Yeah, and maybe the Soviet's five year plan will work. Why complain about it now? I mean, sure they are diverting water that goes to feed the lake you fish from. Surely it won't be utterly destroyed by this plan while simultaneously causing a massive famine that will cause a significant portion of the population to starve to death. Jeez, you naysayers are just a bunch of crazies.
Clearly you hate women, and are a bigot. You should report to the nearest "happy" camp for a "free" reeducation. While you are gone, all of your possessions will be seized and auctioned to the Chinese.
That is not the way things actually worked before wage and price controls (which were what began the push into employer funded health insurance which lead us down this road). Even invasive surgeries didn't cost that much back then, and it was rare that people needed such things. Even when they did, there were plenty of charity hospitals that provided that kind of care for free to those who couldn't afford it (most hospitals started as charities, they have only recently become bureaucratic money sucking machines).
Medicine just doesn't COST that much. The realized costs are allowed to inflate much faster than everything else only because of tax-privileged insurance payments.
I wouldn't be too surprised to see that your insurance company paid for the fire protection, and that local businesses paid for the roads, with shipping companies paying for highways and such.
No, it isn't. Healthcare is a minor necessity, superseded by air, water, food, shelter, clothing, heating, sanitation, and any number of other things, non of which are mandated that you purchase.
No hospital is going to deny someone who is in real trouble emergency care, they are just going to kick out all those with fake emergencies seeking to game the system for free medical care.
Go to your local hospital and take a look around the emergency room. Maybe one or two people out of 25+ have a real emergency.
The trouble with people is that they see a government requirement and think that if that requirement weren't there, that the action wouldn't happen in some other way. I'm not even sure what kind of bias to call this--reverse normalcy bias?
When you claim something is false, you should say why, rather than pretending like you have some sort of authority on the subject.
Not to mention that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The internet existed before the start of the Clinton Administration. Don't you remember those old modems that fit to rotary telephones? TCP/IP was released in 1982 ffs. You going to claim that Reagan invented it back then?
Hmm, they both had the same word in the description, they must have both been the same!
I'm not sure how you can see that the Fed caused the housing bubble, but can't see that they caused the internet bubble. They held interest rates artificially low to manufacture a boom. Cheap money flowed into the new industry at a much greater rate than it would have if money had been priced appropriately. Remember that margin is credit.
I didn't make myself clear--the Fed caused the 90's boom with cheap money, which caused the 2001 bust which continues to get worse to this day. They are trying to fix a debt problem by adding more debt.
Who is in office has nothing to do with it, because both parties spend all the money the Fed throws at them. Clinton didn't, and as such he is probably the best of the modern presidents. That isn't saying much though.
Also, if you think 20% is bad, imagine what would happen if the Fed stopped buying (ie monetizing) the debt. Interest rates are almost zero. If they went to 5% the US would collapse like a rag doll under a menhir.
The deficit going to zero was a result of increasing income tax gains from the internet bubble, something cause by the Fed. Clinton had nothing to do with it. He did manage to refrain from going into max spending mode like most municipalities did during the same time period, to his credit.
There has been no significant policy difference between Obama and Bush. Also, the financial crisis has nothing to do with the parties that were in office at any given time. It was 100% caused by overspending by BOTH parties, and the Fed's eagerness to accommodate false growth by gaming interest rates. They have pushed this game to it's endpoint. The freefall we are in now will end with nothing short of a sickening crunch. Obamney won't be able to stop it, no mater what mystical powers anyone attributes to it.
Uhhh, if you are in Canada, then I don't think you are qualified to talk about the US university system. I work in a research institution (but not FOR them, oddly enough), and am friends with quite a few PhD candidates (having helped no fewer than three of them get their PhDs). None of them paid for their own tuition. PERIOD. When budgeting for projects, if we want a grad student, we have to include their tuition in our numbers.
These are science and engineering grad students. Not sure if you are talking about English lit students or some other such waste. Those people certainly have to pay their own way.
They generally don't use emergency rooms for fear of getting caught. They use roads, but they buy gas, the taxes from which pay for the roads. They send their children to schools funded by the property taxes paid by their landlords.
Unemployment, welfare, food stamps, grants of all kinds, student loans, are a few things I thought of off the top of my head.
Funny that you are so hostile towards them based on their supposed utilization of benefits that you imagine they don't pay for, when you apparently don't care if your own lazy fellow Americans don't pay any taxes and actually do collect those benefits. No mention from you anything about, say, cutting those taxes, and getting rid of those programs, such that you get to keep more of your own money and can thus afford your own access to whatever benefits you want or need, including things like private unemployment insurance, or being able to pay cash for your children's college (the tuition for which would collapse without government support).
No, you would rather divide people, than make use of those who are willing to do the hard work for you. You would rather feed someone based on where they were born than be free yourself. Kind of a gross ideology you have there.
Blacks are a special case, as resentment has been maintained and stirred up against them through the use of government force, first against integration (forced separation, laws against intermarriage), then against whites with affirmative action. This has created a festering resentment, and makes it difficult to judge an individual by their own merits. WIth the abolition of such laws, and a generation or two of non-coerced integration, we will be on to discriminating against the next group of immigrants or new religion.
Slashdot Mirror
That's everyone, bub. Not just Americans.
Yeah, and maybe the Soviet's five year plan will work. Why complain about it now? I mean, sure they are diverting water that goes to feed the lake you fish from. Surely it won't be utterly destroyed by this plan while simultaneously causing a massive famine that will cause a significant portion of the population to starve to death. Jeez, you naysayers are just a bunch of crazies.
The solution to our fascist healthcare system is NOT MORE FASCISM.
Clearly you hate women, and are a bigot. You should report to the nearest "happy" camp for a "free" reeducation. While you are gone, all of your possessions will be seized and auctioned to the Chinese.
What happens to those of us with enough income not to qualify for assistance, but with a crushing load of student debt?
I guess we can just get fucked.
The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Might as well remedy food inflation by mandating all-you-can-eat buffets for everyone for every meal.
Food, shelter, clothing, transportation, and vacations should be disconnected from unemployment....
Right, the judges raised taxes.
Wait, what!? Power to tax belongs to Congress! This is a violation of seperation of powers! We must take this to the Supreme Cou...shit.
That is not the way things actually worked before wage and price controls (which were what began the push into employer funded health insurance which lead us down this road). Even invasive surgeries didn't cost that much back then, and it was rare that people needed such things. Even when they did, there were plenty of charity hospitals that provided that kind of care for free to those who couldn't afford it (most hospitals started as charities, they have only recently become bureaucratic money sucking machines).
Medicine just doesn't COST that much. The realized costs are allowed to inflate much faster than everything else only because of tax-privileged insurance payments.
I wouldn't be too surprised to see that your insurance company paid for the fire protection, and that local businesses paid for the roads, with shipping companies paying for highways and such.
How oh how did we get along for 150 years without an income tax?
No, it isn't. Healthcare is a minor necessity, superseded by air, water, food, shelter, clothing, heating, sanitation, and any number of other things, non of which are mandated that you purchase.
It is, actually. Fat people die earlier, and as such have much lower cost of care for age related diseases.
Why do you think the US refuses to get rid of corn subsidies?
Yes, I believe that is called slavery. But people don't want to think about the implications of being owned by their government.
No hospital is going to deny someone who is in real trouble emergency care, they are just going to kick out all those with fake emergencies seeking to game the system for free medical care.
Go to your local hospital and take a look around the emergency room. Maybe one or two people out of 25+ have a real emergency.
The trouble with people is that they see a government requirement and think that if that requirement weren't there, that the action wouldn't happen in some other way. I'm not even sure what kind of bias to call this--reverse normalcy bias?
When you claim something is false, you should say why, rather than pretending like you have some sort of authority on the subject.
Not to mention that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The internet existed before the start of the Clinton Administration. Don't you remember those old modems that fit to rotary telephones? TCP/IP was released in 1982 ffs. You going to claim that Reagan invented it back then?
Hmm, they both had the same word in the description, they must have both been the same!
I'm not sure how you can see that the Fed caused the housing bubble, but can't see that they caused the internet bubble. They held interest rates artificially low to manufacture a boom. Cheap money flowed into the new industry at a much greater rate than it would have if money had been priced appropriately. Remember that margin is credit.
I didn't make myself clear--the Fed caused the 90's boom with cheap money, which caused the 2001 bust which continues to get worse to this day. They are trying to fix a debt problem by adding more debt.
Who is in office has nothing to do with it, because both parties spend all the money the Fed throws at them. Clinton didn't, and as such he is probably the best of the modern presidents. That isn't saying much though.
Also, if you think 20% is bad, imagine what would happen if the Fed stopped buying (ie monetizing) the debt. Interest rates are almost zero. If they went to 5% the US would collapse like a rag doll under a menhir.
The deficit going to zero was a result of increasing income tax gains from the internet bubble, something cause by the Fed. Clinton had nothing to do with it. He did manage to refrain from going into max spending mode like most municipalities did during the same time period, to his credit.
*the party of the same ideas.
There has been no significant policy difference between Obama and Bush. Also, the financial crisis has nothing to do with the parties that were in office at any given time. It was 100% caused by overspending by BOTH parties, and the Fed's eagerness to accommodate false growth by gaming interest rates. They have pushed this game to it's endpoint. The freefall we are in now will end with nothing short of a sickening crunch. Obamney won't be able to stop it, no mater what mystical powers anyone attributes to it.
Uhhh, if you are in Canada, then I don't think you are qualified to talk about the US university system. I work in a research institution (but not FOR them, oddly enough), and am friends with quite a few PhD candidates (having helped no fewer than three of them get their PhDs). None of them paid for their own tuition. PERIOD. When budgeting for projects, if we want a grad student, we have to include their tuition in our numbers.
These are science and engineering grad students. Not sure if you are talking about English lit students or some other such waste. Those people certainly have to pay their own way.
They generally don't use emergency rooms for fear of getting caught. They use roads, but they buy gas, the taxes from which pay for the roads. They send their children to schools funded by the property taxes paid by their landlords.
Unemployment, welfare, food stamps, grants of all kinds, student loans, are a few things I thought of off the top of my head.
Funny that you are so hostile towards them based on their supposed utilization of benefits that you imagine they don't pay for, when you apparently don't care if your own lazy fellow Americans don't pay any taxes and actually do collect those benefits. No mention from you anything about, say, cutting those taxes, and getting rid of those programs, such that you get to keep more of your own money and can thus afford your own access to whatever benefits you want or need, including things like private unemployment insurance, or being able to pay cash for your children's college (the tuition for which would collapse without government support).
No, you would rather divide people, than make use of those who are willing to do the hard work for you. You would rather feed someone based on where they were born than be free yourself. Kind of a gross ideology you have there.
Clearly. Nothing to do with having seen how farms work firsthand for several years.
Also note that you automatically applied a racial characteristic to a social class (migrant workers--who can in fact be of any race). Racist.
Godwin's law does not apply when the other party is calling for mass murder of a (number of) minority ethnic group(s).
Blacks are a special case, as resentment has been maintained and stirred up against them through the use of government force, first against integration (forced separation, laws against intermarriage), then against whites with affirmative action. This has created a festering resentment, and makes it difficult to judge an individual by their own merits. WIth the abolition of such laws, and a generation or two of non-coerced integration, we will be on to discriminating against the next group of immigrants or new religion.