How low will the Dow Go?

[Baron Max]

For free would be nice, ...

No more discussion/argument, Billy. Joe has explained that it's already a done deal ....I just didn't know it.

I still think free food, housing and utilities would greatly assist in making people less sick, thus less apt to need major medical care later. So that should all be free, too. As well as free entertainment to help control mental problems which also cost lots of major medical care later.

Baron Max

 

[joepistole]

Then why are you even here arguing about it if it's already a done deal?

I was under the mis-understanding that this was a bill that had to pass through congress for approval. If it's already done, then ...well, that's life in the big city. We're fucked already! ...crying and whining about it won't do any good.

Baron Max

Let me try to simplify it for you Baron Max. We elect representatives to do our biding in Washington. They tell us what they will do for us. We the citizens either vote for them or someone else. The majority of citizens voted for those canidates that told us they would put in place universal healthcare. So where is the suprise when the elected officials do what they were elected to do; effect universal healthcare? Where is the "forced down our throats" aspect of this that you previously stated? How can it be "forced down our throats" when the majority of citizens voted for it through their canidate selection?

Government 101:
The Consitution of The United States does not permit every citizen to vote on every issue. That is the duty of the congress and the president to approve or reject.

 

[Billy T]

...I still think free food, housing and utilities would greatly assist in making people less sick, thus less apt to need major medical care later. So that should all be free, too. ...Baron Max

First sentence is mainly true, but fails to recognize, as I said in last post, There is no such thing as a free lunch (of any sort). While a society could distribute food, clothing and housing with no charge there would be very high taxes or confiscation of wealth in some form to pay for the cost of production.

If all these things were provided without charge to the consumer, few would bother to work / produce item the society needs. Perhaps a small society could steal from others, sort of like the vikings did, but clearly distribution of the basics without charge for them is not feasible. Hunger, wanting a bed to sleep in (and for most men at least, a woman to shair it) is a powerful motivator of being productive (as your society defines that).

Evolution and biology has built into most women the recognition (unusally unconscious) that they are more vuneralbe and need protection by the stronger sex, especially when pregnant. Until the invention of money, which can be a store of wealth, "stronger" was mainly physical strength (plus some cleverness/ intelligence to cope with adversity), but in modern society that tends to mean wealth and/or political power. I.e. even a weak, near idiot, who happened to have inherited 30 million dollars or is the only son of the aging king, will find plenty of women to shair his bed.

Thus your second sentence is false or at least a foolish error.

PS - I am not being sexist here. Money makes it possible for women who are capable of earning a lot of it also "powerful" and, if they desire, they can find many men who will shair their bed. I was just dealing with the more common case and influenced by fact that only women become pregnant. I have two daughters, both well educated and with no real need of a husband. One still has one (but she, a partner in financial advice firm, earns much more than he does, especially now as he was in banking and recently lost his job.). Other had husband and two of my four grand children by him, but then sent him packing, and is now divorced. That is how I raised them to be. For example, both earned, by very hard work, all the money they got from me (except all the eduction, including things like piano lessons, gym / classical dance, etc., they could stand was 100% free to them). Before they were allowed to drive they had to change the car´s tire alone in the dark, etc.

 

[joepistole]

If all these things were provided without charge to the consumer, few would bother to work / produce item the society needs. Perhaps a small society could steal from others, sort of like the vikings did, but clearly distribution of the basics without charge for them is not feasible. Hunger, wanting a bed to sleep in (and for most men at least, a woman to shair it) is a powerful motivator of being productive (as your society defines that).

.

The key is "all things". There is a great difference between public housing and the housing in which you probably reside. Most of us choose not to reside in public housing. We choose to go to work and better ourselves to that we can have something a little better for ourselves.

 

[Billy T]

The key is "all things". There is a great difference between public housing and the housing in which you probably reside. Most of us choose not to reside in public housing. We choose to go to work and better ourselves to that we can have something a little better for ourselves.

While I am a strong supporter of free public education I think public housing should only be provided to those who can not work for some real reason* or if society has no job for them.

Public housing should be as it is in Brazil - very modest (one door and two windows for cross ventilation, one bathroom, two small bedrooms and a kitchen / laundry tub area.) but SEPARATE UNITS, each with enough land for a small garden, etc. They are all identical, not very nice to look at as they "march" over a hillside in rectangular row grid.

I think there are high rise units in cities also with lower than market rent, but I do not favor that. Instead´public housing should be rural where land is cheap but along some train line or high way which provides low cost means to get into the city to work as maid or street cleaner, if they can or go to free school and get better qualified for more jobs. Once they can earn enough money to live without public housing they leave it, but it is there for them if they do not make it in the city, etc.

------------
*If they have some mental problem, put them in mental facility, not public housing.

 

[Baron Max]

Let me try to simplify it for you Baron Max. ... The majority of citizens voted for those canidates that told us they would put in place universal healthcare.

I heard you the first time -- it's already a done deal.

I'll just learn to live with it like I've learned to live with everything else that's come along. No big deal ...and no more discussion/argument.

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Most of us choose not to reside in public housing. We choose to go to work and better ourselves to that we can have something a little better for ourselves.

But wait a minute ....didn't the American people also vote for equal distribution of wealth? Obama was quite adamant on that issue ....and unless I'm badly mistaken, the American people voted him into office!

Baron Max

 

[Billy T]

But wait a minute ....didn't the American people also vote for equal distribution of wealth? Obama was quite adamant on that issue ....and unless I'm badly mistaken, the American people voted him into office! ...Baron Max

Perhaps you do not hear well either? Only thing even close to "equal distribution of wealth" I heard on TV was plan to cancel (or just let expire) the tax breaks GWB created for the wealthy. GWB made the distrubution of wealth even less equal (rich got richer and middle class got poorer in purchasing power) but it was never even close to equal.

What specifically did you hear that could be Obama´s call for "equal distribution of wealth"?

 

[joepistole]

But wait a minute ....didn't the American people also vote for equal distribution of wealth? Obama was quite adamant on that issue ....and unless I'm badly mistaken, the American people voted him into office!

Baron Max

Much to the chagrin of Republicans Obama never said he wanted equal distribution of wealth. That was never in his platform. In fact it was just the other day when he stated explicitly that he had not objections to people becoming wealthy as long as they did it the old fashioned way, earning it...not using special governmental favors to funnel money your way.

 

[Baron Max]

...(Obama) stated explicitly that he had not objections to people becoming wealthy as long as they did it the old fashioned way, earning it...not using special governmental favors to funnel money your way.

So he says .....as he hands out billions and billions and billions and billions of taxpayer money to those who haven't earned it the old-fashioned way! and doing it with special favors AND funneling gov money!

And he's also now going to be handing out more billions and billions to doctors and hospitals to treat people who did NOT earn it the old-fashionded way.

Yeah, gotta' love it, huh?

So tell me, Joe, .....what's he mean by "earning it the old-fashioned way"???

Baron Max

 

[charles brough]

The only reason the uninformed think that the government is throwing money around is that the corporate media monopolies deliberately confuse us with words like "infuse," "pumped in," "bailed out," and "propped up" instead of clearly saying: "the government provided loans to." After all, big business wants us to be confused and think the Democratic effort to stop the Bush-Republican caused economic slide so they can blame it on the Democrats. This is a mean, cheap political move that makes it more difficult to turn around the economy. The political parties should be working together. The Republican Bush administration started the stimulus bills flowing one after the other. Obama has to keep on with them more until the economy does turn. One Party should not be working against the effort.

Of course, the corporations will have to pay back those loans, and as they do, the inflation will not happen that the Republican neocons expect to blame the Democrats for when the economy does recover.

charles
http://atheistic-science.com

 

[joepistole]

There are a lot of folks out there trying to scare the public...trying to take advantage of the problems we now face. In particular the Republicans are doing a very good job of it...particularly party leaders like limbaugh and hannity, etc.

The government is playing the roll of investor of last resort. And for too long we have neglected investing in our infrastructure. We need at this point to invest in ourselves and our futures rather than continue to cannibalize ourselves.

 

[joepistole]

So tell me, Joe, .....what's he mean by "earning it the old-fashioned way"???

Baron Max

See Bill Gates! See Warren Buffet! These are some of the most succesful businessmen in recent history. And guess what, they support Obama and what he is now doing.

Neither of these gentlemen depended on lobbyists to make their fortunes...that is earning it the old fashioned way!

 

[Billy T]

Before I had ever heard of "subprime" or of Obama, and based on only the stupidity of GWB´s economic and foreign policy (Especially the needless war designed to steal France and Russia´s Iraq oil contracts for GWB´s friends and corporate supporters like Halliburton and Blackwater) I was able to foresee the current economic disaster was unavoidable. (And posted descriptions of what has happend here in many threads.) Thus, there can be no doubt that this is GWB´s and the Republican´s mess Obama is trying to clean up.

I admit that three years before the end of GWB´s term as POTUS, I only partly understood the full stupidity of his tax relief for the already very rich (again benefits for his friends and supporter). I made several post mentioning that Henry Ford understood that the worker had to be well paid if they were to buy his cars. And that GWB´s policy of decreasing the real wages of US workers would lead to economic disaster.

But only about a year ago did I also understand the Rebublican "trickle down" economic built the modern factories in Asia, especially China, which make it impossible for US factories, which tend to be decades old, to compete.

When ever you put more money in the hands of the already rich, who can not significately consume more, they will invest the extra funds. - I.e. "trickle down" does always work; however, investers ALWAYS invest where they expect the risk-adjuted returns to be the greatest. During GWB´s eight years that was clearly China with double digit GDP growth, at least four times greater than in the US.

Not only does Obama need to rebuild US eduction system, reduce the cost of US medical services, repair the US infrastructure, like bridges, water pipelines, public tansport, etc., which was neglected under GWB but also he must transform US factories to at least be the equal of China´s. (E.g. close GM´s obsolute plants to rebuild modern auto factrories like the Republican trickle down did for China.) and some how pay the unemployment of the worker whose US plants Rebublican trickle down closed.

I am very impressed with Obama´s intellignce, leadership, persuasive powers, sincere desire to server* the people of the US, deep understanding of the mess GWB left him, and his shear physical stamina, to try to do all that should have been done while GWB and the Republicans controlled Congress; However, I tend to think the economic hole they left for obama is just too deep. I.e. I still expect that the US and EU will have a depression at least equal to 1929 and that the job losses will continue to accelerate, despite Obama´s good efforts.

Who to blame for this is very clear. (It was clear to me three year before the end of GWB´s term - very clearly foreseen, described, and posted here that GWB and Republican trickle down were leading to world´s worse depression. Only because I did not foresee Obama and his abilities do I now slightly doubt my dire predictions.)
-----------------
*As Editor of the Harvard Law Review**, Obama could have claimed the highest paid job that any legal firm had to offer, but he chose instead to work for peanuts serving the poor in Chicago´s worst neighborhoods - amazing!

**There is no higher honor for any US senior Law student.

 

[River Ape]

See Bill Gates! See Warren Buffet! These are some of the most succesful businessmen in recent history . . . Neither of these gentlemen depended on lobbyists to make their fortunes...that is earning it the old fashioned way!

Odd examples!
Bill Gates makes money because he has monopoly power.
Warren Buffett makes money by gambling with other people's money (but it isn't seen as gambling because of his long record of success).
You may well admire such people -- but neither of these men provide an example that can be emulated by the kind of reliable/inventive/industrious/perceptive people who provide the backbone for a sound economy within a healthy society.
And you seriously think Microsoft doesn't employ lobbyists???

 

[Billy T]

Here is an example of a leading Republican ignoring fact that the GWB and Republicans caused the problem (See post 354 if you doubt they caused it.) and are now attempting to stick Obama with the blame:

House Minority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican. “We simple cannot continue to mortgage our children and grandchildren’s future to pay for bigger and more costly government.”*
-----------------
*I presume by "more costly government" he is referring to public health care plan. The truth is that the US can no longer afford to have the most expensive health care system in the world - much more expensive than Canada, England, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark´s, all of which provide longer life expectancies at lower cost mainly because they make sure ALL of their citizens get preventive care to avoid much higher costs later when the very sick overload hospital emergency rooms. Also when your children ride bus to school with poor kid who did not get preventive care, your kid gets sick too. US health care is an expensive disgrace compared to ALL other advanced countries.

 

[Baron Max]

Here is an example of a leading Republican ignoring fact that the GWB and Republicans caused the problem ...

If you're as knowledgeable in economics as you claim to be, Billy, then you must know that this current economic problem began long before President Bush even took office! If you really don't know that, then ...?

Baron Max

 

[Billy T]

If you're as knowledgeable in economics as you claim to be, Billy, then you must know that this current economic problem began long before President Bush even took office! If you really don't know that, then ...? Baron Max

I will agreee there were economic errors even with Clinton: He was running balanced budgets, real incomes were increasing, and the debt was decreasing as percent of GDP. - These are "problems" that GWB and the Republican controlled Congress never troubled the US with.

But Baron, don´t let facts bother you - you never have.

 

[joepistole]

Odd examples!
Bill Gates makes money because he has monopoly power.
Warren Buffett makes money by gambling with other people's money (but it isn't seen as gambling because of his long record of success).
You may well admire such people -- but neither of these men provide an example that can be emulated by the kind of reliable/inventive/industrious/perceptive people who provide the backbone for a sound economy within a healthy society.
And you seriously think Microsoft doesn't employ lobbyists???

Bill Gates may have a virtual monopoly, but it he did not benefit from govermental favors in order to achieve that status. He does not rely on government to kill Apple operating software or Red Hat...Linus. He and Allen founded Microsoft and grew the company to what it is today.

Warren Buffet does more than just invest (bet). He operates companies as well. He made and earned everything without special favors from government.

 

[2inquisitive]

joepistole,

See Bill Gates! See Warren Buffet! These are some of the most succesful businessmen in recent history. And guess what, they support Obama and what he is now doing.

Gates and Buffett are Democrats and supported Obama for president, of course. I haven't read any statement from Gates about what Obama 'is now doing', but Buffett has been critical of Obama's agenda since taking office. Buffett thinks Obama's budget projections are much too 'rosy', thinks the carbon-tax is a bad idea and regressive, and also said on an interview "Job one is to win the war, the economic war, job two is to win the economic war, and job three. And you can't expect people to unite behind you if you're trying to jam a whole bunch of things down their throat. So I would absolutely say, for the interim, till we get this one solved, I would not be pushing a lot of things that you know are contentious, and I also would do no finger-pointing whatsoever. I would not say, you know, `George'--`the previous administration got us into this.' Forget it."

BTW, Microsoft has their own office building on Wall Street where they employ a small army of lobbyists. They are also among the largest political contributors, in 2008 spending $2,358,604 on the Democratic party and $861,086 on the Republican party.