Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Little Joe who wrote (144169)	9/15/2010 12:06:14 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541008

"They actually asked us to believe that their estimates of the cost are accurate." You actually ask us to believe they are wrong. Why should we believe you?

To: Little Joe who wrote (144169)	9/15/2010 12:08:53 AM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541008

As is typical of Tea Party supporters, you seem to be blaming the present Administration for the TARP bailout, which occurred on GWB's watch.

To: Little Joe who wrote (144169)	9/15/2010 12:21:47 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541008

You seem to find it easy to disregard the panic that swept around the globe in the wake of the banking crisis. Allowing that wave to sweep around unabated, while perhaps making you feel better about accountability, could have very well started a huge economic collapse. We none of us really know what all was involved- but the effort to shore up the nation's banking system was bipartisan enough to make me suspect this was a pretty dire emergency. Now you might have been willing to play Russian roulette with the world banking system, but I think taking those kinds of risk is kind of nutty, especially when there is an alternative. I am pretty happy we avoided a meltdown. Maybe some day you'll get the chance to really screw something up for cheap- but I hope it won't be the international banking system. As for health care, I think the point was to try to bend the system to cover more people, and make insurance companies less likely to dump people for lifetime caps, for being young adults, and for having pre-existing conditions. I believe the system is actually supposed to save money, after an initial bulge of cost for the number of extra folks it will cover. I guess it doesn't make you nuts to oppose forcing insurance companies to cover adult college students and to forgo lifetime caps, and making them take people with pre-existing conditions. But for a party that claims it wants to support working people, it's pretty strange they'd be against this kind of reform. After all, it makes it hard for people to better themselves and change jobs if they are afraid of losing their health insurance, because they already have an illness. It's unfortunate our country didn't go to single payer, and relieve businesses of the need to insure their workers. Some of the most competitive countries in the world have government health care. seekingalpha.com The Swiss have compulsory health insurance. Oh gosh- how "nutty" of them! Ah well, that's probably why they are more competitive than we are. And don't get me started on those Swedes. If only the baggers really believed in not borrowing and spending- they might send back all their medicare and social security checks. That's our nightmare in this country- retired folks in their RV's who want to drive around for years spending the money their grandchildren pay in to the system. Not that I guess there's anything inherently wrong with that kind of wealth transfer to the elderly, if you want to impoverish the young- but it's pretty funny to see a bunch of old white folks who gamed the pyramid scheme crying about that nasty old federal government, while they spend their government checks. I think that's a bit nuts. I don't see the point in paying people to retire. I'm ok with the very poor getting help with food and lodging- and that includes the elderly poor, but I don't see why people shouldn't work until at least 70. If we didn't pay out all those benefits to folks who really are much to young to start getting them, we'd probably balance our budget and be able to afford "perks" like insuring our population.