nonsense, I was against the very idea of setting up a system that would make people completely unproductive to the point that there would be no difference between supporting them or a bacteria colony.
As per usual, your understanding of the issues at hand are at best at embryonic level.
More irrelevant nonsense, which has nothing to do with the fact that USA hasn't declared a legal war since WWII, when you run out of arguments all you can do is switch to something else, but you can't admit you are full of shit, that's your problem, not mine.
People earning less than four times the poverty line ($92,200 per year for a family of four) will receive tax credits to subsidize their purchase of insurance.
and this, now will you shut up after this?:
It bars insurance companies from denying coverage or increasing premiums based on pre-existing conditions, and seeks to expand coverage to include 30 million uninsured Americans.
Which country is mine? I have a number of citizenships and residencies, none of them are US.
As to 'giving a push', USA gave UNESCO the finger and pulled their funding just a little while back for being too nice to the Palestinians. Here is something for you to understand: all of these treaties are worth exactly 0, people only 'comply' with them as long as it doesn't interfere with what people really want to do. UN is a toothless nothing, but it does give an 'air' of legitimacy for the US federal government to tell its own people that there should be another military invasion into yet another gas statio....... terrorist country.
You are missing the point - a sovereign nation shouldn't bother with UN, of-course people join UN to attempt and force others to do as they want, but nobody gives a shit about UN when it's them, who is being forced into something.
1. The current economic problems are not a result of any tax cuts, they are a result of constant increase in spending without any production behind such spending and spending is the real tax, it's not the rate.
Even with 'Bush tax cuts' (which were not tax cuts, because spending keeps growing, so it's just being put on the tab rather than being paid by taxes) the US gov't still is able to fund itself with borrowed and printed money, so what exactly is it that the government cannot do just because of 'tax cuts'?
When the rate is cut but the spending continues and in fact grows all the time, all that happens is that the payment for the rate cut is deferred into the future and there will be more interest added to it, of-course every politician out there keeps saying that government should be spending more, because it is able to borrow at the lowest interest rates (and with the Fed buying so much of the new Treasury debt it's clear that most of the new spending is just 'financed' by inflation).
2. The financial sector has over 100,000 regulations applied to it on the federal level and there are other regulations too. The number of regulations is constantly increasing, this year there were 0 applications for new banks in USA for example, that's simply because it is no longer possible for any startup to comply with the regulations. All laws are regulations, Patriot Act for example is a huge regulation on the financial sector as well, it turns the entire financial sector into an IRS and CIA agent. To call mortgage crisis 'subprime' only is an understatment by the way, the problem only started with subprime, but it was all throughout the mortgage market because of the government backing all loans, not just subprime, and because of fake interest rates coming down from the Fed more than half mortgages were ARMs (adjustable rate), which had to reset at some point too.
But don't forget, there are people on both sides of the transaction and so with ARMs the banks were getting less and less return with every step that Greenspan and then Bernanke took to lower the rates, which propagated to all markets, including mortgage market. So there was less and less return on every mortgage that was given out.
Less and less return created the same situation that government created in the private equity market, where people are no longer looking for the bonds to get dividend payments, they only trade the stock itself trying to buy low sell high, it was turned into casino.
Same thing with mortgages - they were turned into casino because of low interest rates (fake money). So banks started selling mortgages to each other as if they were stocks, not hoping to live off of the dividend payments (monthly mortgage payments) but instead just hoping to gamble with those. Then came the derivative products, which is to say that bets on mortgages turned into options.
Some would say that repeal of Glass Steagall was the problem, but Glass Steagall didn't create the problem of no returns, it only allowed trading of the options, it didn't actually set the state for not getting returns on the mortgages. This view also overlooks the reason for Glass Steagall, this was introduced as the counterbalance to the FDIC, which is the moral hazard for people not to care about the banks, not caring that some banks maybe riskier than others, you shouldn't care, right, because the government 'guarantees' your deposit.
Well, gov't can't actually guarantee your deposit anymore than it can 'guarantee' your retirement or medical care or anything else, gov't doesn't have money and whatever it collects in taxes it always spends to the last penny leaving behind IOU notes - bonds.
But Clinton and Rubin were responsible for refinancing the US debt at very low rates, same thing that these so called 'home-owners' did every chance they got - refinanced their homes, left no equity in them.
It's funny to hear liberals cry about the poor home owners. Why is anybody crying? The 'home owners' never owned tho
countries could sign treaties then pass a law saying they're not going to abide by the treaty they just signed.
- they don't even have to pass a law like that, they can simply ignore the signature on that worthless document, because that document is not actually law of the land.
You don't get to call counterpoints irrelevant just because they don't agree with your world view.
- it's not a counterpoint, is you completely lacking understanding of the original point.
Can you show where the bill dictates that a plan that covers all possible conditions may not exceed a certain price regardless of the patient's health history?
- that is rudimentary, my retarded non-friend, the insurance cannot exceed cost of medical care itself, because then it would only mean that it's cheaper to pay out of pocket and why would you want insurance if it's cheaper to pay out of pocket.
Also if a person cannot afford insurance, he will be subsidised by gov't (so taxes), that is what ACA provides for.
There is a word 'AFFORDABLE' in this Act, isn't there?
There you go making things up, yet again. People have had the ability to drop their insurance for years yet almost nobody has. Why would they go through the trouble of doing it now? Oh yeah, they wouldn't.
- you are such a total nincompoop, it is embarrassing that you share genes with the rest of the human population.
People didn't drop insurance BEFORE ACA because to get back would be expensive and maybe impossible if they developed health conditions, and now without having to worry about pre-existing health conditions anybody in USA will have the entitlement and the insurance will have the obligation that anybody must be able to buy a plan, regardless of what the condition is.
THIS IS WHY the people will have insurance only for the period of time that it takes them to treat their condition, have a surgery, whatever. If the condition goes away and they don't need treatment, then they don't need to pay for the insurance plan, and the next time the situation is exactly the same.
Now, SANE and INTELLIGENT people will do that, idiots like you, well, who knows how you don't drown yourself in a toilet every morning.
I do have my 'libertaria', and I have 2 private insurance plans (health insurance and critical illness) but for most visits I pay out of pocket, because of the deductible, but it is what I signed up for.
Doesn't matter. Nowhere in the Constitution is it allowed for the war to be started by president or any organisation, the war must be declared by Congress and all wars US went into since WWII were illegal wars.
What exactly are you saying, that I am pro-patent wars or something like that? How can I be pro-patent wars if I am against patents and against copyrights and have been against them for decades. Of-course on/. I have plentycomments about this.
It is irrelevant, the US Congress did not declare the war, the US people did not authorise the war, the war was illegal, it does not matter what UN said at all, what matters is that US government went into the war illegally.
Slashdot Mirror
nonsense, I was against the very idea of setting up a system that would make people completely unproductive to the point that there would be no difference between supporting them or a bacteria colony.
As per usual, your understanding of the issues at hand are at best at embryonic level.
to see a troll you should look in the mirror.
USA hasn't declared war since WWII, you have no argument so you are reduced to what you accuse me of doing.
are you on drugs?
More irrelevant nonsense, which has nothing to do with the fact that USA hasn't declared a legal war since WWII, when you run out of arguments all you can do is switch to something else, but you can't admit you are full of shit, that's your problem, not mine.
You are simply adorable
All of your points are irrelevant given this (this is from ACA's wikipedia page, so no need to translate tens of pages from legalese):
People earning less than four times the poverty line ($92,200 per year for a family of four) will receive tax credits to subsidize their purchase of insurance.
and this, now will you shut up after this?:
It bars insurance companies from denying coverage or increasing premiums based on pre-existing conditions, and seeks to expand coverage to include 30 million uninsured Americans.
Over and out.
Which country is mine? I have a number of citizenships and residencies, none of them are US.
As to 'giving a push', USA gave UNESCO the finger and pulled their funding just a little while back for being too nice to the Palestinians. Here is something for you to understand: all of these treaties are worth exactly 0, people only 'comply' with them as long as it doesn't interfere with what people really want to do. UN is a toothless nothing, but it does give an 'air' of legitimacy for the US federal government to tell its own people that there should be another military invasion into yet another gas statio....... terrorist country.
You are missing the point - a sovereign nation shouldn't bother with UN, of-course people join UN to attempt and force others to do as they want, but nobody gives a shit about UN when it's them, who is being forced into something.
Your entire comment is made of straw.
USA must have declared the war in Korea for it to be legal, that is the question, everything that you are talking about is an irrelevant sideshow.
Wrong. There was never a declaration of war, there was 'authorisation' from Congress, but no declaration, it was unconstitutional.
All wrong.
1. The current economic problems are not a result of any tax cuts, they are a result of constant increase in spending without any production behind such spending and spending is the real tax, it's not the rate.
Even with 'Bush tax cuts' (which were not tax cuts, because spending keeps growing, so it's just being put on the tab rather than being paid by taxes) the US gov't still is able to fund itself with borrowed and printed money, so what exactly is it that the government cannot do just because of 'tax cuts'?
When the rate is cut but the spending continues and in fact grows all the time, all that happens is that the payment for the rate cut is deferred into the future and there will be more interest added to it, of-course every politician out there keeps saying that government should be spending more, because it is able to borrow at the lowest interest rates (and with the Fed buying so much of the new Treasury debt it's clear that most of the new spending is just 'financed' by inflation).
2. The financial sector has over 100,000 regulations applied to it on the federal level and there are other regulations too. The number of regulations is constantly increasing, this year there were 0 applications for new banks in USA for example, that's simply because it is no longer possible for any startup to comply with the regulations. All laws are regulations, Patriot Act for example is a huge regulation on the financial sector as well, it turns the entire financial sector into an IRS and CIA agent. To call mortgage crisis 'subprime' only is an understatment by the way, the problem only started with subprime, but it was all throughout the mortgage market because of the government backing all loans, not just subprime, and because of fake interest rates coming down from the Fed more than half mortgages were ARMs (adjustable rate), which had to reset at some point too.
But don't forget, there are people on both sides of the transaction and so with ARMs the banks were getting less and less return with every step that Greenspan and then Bernanke took to lower the rates, which propagated to all markets, including mortgage market. So there was less and less return on every mortgage that was given out.
Less and less return created the same situation that government created in the private equity market, where people are no longer looking for the bonds to get dividend payments, they only trade the stock itself trying to buy low sell high, it was turned into casino.
Same thing with mortgages - they were turned into casino because of low interest rates (fake money). So banks started selling mortgages to each other as if they were stocks, not hoping to live off of the dividend payments (monthly mortgage payments) but instead just hoping to gamble with those. Then came the derivative products, which is to say that bets on mortgages turned into options.
Some would say that repeal of Glass Steagall was the problem, but Glass Steagall didn't create the problem of no returns, it only allowed trading of the options, it didn't actually set the state for not getting returns on the mortgages. This view also overlooks the reason for Glass Steagall, this was introduced as the counterbalance to the FDIC, which is the moral hazard for people not to care about the banks, not caring that some banks maybe riskier than others, you shouldn't care, right, because the government 'guarantees' your deposit.
Well, gov't can't actually guarantee your deposit anymore than it can 'guarantee' your retirement or medical care or anything else, gov't doesn't have money and whatever it collects in taxes it always spends to the last penny leaving behind IOU notes - bonds.
But Clinton and Rubin were responsible for refinancing the US debt at very low rates, same thing that these so called 'home-owners' did every chance they got - refinanced their homes, left no equity in them.
It's funny to hear liberals cry about the poor home owners. Why is anybody crying? The 'home owners' never owned tho
My point is that UN doesn't set the law for USA, nor for anybody else.
countries could sign treaties then pass a law saying they're not going to abide by the treaty they just signed.
- they don't even have to pass a law like that, they can simply ignore the signature on that worthless document, because that document is not actually law of the land.
It actually happens all the time, countries sign treaties and break them, simple example of US breaking a number of treaties.
Wrong.
The only wars US Congress declared were in:
* 1812
* 1846
* 1898
* 1917
* 1941, 1942.
Oh, you are adorable.
Right wing? What the fuck is that?
Is Constitutionality considered 'right wing' today?
You don't get to call counterpoints irrelevant just because they don't agree with your world view.
- it's not a counterpoint, is you completely lacking understanding of the original point.
Can you show where the bill dictates that a plan that covers all possible conditions may not exceed a certain price regardless of the patient's health history?
- that is rudimentary, my retarded non-friend, the insurance cannot exceed cost of medical care itself, because then it would only mean that it's cheaper to pay out of pocket and why would you want insurance if it's cheaper to pay out of pocket.
Also if a person cannot afford insurance, he will be subsidised by gov't (so taxes), that is what ACA provides for.
There is a word 'AFFORDABLE' in this Act, isn't there?
Here is Obama: we will start by reducing premiums to 2500 dollars per family per year.
There you go making things up, yet again. People have had the ability to drop their insurance for years yet almost nobody has. Why would they go through the trouble of doing it now? Oh yeah, they wouldn't.
- you are such a total nincompoop, it is embarrassing that you share genes with the rest of the human population.
People didn't drop insurance BEFORE ACA because to get back would be expensive and maybe impossible if they developed health conditions, and now without having to worry about pre-existing health conditions anybody in USA will have the entitlement and the insurance will have the obligation that anybody must be able to buy a plan, regardless of what the condition is.
THIS IS WHY the people will have insurance only for the period of time that it takes them to treat their condition, have a surgery, whatever. If the condition goes away and they don't need treatment, then they don't need to pay for the insurance plan, and the next time the situation is exactly the same.
Now, SANE and INTELLIGENT people will do that, idiots like you, well, who knows how you don't drown yourself in a toilet every morning.
Oh, and by the way telling somebody:
I really hope that you ... get sick
just proves my point about the people (also the so called 'liberals') and that they shouldn't be allowed to vote in most cases.
I do have my 'libertaria', and I have 2 private insurance plans (health insurance and critical illness) but for most visits I pay out of pocket, because of the deductible, but it is what I signed up for.
Doesn't matter. Nowhere in the Constitution is it allowed for the war to be started by president or any organisation, the war must be declared by Congress and all wars US went into since WWII were illegal wars.
according to the powers vested in him by the Constitution
- oh? So when did USA declare a war last time? I hear it was WWII that was declared and never since, so why do YOU hate the Constitution?
What exactly are you saying, that I am pro-patent wars or something like that? How can I be pro-patent wars if I am against patents and against copyrights and have been against them for decades. Of-course on /. I have plenty comments about this.
It is irrelevant, the US Congress did not declare the war, the US people did not authorise the war, the war was illegal, it does not matter what UN said at all, what matters is that US government went into the war illegally.
Treaties? Treaties are not laws of the land, they do not supersede the laws of the land.
UN CANNOT tell USA to go to war, only Congress has the power to declare war. Of-course that would be Constitutional, what happens today is not.
yeah, and it's totally authorised by the US Constitution that an outside organisation like that can control sovereignty and the law of the country.