter schiff on youtube.

i think its better to listen to people who got it right from the beginning, than listen to the same people who caused the problem point fingers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should have been stricter regulations on their trading the FSA didn't even fully understand hedge fund trading and the whole sub prime thing and this is one of the reasons it went unchecked for so long. Had there been better understanding of the dodgy deals they could have stepped in and stopped the false manipulation of the stock markets.

 

I personally agree with regulation, business is corrupt and greedy and if left to it's own devices would only do what is best for their bank balance, corner the Market and screw the consumer, which is also why I'm against private healthcare because business comes before service or quality of care

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

predatory pricing is a myth.

 

writes murray rothbard:

 

"For decades, indeed, opponents of the free market have claimed that many businesses gained their powerful status on the market by what is called "predatory price-cutting," that is, by driving their smaller competitors into bankruptcy by selling their goods below cost, and then reaping the reward of their unfair methods by raising their prices and thereby charging "monopoly prices" to the consumers. The claim is that while consumers may gain in the short run by price wars, "dumping," and selling below costs, they lose in the long run from the alleged monopoly. But, as we have seen, economic theory shows that this would be a mug's game, losing money for the "dumping" firms, and never really achieving a monopoly price. And sure enough, historical investigation has not turned up a single case where predatory pricing, when tried, was successful, and there are actually very few cases where it has even been tried."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There should have been stricter regulations on their trading the FSA didn't even fully understand hedge fund trading and the whole sub prime thing and this is one of the reasons it went unchecked for so long. Had there been better understanding of the dodgy deals they could have stepped in and stopped the false manipulation of the stock markets.

 

I personally agree with regulation, business is corrupt and greedy and if left to it's own devices would only do what is best for their bank balance, corner the Market and screw the consumer, which is also why I'm against private healthcare because business comes before service or quality of care

 

i think we just had this same conversation... but...

 

i think everyone acknowledges wall street got 'drunk.'

but what everyone doesnt see is what made them make the decisions they made. it is the exact same thing as a mob of high school kids hop in a pick up truck, all drunk and drive off a cliff. everyone wants to talk about them being 'crazy' or 'greedy' or 'driving to fast' but they dont want to talk about the alcohol.

the 'alcohol' in the collapse was easy credit based on made up rates that a government created monopoly over the creation and issuance of credit decided they wanted to use. couple that with the moral hazard created by the federal regulatory apparatus.

 

its funny. people dont know the whole story. this is what gave wall street the 'alcohol' to act the way they did. its hilarious to me. the federal government finally got what they wanted. they wanted loans made to sub prime borrowers. since the inception of fannie and freddie and accelerated under the CRA, the federal government was FORCING those evil greedy bankers that didnt want to loan money out to risky borrowers, to loan money out to risky borrowers. the fed created the easy credit. the feds got what they want. easy credit and the dream of home ownership for the oppressed proletariat. now everyone is mad because the government 'let' it all happen, when in fact it was what they wanted!

 

people will never be happy. a few decades back everyone was mad because no one could get a home loan because banks wanted 20% down and a good income. then the feds set the stage for sub prime borrowers to take over, and everyone gets mad and blames the unregulated market! its hilarious.

 

i've asked this question before.

what exact regulations would of prevented this collapse and if they are instituted, will you, the opponents of the free market, be happy and will you then stop your crusade to stamp out free exchange in america?

the opponents of freedom have been saying this very same thing since the 1860's and it all accelerated during the progressive era. all we need is just ONE more regulation and everything will be fixed. they had to create the FED to stop recessions, which were all caused by government credit and monetary polices! they create the FED and they wind up with the biggest crash EVER in 1929. the gun control zealots since NFA 34 have been saying we just need ONE more law to stop all crime in america. and its to the point where gun ownership is infringed on a sever basis in the entire US. and crime is at its highest. but the gun control people just say they need just a few more sensible regulations... it never ends.

 

i'd like to hear WHEN will you have perfected everything? when will utopia be achieved?

 

i maintain that in these two cases... the meddlers will not stop until the market is totally socialized and all guns are confiscated from civilians and placed only in the hands of the military and LE.

i've never heard either of them be satisfied when they get their mandatory law passed. they immediately keep moving toward the ultimate goal of the TOTAL STATE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What caused this disaster was a combination of bad regulation and conditions that encouraged greed but I still think there's a need for some oversight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"greed" is way to simplistic. People ALWAYS act greedy. Which leads us to why this certain sector's players all acted the same way. Which brings us to the FED and federal policy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People ALWAYS act greedy.

 

This is the problem I have with unchecked capitalism. Don't worry, I have the same problem when greed is institutionalized and happens via bureaucracy, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you stamp out "greed" in"unchecked capitalism" when self interest and "greed" is how people cooperate? You are "greedy" if you accept money for any work you do. Even charity is out of self interest because you ultimately do it because it makes you feel good.

 

It's not out of benevolence that we get goods from the baker, butcher or candle stick maker, it's out of an acute awareness for their own self interest. Greed. Grocery stores don't distribute food out of benevolence, they sell it to make a profit. Greed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No...greed is characterized by excess. The baker is greedy not by virtue of selling goods, he is greedy IF he, for example, mixes in day old bread with the fresh bread and sells it for the same price. The candle stick maker is greedy IF he short changes every third customer on purpose. Greed implies dishonesty and excessive self interest. Greed can be subjective but your definition is very very skewed.

 

Here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/greed

 

Also, I hear the word "always" way too much in here. Simmer down with the absolutes, this isn't math. But there are almost ALWAYS shades of gray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...