PDA

View Full Version : The Real Price of the Senate Health Bill



freeheeler
12-24-2009, 02:08 PM
Pushing health-care reform through the Senate will hurt Democrats.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574614043538946528.html?m od=WSJ_newsreel_opinion


By now Majority Leader Harry Reid's explanation for how he is getting his health-care bill through the Senate has pinged its way across the country. "I don't know if there is a senator that doesn't have something in this bill that was important to them," he said this week. "And if they don't have something in it important to them, then it doesn't speak well of them." But take these comments two steps further and it becomes clear that how Mr. Reid reached unanimity in his caucus could hurt Democrats more than they realize.

First, taking Mr. Reid at his word means every Democratic senator got something. That implies there are even more howlers to discover that will dog Democrats next year.

After all, we now know Florida Sen. Bill Nelson got $3.5 billion to pay for seniors in his state to keep their Medicare Advantage policies when seniors in other states will be forced out of theirs. This wasn't a late add. It was just missed in the opaque language of the original Senate bill.

Second, any Democrat who assumes that it's OK to pass a bad bill because it includes a good deal for them is missing a larger dynamic of the Senate. When costs balloon, as they will, Congress will have to revisit health care. When it does, it will have little incentive to cut deals with individual senators when the public is clamoring about costs and there is no need to scramble for every vote.



http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AK723_rove12_NS_20091223205749.gif

r0gue6
12-24-2009, 02:47 PM
Hopefully this whole debacle causes them in the future to just ****can the whole system and go with single payer UHC.

nutsy54
12-24-2009, 04:17 PM
Hopefully this whole debacle causes them in the future to just ****can the whole system and go with single payer UHC.Perfect idea - Because massive Federal Government programs are known for being effective, efficient, and always remaining within budget!

http://bestsmileys.com/clapping/1.gif

Blindead
12-24-2009, 04:19 PM
are those numbers cumulative or not?

r0gue6
12-24-2009, 04:42 PM
Perfect idea - Because massive Federal Government programs are known for being effective, efficient, and always remaining within budget!

http://bestsmileys.com/clapping/1.gif

More government is bad rhetoric coming from you? Who could have guessed!?!?

You are so hilariously predictable.

Oh, so you can actually have more than two opinions, since you only ever talk about spending and military ****, here ya go.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/??resub

Now you can be sure to point out all of the other LIES mister Barry has told us, lol.

nutsy54
12-24-2009, 04:53 PM
More government is bad rhetoric coming from you? Who could have guessed!?!?Well... Can you cite any nationwide Federal programs which are cited for their efficiency, effectiveness, and ability to stay within budget?

I notice you did nothing to disprove the actual substance of my statement, once again you had to resort to personal attacks and insults.

r0gue6
12-24-2009, 04:56 PM
Well... Can you cite any nationwide Federal programs which are cited for their efficiency, effectiveness, and ability to stay within budget?

I notice you did nothing to disprove the actual substance of my statement, once again you had to resort to personal attacks and insults.

Federal Student Aid?

I'm sure there's more too, I just didn't feel like looking because it doesn't change anything.

And I guess the truth is a personal attack, ah well.

otisthebat
12-24-2009, 05:01 PM
Federal Student Aid?

I'm sure there's more too, I just didn't feel like looking because it doesn't change anything.

And I guess the truth is a personal attack, ah well.

federal student aid huh?

hows that program doing? is it costing tons of money? most likely. is it unconstitutional? definitely.

againstall0dds
12-24-2009, 05:02 PM
Well... Can you cite any nationwide Federal programs which are cited for their efficiency, effectiveness, and ability to stay within budget?

I notice you did nothing to disprove the actual substance of my statement, once again you had to resort to personal attacks and insults.

did you just fell down a notch on your retardedness?

how is saving lives NOT effective?

saloman
12-24-2009, 05:02 PM
Hopefully this whole debacle causes them in the future to just ****can the whole system and go with single payer UHC.

Hear hear.

thepointman
12-24-2009, 05:05 PM
did you just fell down a notch on your retardedness?

how is saving lives NOT effective?

Because it isn't making any rich person richer.

saloman
12-24-2009, 05:05 PM
how is saving lives NOT effective?

It depends on the life and the means.

i.e.
A soldier forced to sacrifice his or her life to save anyone = good.
A person forced to sacrifice a thin dime to save anyone = an affront to free people everywhere.

otisthebat
12-24-2009, 05:06 PM
did you just fell down a notch on your retardedness?

how is saving lives NOT effective?

saving lives is effective, the way the government is going about doing it is what is ineffective.

againstall0dds
12-24-2009, 05:07 PM
federal student aid huh?

hows that program doing? is it costing tons of money? most likely. is it unconstitutional? definitely.

I know tons of people who otherwise wouldn't have gone through college without aid. Now they are contributing middle class citizens. Yeah, I heard about the argument that aid in itself raises the cost of tuition. But one thing these people don't realize is colleges don't exist to make money (at least the public ones) mostly they cost money to the state.

Education aid = educated citizens + employment boost for teachers

otisthebat
12-24-2009, 05:07 PM
It depends on the life and the means.

i.e.
A soldier forced to sacrifice his or her life to save anyone = good.
A person forced to sacrifice a thin dime to save anyone = an affront to free people everywhere.

ITT, thousands of dollars = a dime.

nutsy54
12-24-2009, 05:08 PM
did you just fell down a notch on your retardedness?

how is saving lives NOT effective?Nothing has provided any proof that this plan, or UHC, or any other massively bloated Federal bureaucracy will "save lives".

What's next? "Do it for the children!" ??

otisthebat
12-24-2009, 05:08 PM
But one thing these people don't realize is colleges don't exist to make money (at least the public ones) mostly they cost money to the state.



source?

againstall0dds
12-24-2009, 05:11 PM
It depends on the life and the means.

i.e.
A soldier forced to sacrifice his or her life to save anyone = good.
A person forced to sacrifice a thin dime to save anyone = an affront to free people everywhere.

Agreed.

r0gue6
12-24-2009, 05:13 PM
source?

The UC system in California maybe?

lol @ needing a source to figure out that "Public University" means non-profit.

againstall0dds
12-24-2009, 05:13 PM
Nothing has provided any proof that this plan, or UHC, or any other massively bloated Federal bureaucracy will "save lives".

What's next? "Do it for the children!" ??

By that you must mean Medicaid/Medicare, right?

Lets shut them down and see what happens.

nutsy54
12-24-2009, 05:17 PM
By that you must mean Medicaid/Medicare, right?

Lets shut them down and see what happens.So, you don't deny they're a mess - just that we've become too much of a dependent society to dare think about letting go of Big Mommy Government's hand? Just like Social Security. How's Amtrak and the Post Office doing (whether under Government or "private" control)? I seem to recall endless stories about how bad the VA is, too.

Yet your answer is to implement another massive program that's doomed to failure - but will be around long enough for people to get nice and dependent, so the same glib "Let's shut it down and see what happens" answer can be given when future generations attempt to correct the mistake we're about to make.

PS: Did you miss the part about a few Hundred Billion dollars in funding cuts for Medicaid/Medicare, in order to pretend this current Health Bill will be "deficit neutral"? Sounds like the Democrats in Congress already plan to partially "shut them down" after all.

otisthebat
12-24-2009, 05:23 PM
The UC system in California maybe?

lol @ needing a source to figure out that "Public University" means non-profit.

in case you havent noticed, california cant do anything right.

gjohnson5
12-24-2009, 05:23 PM
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AK723_rove12_NS_20091223205749.gif

Why do these oped pieces say the source is CBO and write in their own numbers?
I was under the opposite opinion that medicare was going to be cut and medicaid was going to be expanded.
That way medicare users would need to expand their coverage from private firms which offer medicare A or supplemental B coverage

*edit*
I guess I was right because I thought the graph said medicaid....
*edit*

againstall0dds
12-24-2009, 05:31 PM
So, you at least agree they're a mess - just that we'e become too much of a dependent society to dare think about letting go of Big Mommy Government's hand? Just like Social Security. How's Amtrak and the Post Office doing (whether under Government or "private" control)? I seem to recall endless stories about how bad the VA is, too.

Yet your answer is to implement another massive program that's doomed to failure - but will be around long enough for people to get nice and dependent, so the same glib "Let's shut it down and see what happens" answer can be given when future generations attempt to correct the mistake we're about to make.

PS: Did you miss the part about a few Hundred Billion dollars in funding cuts for Medicaid/Medicare, in order to pretend this current Health Bill will be "deficit neutral"? Sounds like the Democrats in Congress already plan to partially "shut them down" after all.

Social security - letting our elderly spend their last days in dignity instead of letting them die of hunger. Payments aren't much anyways I don't know about you but we as a society owe this much. A person's worth is judged by how he treats the weak and helpless. Where would our American exceptionalism be, if we let our elderly die pennyless?

Amtrak - sure, its slow and cumbersome. Nobody's riding it cus we all have cars and access to "sort of" cheap oil now. Wait till a crisis strikes. Peak oil, maybe? Once gallon shoots up to $15-20, you'd be thanking God the Gov had some backup plans. Short term loss maybe but long term safety.

etc etc...

Gov isn't out there to make money you fool. Its out there to do the best for its citizens.

otisthebat
12-24-2009, 05:35 PM
Gov isn't out there to make money you fool. Its out there to do the best for its citizens.

government may not be out to make money, but politicians are. government may want the best for its citizens, but politicians dont.

they want money, power, and control. they are doing a much better job at getting that than they are at doing whats best for the citizens.

r0gue6
12-24-2009, 05:38 PM
in case you havent noticed, california cant do anything right.

Yah dude, having one of the best University systems in the world is a ****ing horrible thing.

Thinman
12-24-2009, 05:47 PM
So, you don't deny they're a mess - just that we'e become too much of a dependent society to dare think about letting go of Big Mommy Government's hand? Just like Social Security. How's Amtrak and the Post Office doing (whether under Government or "private" control)? I seem to recall endless stories about how bad the VA is, too.

Yet your answer is to implement another massive program that's doomed to failure - but will be around long enough for people to get nice and dependent, so the same glib "Let's shut it down and see what happens" answer can be given when future generations attempt to correct the mistake we're about to make.

PS: Did you miss the part about a few Hundred Billion dollars in funding cuts for Medicaid/Medicare, in order to pretend this current Health Bill will be "deficit neutral"? Sounds like the Democrats in Congress already plan to partially "shut them down" after all.

Actually, Social Security was a very sustainable and successful program. It has kept millions out of poverty. The cost of of that alone makes it worthwhile. The reason it is in trouble, is because the government has borrowed from it over the years to pay for other things. The next train wreck coming, is when they have to start paying back the trust fund, in the next eight years or so.

Thinman
12-24-2009, 05:56 PM
Hopefully this whole debacle causes them in the future to just ****can the whole system and go with single payer UHC.

Agreed. This is direction we need to go in. I believe we can save a lot of money by doing it.

Bnk
12-24-2009, 05:57 PM
Federal Student Aid?


You must be joking.

Easy money from the Federal government has done to tuition what sub prime lending did to to real estate prices. University spending is out of control and the tax payer is picking up the tab for multi-million dollar head coaching contracts, new stadiums and administrative compensation packages which would make Wall Street proud.

http://chronicle.com/article/Ending-Federal-Student-Aid/48717/


Colleges are able to raise their prices because it's not the consumers paying that cost," said Neal McCluskey, associate director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the libertarian Cato Institute, in a presentation called "Student Aid Explains the Pain." Average tuition rates have gone up hundreds of dollars every year, he said, but the actual price students pay after grants and loans are subtracted has barely increased in the past decade

otisthebat
12-24-2009, 06:55 PM
Yah dude, having one of the best University systems in the world is a ****ing horrible thing.

you know what i was referring to. california would bankrupt a taco stand in a week.

JohnnyDestroyer
12-24-2009, 07:06 PM
More government is bad rhetoric coming from you? Who could have guessed!?!?

You are so hilariously predictable.

Oh, so you can actually have more than two opinions, since you only ever talk about spending and military ****, here ya go.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/??resub

Now you can be sure to point out all of the other LIES mister Barry has told us, lol.



Personal attack...lame.


Face it, the government never runs anything well, hell, Im in the millitary and was a contractor on bases, Im telling you, the government is a waste of money in and of itself.

Post Office, goes broke every damn year, Fed Ex actually turns a profit. Same with the VA...You can't deny it. Even Medicare part D that Bush JUST passed a few years ago is now BILLIONS in the tank.

Come on man...be HONEST.

r0gue6
12-24-2009, 07:10 PM
Personal attack...lame.


Face it, the government never runs anything well, hell, Im in the millitary and was a contractor on bases, Im telling you, the government is a waste of money in and of itself.

Post Office, goes broke every damn year, Fed Ex actually turns a profit. Same with the VA...You can't deny it. Even Medicare part D that Bush JUST passed a few years ago is now BILLIONS in the tank.

Come on man...be HONEST.

If you are seriously comparing the USPS to FedEx, I'm not going to argue with you, you already failed at basic critical thinking and comprehension skills.

Bye now.

againstall0dds
12-24-2009, 07:42 PM
Personal attack...lame.


Face it, the government never runs anything well, hell, Im in the millitary and was a contractor on bases, Im telling you, the government is a waste of money in and of itself.

Post Office, goes broke every damn year, Fed Ex actually turns a profit. Same with the VA...You can't deny it. Even Medicare part D that Bush JUST passed a few years ago is now BILLIONS in the tank.

Come on man...be HONEST.

What is "well" in your opinion? Let me guess its profitable, isn't it? What good is a couple dollars if you can't save protect and enrich lives of your citizens?

Government might not be the most efficient business but it sure better than private enterprises that almost done away with the country in late 1920's and during last year's meltdown.

There is your free market. It works against the country

nutsy54
12-24-2009, 07:49 PM
Social security - letting our elderly spend their last days in dignity instead of letting them die of hunger.Damn, nice touch of drama there. The point was that Social Security is a massive financial failure, headed to bankruptcy. Yet it's your idea of a wonderful Government program.

By the way... Are you pretending that all of our elderly simply died if hunger prior to 1935?

nutsy54
12-24-2009, 07:51 PM
Gov isn't out there to make money you fool. Its out there to do the best for its citizens.This has nothing to do with "making money", but it would be damn nice if we stopped losing a Trillion or two each year. Where the hell do you think this endless gravy train of financial disasters is going to be repaid from?

r0gue6
12-24-2009, 07:53 PM
Damn, nice touch of drama there. The point was that Social Security is a massive financial failure, headed to bankruptcy. Yet it's your idea of a wonderful Government program.

By the way... Are you pretending that all of our elderly simply died if hunger prior to 1935?

http://www.efmoody.com/estate/lifeexpectancy.html

Apparently you are simply blinded by whatever it is that causes you to rage at everything.

Most people didn't even live long enough to get social security. I know you knew this fact yet chose to respond with that asinine response anyway, I just have to ask why?

And yes, I know social security didn't exist back then, because people didn't live long enough to need it.

againstall0dds
12-24-2009, 07:54 PM
Damn, nice touch of drama there. The point was that Social Security is a massive financial failure, headed to bankruptcy. Yet it's your idea of a wonderful Government program.

By the way... Are you pretending that all of our elderly simply died if hunger prior to 1935?

Life sure was harder for the elderly before enactment of SS. You bet some died before their time from malnutrition and lack of medical care. There is no "financial" success of SS, u moron. The real success is the fact that we are able to sleep at night as a people.

r0gue6
12-24-2009, 07:57 PM
Life sure was harder for the elderly before enactment of SS. You bet some died before their time from malnutrition and lack of medical care. There is no "financial" success of SS, u moron. The real success is the fact that we are able to sleep at night as a people.

I always marvel at the fact that people don't understand that Social Welfare programs are not for-profit institutions.

It boggles my mind when they start screaming about them losing money.

otisthebat
12-24-2009, 08:00 PM
It boggles my mind when they start screaming about them losing money.

a non-profit cant be around forever if it keeps hemmorhaging money. non profits are supposed to break even, not finish every fiscal year further in the hole than the previous year. a program or company that consistently loses more than it takes in can not be called a successful program/company no matter how you cut it.

againstall0dds
12-24-2009, 08:08 PM
This has nothing to do with "making money", but it would be damn nice if we stopped losing a Trillion or two each year. Where the hell do you think this endless gravy train of financial disasters is going to be repaid from?

Its sure as hell easy to sit back and complain about everything isn't it Nutsy? U sound like dems always increased the deficit (when its always been the GOP who racks up record debt), u also sound like there were no financial catastrophe to manage.

What did your GOP do when Clinton left the economy in best shape?

Oh yeah you don't care about D's R's I's after their names. You just care about the policies :rolleyes: But you do have big penchant to call out dems, don't you

r0gue6
12-24-2009, 08:10 PM
Its sure as hell easy to sit back and complain about everything isn't it Nutsy? U sound like dems always increased the deficit (when its always been the GOP who racks up record debt), u also sound like there were no financial catastrophe to manage.

What did your GOP do when Clinton left the economy in best shape?

Oh yeah you don't care about D's R's I's after their names. You just care about the policies :rolleyes: But you do have big penchant to call out dems, don't you

I already nailed him on that in the Ben Nelson thread, he went ballistic and ignored me, lolz.

Nutsy in a nutshell is a typical right winger. Always claiming government is bad, and the sky is always falling. Never realizing that instead of constantly complaining about things that cannot be changed, he could be stating how he would do things differently so that they worked.

Cliffs:

Nutsy is a perfect Republican. All complaints; No solutions.

againstall0dds
12-24-2009, 08:10 PM
a non-profit cant be around forever if it keeps hemmorhaging money. non profits are supposed to break even, not finish every fiscal year further in the hole than the previous year. a program or company that consistently loses more than it takes in can not be called a successful program/company no matter how you cut it.

Hey brah, why are you blaming SS? Blame the baby boomers. They are ought to bankrupt America. I just don't get some people. If it weren't for boomers SS would work just fine

againstall0dds
12-24-2009, 08:13 PM
I already nailed him on that in the Ben Nelson thread, he went ballistic and ignored me, lolz.

Nutsy in a nutshell is a typical right winger. Always claiming government is bad, and the sky is always falling. Never realizing that instead of constantly complaining about things that cannot be changed, he could be stating how he would do things differently so that they worked.

Cliffs:

Nutsy is a perfect Republican. All complaints; No solutions.

He's only solution is stop spending. Right when the economy has tanked. I guess that way, economy would fall into deeper hole and Nusty will be able to bash Obama admin with even more force. lulz

nutsy54
12-24-2009, 08:16 PM
Oh yeah you don't care about D's R's I's after their names. You just care about the policies :rolleyes: But you do have big penchant to call out dems, don't youThey're the ones f*cking things up right now, so why wouldn't I call them out for it? How does any one this justify the latest Bribery-for-votes that's been going on in Congress?

nutsy54
12-24-2009, 08:17 PM
Hey brah, why are you blaming SS? Blame the baby boomers. They are ought to bankrupt America. I just don't get some people. If it weren't for boomers SS would work just fineUm... If it was an effective program, the decades of boomers paying into the system would have been able to cover their eventual payments. Instead, it was just another government-run Ponzi scheme.

againstall0dds
12-24-2009, 08:21 PM
They're the ones f*cking things up right now, so why wouldn't I call them out for it? How does any one this justify the latest Bribery-for-votes that's been going on in Congress?

did you just wake up this week or something? big corporations sponsor GOP senators and those senators live and die for corporate welfare all the time. and sen nelson's deeds weren't even that bad, he worked for his constituents and did EXACTLY WHAT WAS HE WAS ELECTED TO DO.

big surprise, isn't it?

gjohnson5
12-24-2009, 08:22 PM
Nutsy is a perfect Republican. All complaints; No solutions.

Complaints on an internet chat forum at that...

againstall0dds
12-24-2009, 08:27 PM
Um... If it was an effective program, the decades of boomers paying into the system would have been able to cover their eventual payments. Instead, it was just another government-run Ponzi scheme.

No, its because there won't be enough people working to cover, which was always the case, Nutsy. Your big corporations managed to ship all the jobs away from USA. Hey whats wrong with making money right? :D

AJbuilder
12-24-2009, 08:32 PM
Government might not be the most efficient business but it sure better than private enterprises that almost done away with the country in late 1920's and during last year's meltdown.

There is your free market. It works against the country

Actually, the meltdown last year was partly the fault of government intervention. The reason why those mortgage-backed securities and derivative shares were concocted and sold was due to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying them in the first place, thus encouraging sub prime lending. Fan and Freddie are quasi-governmental organizations and not real businesses, since board decisions are approved by the Senate Finance Committee.

So it was a matter of under-regulation which was at fault, as opposed to no regulation.

And we don't have free market in the US. We have what is call a "mixed-market economy" with a lean towards corporate welfare. The US is also one of the least friendly places to small businesses and those self-employed/freelancers. We rank at the bottom of the list among developed countries. I know because I run a freelance consulting business in the fitness industry.

As for the 1929 depression, government was also the cause. In fact, government intervention was at it's height up till that time. The NY branch of the Federal Reserve won out the battle of low interest lending and st the lowest reserve requirements in history to help big banks "cash out." Money turnover increased two-folds and the supply of money increased to around 65-70% which encouraged the buying and selling of margin options. So really, everyone was operating on "fake money" as economists say. Companies continued to borrow and ramp production where the demand wasn't there, and the bust unfolded when they couldn't finish projects or deliver their services/products.

This fact is the reason why Keynes suggested reducing interest rates and increasing government spending to infrastructure and investment to balance out the potential bust created by creating demand to stimulate production. The thinking goes, "manipulate the banks and let the government create the demand as opposed to manipulate the banks and let the CEOs create the demand." The dirty secret is that they're really the same strategy, except the CEO is replaced by a government overseer.

Now eventually, this whole strategy along with Keynesian economics fell apart in the 70s because again, the "fake money" was creating "fake demand." People were operating on credit and buying things that they should not have bought in the first place, because they wouldn't have the money in the first place. We see a repeat of that again today in the real estate and credit lending markets.

To sum it up, government failure is the reason why government spending and keynesian economics has become so popular over the years. Keynes wrote a whole treatise on that reason in "The General Theory of Interest, Employment, and Money." It's irony.

Learn your economic history.

againstall0dds
12-24-2009, 08:37 PM
ah not this shet again

everyone and their dog knows during the onset of depression, banks failed because the fed refused to supply or "intervene". there were no SEC to regulate so all the stocks were severely hyped up and bloated, thus it crashed on its nose

please go study your economic history

nutsy54
12-24-2009, 08:38 PM
No, its because there won't be enough people working to cover, which was always the case, Nutsy. Your big corporations managed to ship all the jobs away from USA. Hey whats wrong with making money right? :DYou are now making absolutely no sense at all.

Go ahead, keep covering your ears while singing Lah Lah Lah in the face of every Democratic failure, then excuse it away by saying "Well, Republicans & Corporations suck too". :rolleyes:

againstall0dds
12-24-2009, 08:40 PM
I don't know about you but from many things that suk I'd choose the least sucking.

AJbuilder
12-24-2009, 08:49 PM
ah not this shet again

everyone and their dog knows during the onset of depression, banks failed because the fed refused to supply or "intervene". there were no SEC to regulate so all the stocks were severely hyped up and bloated, thus it crashed on its nose

please go study your economic history

Exactly my point. Apparently, you did not read my post. The Fed set the lowest reserve rates which allowed the stocks to blow up on margin options trading. The banks loved this. If it wasn't for the Fed, the banks would not have the supply of money available.

The SEC is a non-issue up to this point because it hasn't been created yet.

The Fed isn't exactly a private agency. Today, it still remains to be a quasi-governmental agency.

I didn't study this stuff or come up with this on my own. This is all written by Keynes in this "Theory of Interest and Money" thesis.

Government caused the depression (Keynes actually wrote this when applying to the Fed in his thesis), thus government had to intervene with cash injection/spending for infrastructure and active interest rate reduction to create demand and stimulate production.

The above sums up Keynes' position on government failure in the depression, which led him to conclude government can control economic cycles to prevent another "government failure", hence Keynesian economics was born in 1936.

When you actually go to the source and read what economists have actually wrote (primary source research) , we can be on the same page.

gjohnson5
12-24-2009, 08:54 PM
Actually, the meltdown last year was partly the fault of government intervention. The reason why those mortgage-backed securities and derivative shares were concocted and sold was due to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying them in the first place, thus encouraging sub prime lending. Fan and Freddie are quasi-governmental organizations and not real businesses, since board decisions are approved by the Senate Finance Committee.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could do what any other investment bank could do.
1. Create Mortgages
2. Underwrite Mortgages
3. securitize mortgages
4. Sell securitized investments

It didn't matter if it was bear Sterns , Goldman Sachs or Fannie Mae....
Also, you're saying the above as if the high extent of leveraging taken on by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was also a Senate decision. It was not. It was a decision of the managers at those banks seeking high yields on mortgages to leverage 30:1 - 100:1


So it was a matter of under-regulation which was at fault, as opposed to no regulation.

There is no regulations which determine how much lending a bank can do. If they wished to over extend their depositor base with excessive lending , then that's a management decision at that bank




Now eventually, this whole strategy along with Keynesian economics fell apart in the 70s because again, the "fake money" was creating "fake demand." People were operating on credit and buying things that they should not have bought in the first place, because they wouldn't have the money in the first place. We see a repeat of that again today in the real estate and credit lending markets.

I personally don't buy into Austrian theories. I have always said that if lending standards were higher this mess wouldn't have surfaced in the first place. Noone told the banks and mortgage originators to make loans without verifying income.


To sum it up, government failure is the reason why government spending and keynesian economics has become so popular over the years. Keynes wrote a whole treatise on that reason in "The General Theory of Interest, Employment, and Money." It's irony.

Learn your economic history.

IMHO your opinion is way off. Keynesian economics didn't create liar loans , teaser rate, no doc loans , low doc loans, and push hybrid adjustable rate mortgages. Keynesian economics also did not create mortgage backed securities and it certainly didn't decide to tell insurance companies to sell insurance without collateral to back up their policies

AJbuilder
12-24-2009, 09:00 PM
ah not this shet again

everyone and their dog knows during the onset of depression, banks failed because the fed refused to supply or "intervene".

Another thought on that.

Prior to the depression, the NY branch of the Fed was internally regulated by the Congressional ICC dept. and bankers who lobbied for those members. They won out the battle against other branches who refused lower interest rates.

AJbuilder
12-24-2009, 09:09 PM
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could do what any other investment bank could do.
1. Create Mortgages
2. Underwrite Mortgages
3. securitize mortgages
4. Sell securitized investments

It didn't matter if it was bear Sterns , Goldman Sachs or Fannie Mae....
Also, you're saying the above as if the high extent of leveraging taken on by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was also a Senate decision. It was not. It was a decision of the managers at those banks seeking high yields on mortgages to leverage 30:1 - 100:1



There is no regulations which determine how much lending a bank can do. If they wished to over extend their depositor base with excessive lending , then that's a management decision at that bank




I personally don't buy into Austrian theories. I have always said that if lending standards were higher this mess wouldn't have surfaced in the first place. Noone told the banks and mortgage originators to make loans without verifying income.



IMHO your opinion is way off. Keynesian economics didn't create liar loans , teaser rate, no doc loans , low doc loans, and push hybrid adjustable rate mortgages. Keynesian economics also did not create mortgage backed securities and it certainly didn't decide to tell insurance companies to sell insurance without collateral to back up their policies

I am merely referring to Keynes' justifications for government intervention. If you've read his works, he actually blames government for boom and bust cycles, with the reasoning that government can also fix the mess, and that the private sector needed a "helping hand" rather than an "invisible hand." But if you've never gotten to the source and only read revisionist economics 101 textbook, you would think Keynes was anti-private sector. He was not at all.

This is the problem with debating. You have to read the source I'm quoting/paraphrasing and then understand that it's not my opinion at all. Straight from the primary source.

On Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the other investment banks were constantly repackaging and reselling to Fannie Mae and Mac. The banks couldn't have pulled it off if it wasn't for them.

I agree with you that higher lending standards should've been in place. This is why I call under-regulation. Banks have never been deregulated or unregulated if there wasn't a rigid regulation system in place in the first place. In fact, that's what Austrian theory preached. Even Ludvig von Mises would agree. Austrian theory never advocated no regulation.

gjohnson5
12-24-2009, 09:16 PM
On Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the other investment banks were constantly repackaging and reselling to Fannie Mae and Mac. The banks couldn't have pulled it off if it wasn't for them.

They ALL did it. Bear Sterns failed w/6 trillion worth assuming (mark to market accounting) of derivatives mainly CDO's. I'm not even sure how much credit default swap activity AIG had. AIG is a big part of this mess and isn't even a bank. That's the whole problem , the derivatives market as a whole was the wild wild west.

The constant nit picking at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is misplaced due to those blaming the government instead of blaming bank and insurance management

r0gue6
12-24-2009, 09:40 PM
Gotta love how when home owners strategically default they are such immoral people, yet when corporations do it, it's just another day.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/227941

MistaO
12-24-2009, 11:22 PM
did you just fell down a notch on your retardedness?

How is saving lives not effective?

lololololollololololollololololollololololollololo lolollololololollololololollololololollolololololl ololololollololololollololololollololololollololol olollololololollololololollololololollololololollo lolololollololololollololololollololololollolololo lollololololollololololollololololollololololollol olololollololololollololololollololololollolololol ollololololollololololollololololollololololollolo lololollololololollololololollololololollololololo llololololollololololollololololollololololollolol ololollololololollololololollololololollololololol lololololollololololollololololollololololollololo lolollololololollololololollololololollolololololl ololololollololololollololololollololololollololol olollololololollololololollololololollololololollo lolololollololololollololololollololololollolololo lollololololollololololollololololollololololollol olololollololololollololololollololololollolololol ollololololollololololollololololollololololollolo lololollololololollololololollololololollololololo llololololollololololollololololollololololollolol ololollololololollololololol

OutdoorX
12-24-2009, 11:44 PM
Just look at California. In principal, it must feel nice to provide all these social services, but some are going to be non-existant for a while in the years ahead due to budget cuts. The point is, passing unaffordable, unsustainable health care is going to make those current health care horror stories look like nothing if the proposed plan goes haywire.

If you think your problems are bad now, wait until the government takes control of them.

OutdoorX
12-24-2009, 11:47 PM
did you just fell down a notch on your retardedness?

how is saving lives NOT effective?

How can you conclude so quickly that lives will be saved? Sure there will be a broader base of those who will have coverage, but the overall quality of health care will diminish. It is simply a trade-off.

gjohnson5
12-25-2009, 12:10 AM
How can you conclude so quickly that lives will be saved? Sure there will be a broader base of those who will have coverage, but the overall quality of health care will diminish. It is simply a trade-off.

No it won't. Unless doctors all of a sudden become less educated due to the passing of legislation. More people covered = less complications = lives saved

OutdoorX
12-25-2009, 12:36 AM
No it won't. Unless doctors all of a sudden become less educated due to the passing of legislation. More people covered = less complications = lives saved

There will be longer waits, and there are going to be dozens of bureacracies created to ration health care among several other methods to control health care costs (some of which make sense). It will still be decent, but it is not going to be good as it use to be for those who have historically been insured.

Don't forget that an overwhelming majority of insured americans are currently satisfied with their health care. Also, it makes you wonder why politicians were so unwilling to give up their government sponsored health care and conform to what they are proposing.

The rich are going to have access to the best health care whether a bill is ultimately passed or not. The middle class are going to trade in great health care for something slightly less effective to ensure the poor have access to health care. It is as simple (or complicated) as that.

gjohnson5
12-25-2009, 12:40 AM
There will be longer waits, and there are going to be dozens of bureacracies created to ration health care among several other methods to control health care costs (some of which make sense). It will still be decent, but it is not going to be good as it use to be for those who have historically been insured.

Don't forget that an overwhelming majority of insured americans are currently satisfied with their health care. Also, it makes you wonder why politicians were so unwilling to give up their government sponsored health care and conform to what they are proposing.

The rich are going to have access to the best health care whether a bill is ultimately passed or not. The middle class are going to trade in great health care for something slightly less effective to ensure the poor have access to health care. It is as simple (or complicated) as that.

Probably because they've never really used it. To me that doesn't mean anything to the health care availability issue. You say there will be longer waits. The health care bill provides training an funding for medical schools. There will also be more doctors because of this. There is no massive overload of patients for preventative care. IMHO Your conclusion is wrong and based on false assumptions.

OutdoorX
12-25-2009, 01:01 AM
Probably because they've never really used it. To me that doesn't mean anything to the health care availability issue. You say there will be longer waits. The health care bill provides training an funding for medical schools. There will also be more doctors because of this. There is no massive overload of patients for preventative care. IMHO Your conclusion is wrong and based on false assumptions.

Between getting sick, ER Visits, and getting surgery just about everyone I know has had use for their health insurance at least one time in their life. Even with other cost cutting methods, the only way you can provide health care to more people is by spending a significant amount of money. Since the Federal Government does not have the luxury to do this any more, the only way to combat this is to reduce the quality of health care. Even if making sure your fellow countrymen are insured is a strong value of yours, it is hard to support something which cannot be sustained unless you understand that there will have to be sacrafices to be made one way or another.

gjohnson5
12-25-2009, 04:47 AM
Between getting sick, ER Visits, and getting surgery just about everyone I know has had use for their health insurance at least one time in their life. Even with other cost cutting methods, the only way you can provide health care to more people is by spending a significant amount of money. Since the Federal Government does not have the luxury to do this any more, the only way to combat this is to reduce the quality of health care. Even if making sure your fellow countrymen are insured is a strong value of yours, it is hard to support something which cannot be sustained unless you understand that there will have to be sacrafices to be made one way or another.

The ER is a good way to show how insurance really isn't covering the cost of healthcare. Which is really my point. Once the cost of care decreases , more people can be covered. The government does not need to spend vast amount of money subsidizing healthcare if costs are controlled. LOL @ the idea that healthcare cannot be sustained. That's hogwash

OutdoorX
12-25-2009, 10:17 AM
The ER is a good way to show how insurance really isn't covering the cost of healthcare. Which is really my point. Once the cost of care decreases , more people can be covered. The government does not need to spend vast amount of money subsidizing healthcare if costs are controlled. LOL @ the idea that healthcare cannot be sustained. That's hogwash

I've got 12 trillion reasons why. Merry Christmas.

nutsy54
12-25-2009, 10:25 AM
The government does not need to spend vast amount of money subsidizing healthcare if costs are controlled.And "Government" is the first thing people think of when they're wondering how to do things more effectively & efficiently, and within budget.

Wait Wut?

gjohnson5
12-25-2009, 10:42 AM
And "Government" is the first thing people think of when they're wondering how to do things more effectively & efficiently, and within budget.

Wait Wut?

So you ready to have a discussion instead of getting your pannies in a bunch????

Anyway I disagree that gov't can't operate as efficiently as private sector. Are you close to retirement? I just want to see your opinion when you retire and start working in private sector companies and witness some of the worst management ideas and policies possible. The "good ole' boy" system is alive in well in Corporate America as well. Granted I've contracted from state and fed government agencies and in many cases things were not as cluster f**ked you others have put it. If you think the private sector is a bed of roses and operates with 4x100 meter relay efficiency.... You're in for a shock

nutsy54
12-25-2009, 10:47 AM
So you ready to have a discussion instead of getting your pannies in a bunch????I recently asked for examples of effective/efficient big-government programs. With the entire federal government to choose from, the only answer that came back was "Federal student loans"... Which others then summarily chopped down due to their significant impact to cause rising tuition rates. And I don't recall anyone even analyzing default rates and overall program costs...

gjohnson5
12-25-2009, 11:09 AM
I recently asked for examples of effective/efficient big-government programs. With the entire federal government to choose from, the only answer that came back was "Federal student loans"... Which others then summarily chopped down due to their significant impact to cause rising tuition rates. And I don't recall anyone even analyzing default rates and overall program costs...

What's your idea of efficient? Time efficient? , space efficient?, production efficient?, investment efficient?
High profit / loss?
Low production costs vs high sales
Low production cost vs low payroll
low project management costs
Low inventory taxes
Low building maintenance and energy costs?
high accounts receivable turnover
high accounts payable turnover

I would really need to analyze the government program your talking about to see efficient can be narrowed down. However I know that many private sector companies don't spend the time doing the type of analysis I'm talking about or their operations would spend money in the ways that they do. One the other hand money can be spend on an investment that directly pays dividends to the company and such investments are not taken for management reasons.

nutsy54
12-25-2009, 11:13 AM
What's your idea of efficient? Time efficient? , space efficient?, production efficient?, investment efficient?Well, we could start with something as basic as "Provide the originally defined services, at the originally budgeted cost".