World Politics

[scribe]

The real cost, to the government, of collapsing giants certainly plays into these unprecedented policies. One way or the other, the government was always gonna own this problem. We would have been forced to foot the bill of costly bankruptcy, lost jobs and stress on unemployment rolls, domino effect on ancillary business, etc, etc.

I don't mind the bailouts at all. What I would like is for some of these companies to be forced into splitting into smaller and more manageable companies in terms of them failing at some point down the road.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't want to be forced to invest my tax dollars to bail out companies that benefit the greedy few while pedaling an inferior product. Whether it be lending institutions, banks, auto giants, doesn't matter. I don't invest in them out of my own volition, because even when things are looking up, they're still considered a risky investment. All of a sudden it's a good idea now that nobody can afford anything?

Again, I ask (not because I am a patient man, but because I study history), show me one single instance of a government that did not use taxpayer dollars to boost their economy while in recession. And no, Ronald Reagan doesn't count because when you start with a recession and then leave one when you leave, it doesn't count. Just ask George Bush Sr. whose fault it was.

See, the greatest prosperity for the greatest number of people in the history of the world occurred when governments stepped in following the unfettered Capitalism of the Industrial Revolution, and took that money and spread it around. See, I will take government intrusion and Socialist principles as a check on pure Capitalism every time because guess what? History shows that my side wins.

 

[Anonymous]

The real cost, to the government, of collapsing giants certainly plays into these unprecedented policies. One way or the other, the government was always gonna own this problem. We would have been forced to foot the bill of costly bankruptcy, lost jobs and stress on unemployment rolls, domino effect on ancillary business, etc, etc.

I don't mind the bailouts at all. What I would like is for some of these companies to be forced into splitting into smaller and more manageable companies in terms of them failing at some point down the road.

Why, that is anti Capitalism!...but it works.

 

[Anonymous]

I would rather have the Chrysler problem back than what we're dealing with now... Give them our money and give the executives pay raises and bonuses for building crap cars.

Cash for clunkers. Dumb.

The clunkers program is a big reason the US showed an annualized 3rd quarter growth GDP of +3.5%. The BS clunkers program did nothing but pull 4th quarter car purchases up to the 3rd quarter. Look at the auto purchasing numbers now... another band-aid on a spurting artery from Washington. It is way too early to say the recession is over. Schiff and others are saying the US economy is in trouble and will likely have a second recession as early as next spring and no one in this country has even a clue as to how bad the economics will get if cap-and-trade passes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

Existing home purchases are up too. As soon as the first time home-buyers credit goes away take a wild guess at what will happen to those sales numbers. Is it not interesting that these programs are geared to show results at election time? Nothing but scumbag political trickery designed for the optimal BS effect.


BTW, the Fed Reserve has flooded the market with printed money. The ONLY thing keeping them from printing more is the collective pressure of the debt-holders. There will certainly be higher inflation than what the US has seen in two generations (anyone watching the gold market?). The dollar being weak helps exports but it certainly does not help consumers in the US. Just look (an example) at what a weak dollar does to the price of a gallon of gasoline (traded in dollars worldwide).

The way out of this mess is to do EXACTLY what John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan did. Slash corporate and personal income taxes to feed private industry and expansion, slash capital gains to encourage private investment AND ALLOW POORLY RUN BUSINESS' FAILURE. These things Obama can do with the stroke of a pen AND would result in an econimc recovery AND reduced unemployment... but will never, ever happen. Too contrary to his belief structure.

Edit: Added URL
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1415.cfm

Interesting clip of Steve Wynn (who was a contributor to the Obama campaign);

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZcMzL0Hx9M

 

[fatandfast]

I don't want to be forced to invest my tax dollars to bail out companies that benefit the greedy few while pedaling an inferior product. Whether it be lending institutions, banks, auto giants, doesn't matter. I don't invest in them out of my own volition, because even when things are looking up, they're still considered a risky investment. All of a sudden it's a good idea now that nobody can afford anything?

You have got it right just about the wrong subject. The ****nstani,Iraqi and Afgani rebels are handing it to us money and lives spent for...? But we are still producing planes,tanks and ships that we can't use..billions of dollars worth. Somoli pirates are kicking it and taking names,our navy's(UN members) are afraid to sail through or some skinny teenager with a rocket launcher will show big daddy how to cause havoc with a 300 dollar rocket. Our banks just paid themselves and everybody they owe, plus gave themselves 6 and 7 figure bonuses. They didn't want government money they were forced to take it. Bof A and CIT have one or two people paying their bills the other 60 billion they handed out like treat or treat candy will never be seen again. If it's too big to fail keep cutting it in half until we can throw some down the crapper. Start with DOD and finish with banks that lend in Brixton or Harlem to hard working people with a dream of home ownership and an income that makes a posh apt a challenge. Madoff is a crumb but so are all the hand ringers that were trying to get something for nothing.They should pave the streets of London and NYC with dead bankers.

 

[scribe]

Why, that is anti Capitalism!...but it works.

It is similar, if not identical to antitrust laws. Break them into smaller units that can fail more easily. I am certain the fear is that these new leaner companies won't be able to compete internationally.

 

[Anonymous]

The real cost, to the government, of collapsing giants certainly plays into these unprecedented policies. One way or the other, the government was always gonna own this problem. We would have been forced to foot the bill of costly bankruptcy, lost jobs and stress on unemployment rolls, domino effect on ancillary business, etc, etc.

I don't mind the bailouts at all. What I would like is for some of these companies to be forced into splitting into smaller and more manageable companies in terms of them failing at some point down the road.

Would not be necessary if Government regulation and anti-trust legislation had be adhered to. Who's at fault when Exxon and Mobil ask to merge? Exxon Mobil for asking or Big Govt for allowing it to happen? Look, the quickest way for well heeled companies to grow is through mergers and acquisitions. It's rarely in the public's best interest for there to be a reduction in competition with a corresponding increase in corporate size and scope through M&A. But it happens all the time.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

Again, I ask (not because I am a patient man, but because I study history), show me one single instance of a government that did not use taxpayer dollars to boost their economy while in recession. And no, Ronald Reagan doesn't count because when you start with a recession and then leave one when you leave, it doesn't count. Just ask George Bush Sr. whose fault it was.

See, the greatest prosperity for the greatest number of people in the history of the world occurred when governments stepped in following the unfettered Capitalism of the Industrial Revolution, and took that money and spread it around. See, I will take government intrusion and Socialist principles as a check on pure Capitalism every time because guess what? History shows that my side wins.

I believe you, never said anything to the contrary. but no ...ism "wins" when the line to get in the homeless shelter is a block and a half long across the street from where I take in pro hockey games. Any ..ism that leads to social stratification is not good. I'd rather have them come inside where it's warm so they can witness how bad the Wild suck this year.

 

[scribe]

I believe you, never said anything to the contrary. but no ...ism "wins" when the line to get in the homeless shelter is a block and a half long across the street from where I take in pro hockey games. Any ..ism that leads to social stratification is not good. I'd rather have them come inside where it's warm so they can witness how bad the Wild suck this year.

I think they tried that principle with Marxistics application in social structure.

 

[Cobblestones]

BTW, the Fed Reserve has flooded the market with printed money. The ONLY thing keeping them from printing more is the collective pressure of the debt-holders. There will certainly be higher inflation than what the US has seen in two generations (anyone watching the gold market?). The dollar being weak helps exports but it certainly does not help consumers in the US. Just look (an example) at what a weak dollar does to the price of a gallon of gasoline (traded in dollars worldwide).

Inflation fear is a canard. The amount of money is deflating due to the unwinding of massively leveraged positions. Without printing money (or T bonds), we would have a dreaded deflation at hand. You could actually print quite a bit more with very little impact on inflation pressure. Don't confuse rising gold prices with inflation. Gold is just another bubble which will eventually pop**. And don't confuse a weak dollar with inflation. All of those are different things.

**I hope you're not one of those Ron Paul, gold standard fanatics. Because that's so wrong on all counts. I've debated a couple of them once and it was excruciating. Not an experience I'd like to repeat.

 

[Race Radio]

Would not be necessary if Government regulation and anti-trust legislation had be adhered to. Who's at fault when Exxon and Mobil ask to merge? Exxon Mobil for asking or Big Govt for allowing it to happen? Look, the quickest way for well heeled companies to grow is through mergers and acquisitions. It's rarely in the public's best interest for there to be a reduction in competition with a corresponding increase in corporate size and scope through M&A. But it happens all the time.

Very true. I am a free market capitalist but even I realize that the natural direction of capital is monopoly or duopoly. Competition is what makes an economy thrive.

 

[Anonymous]

Inflation fear is a canard. The amount of money is deflating due to the unwinding of massively leveraged positions. Without printing money (or T bonds), we would have a dreaded deflation at hand. You could actually print quite a bit more with very little impact on inflation pressure. Don't confuse rising gold prices with inflation. Gold is just another bubble which will eventually pop**. And don't confuse a weak dollar with inflation. All of those are different things.

**I hope you're not one of those Ron Paul, gold standard fanatics. Because that's so wrong on all counts. I've debated a couple of them once and it was excruciating. Not an experience I'd like to repeat.

Tell that to the Chinese. There are many economists and lay persons (me) that disagree with this position. I don't know what Ron Paul's position on gold is (don't care either). Historically gold prices run up for one reason and the speculation of gold will become rational when inflation fears subside (and not before).

 

[Cobblestones]

Tell that to the Chinese. There are many economists and lay persons (me) that disagree with this position. I don't know what Ron Paul's position on gold is (don't care either). Historically gold prices run up for one reason and the speculation of gold will become rational when inflation fears subside (and not before).

You're right that lots of lay people disagree with my position, but economists? Not so much. I give you Nobel prize winning, and very outspoken Paul Krugman.

Gold is a commodity as any other. The current high is likely to a large degree a speculative bubble which could pop any time. As you correctly write yourself, it's likely based on inflation fear more than anything else.

Here is a chart with inflation data. It supports my view that once the highly leveraged positions began to unwind due to the financial crisis (summer 2008) it destroyed so much money that we entered a time of deflation. The best way to counteract deflation and recession is to increase the stimulus by factor 2 or 3 and thereby jump start the economy and job creation as well.

It's in the raw data. I don't know why most of the lay people (and sorry to say most politicians belong to that class) cannot see it.

 

[Anonymous]

You're right that lots of lay people disagree with my position, but economists? Not so much. I give you Nobel prize winning, and very outspoken Paul Krugman.

Gold is a commodity as any other. The current high is likely to a large degree a speculative bubble which could pop any time. As you correctly write yourself, it's likely based on inflation fear more than anything else.

Here is a chart with inflation data. It supports my view that once the highly leveraged positions began to unwind due to the financial crisis (summer 2008) it destroyed so much money that we entered a time of deflation. The best way to counteract deflation and recession is to increase the stimulus by factor 2 or 3 and thereby jump start the economy and job creation as well.

It's in the raw data. I don't know why most of the lay people (and sorry to say most politicians belong to that class) cannot see it.

Not sure how to respond. I'll start by taking your Paul Krugman and raise you a Milton Friedman just to even the Nobel Prize equasion.

What you mention above is Keynesian and who knows, maybe is correct. I just don't think so. And neither does Peter Schiff (I know, so what?) or William Niskanen, who wrote this recently;

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-36.pdf

and Willem H. Buiter, who whote this piece;

http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/01/can-the-us-economy-afford-a-keynesian-stimulus/#more-395

"As regards the required massive transfer of resources from the public to the private sector in the US, it has long been recognised by those who look at long-term prospects for taxes and public spending in the US, that a combined permanent increase in the tax share/reduction in the share of public spending in GDP of around ten percentage points would be required to fund existing Medicare and Medicaid commitments (and to a lesser extent Social Security commitments). In the past decade the US has legislated for its citizens (though Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security retirement) a West European-style welfare state. Obama’s proposals for universal health care will complete this process. The US has done so with a general government public expenditure share in GDP that is about 10 percentage points below the West European average (in the mid-thirties for the US, in the mid-forties in for Western Europe. Evolving demographics and entitlement will drive US welfare state expenditure towards the West-European levels, in the absence of political decisions in the US to limit coverage and entitlements.
This resource shift from the private to the public sector would only manifest itself gradually however, and no doubt, there will be changes in (whittling down of) these commitments before their full impact is felt.
The US Federal government has taken on massive additional contingent liabilities through its bail out/underwriting of the US financial system (and possibly other bits of the US economic system that are too politically connected to fail). Together will the foreseeable increase in actual Federal government liabilities because of vastly increased future Federal deficits, this implies the need for a future private to public sector resource transfer that is most unlikely to be politically feasible without recourse to inflation. The only alternative is default on the Federal debt. There is little doubt, in my view, that the Federal authorities will choose the inflation and currency depreciation route over the default route."

And this;

http://fintrend.com/ftf/MIP.asp

CURRENT INFLATION FORECAST

"It looks like Annual deflation has turned the corner. It reached a low of -2.10% in July and was at -1.48% last month. It has dropped to -1.29% for September. If you look at the chart "turning the corner" looks exactly like what happened as the red "actual inflation" line made a 90 degree turn and began heading upwards.
It will take a few more months for the deflationary effects to work out of the system. But beginning November and December we should see inflation beginning to rear its ugly head once again.
At this point the MIP is projecting that a year from now we could once more be at 5% inflation just as we were a year ago.
But once the effects of the "stimulus" package kick in we will probably see massive inflation (perhaps even hyperinflation). Generally, it takes about 2 years for monetary stimulus to result in inflation, so we could begin seeing massive inflation just beyond the MIP's window."


There is rational reason for concern not only about possible inflation spikes but also the stability of the dollar on a go-forward basis. Some very bright people are turning to gold for predictible reasons.

BTW, gold set a new high again today for the very reasons (and more) listed above.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0eaa4a80-c856-11de-a69e-00144feabdc0.html

 

[fatandfast]

CBS.com 60 minutes, Andy Rooney on health care. Obama points from an old white guy. If you live outside the US, watch and listen, it's pretty close to gospel.

 

[Cobblestones]

Your first link mentions inflation 7 times. Most of the times to discuss a newly proposed monetary policy. The one time they discuss inflation in itself, they get it completely wrong:

More important, it is much
less clear what will be the effects of the sharp reduction of interest rates
since July 2007, the several measures to avoid a collapse of the mortgage
market, and the substantial increase in inflation. The rapid increase in
consumer and producer prices in summer 2008 should have been ample
warning to the Fed not to be diverted from its primary mission.

As you know from the graph I provided, inflation turned to deflation around that time.

About your next link, I would like to comment on the bolded part (where it mentions inflation). I don't know why the author sees inflation as the only (or most likely) means of transfer of resources from private to public. Not since the 1970s this has been true for any of the Western European countries which are held up here as a model. We know that such a transfer (if necessary at all) is most effectively achieved via tax increases, which will have the least impact on the economy. Anyway, inflation discussed in this article is NOT seen as a consequence of the stimulus, it is discussed as a means to cover liabilities in the future (liabilities due to the bank bailout, NOT the stimulus, and potential future liabilities due to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and possibly the new Health Insurance bill). As I said above, these things could be handled by tax increases. Willfully increasing inflation to address this would be a stupid thing to do, and I don't think anyone really considers it. In essence it's a straw man argument.

Your third link is a forecast. It forecasts inflation around 4% with an uncertainty of less than 1% already in December 2009. I seriously doubt that. But let's wait and see. It won't take long. I looked up their predictions/reality comparisons, and they have nothing more recent than 2006? I'm sorry, but these are very different times from 2006. I would really like to see how they did 2008 AND 2009 because if you didn't do well then, your models are not likely well adjusted for the present conditions. I'm not impressed.

Your final link is gold again. It has nothing to do with inflation. Yes, some commodities increase, some decrease. Gold is at the moment in a huge speculative bubble. If that's your standard, than everything looks expensive. Fortunately, the price of gold is practically irrelevant when calculating inflation.

Anyway, inflation fear is a canard. We could spend 2-3 times the stimulus money without much inflation pressure, thereby jump starting the economy and reducing unemployment. I don't know why the public, after happily spending much more money on two useless wars and useless tax reductions for the rich is now suddenly in fear of inflation. The war spending and tax decreases came on top of enormous credit expansion and inflation was up to 5-6%. Now, we have a huge reduction in credit, tax reduction for the rich are running out (hopefully) and maybe (although I'm not holding my breath), war expenditures could finally ramp down. There'd be nothing wrong with another stimulus. The only thing which does really drive inflation is the bank bailout, which I hated, but unfortunately, Wall Street is too well connected with both the Dems and the Repubs.

 

[Publicus]

Not sure how to respond. I'll start by taking your Paul Krugman and raise you a Milton Friedman just to even the Nobel Prize equasion.

What you mention above is Keynesian and who knows, maybe is correct. I just don't think so. And neither does Peter Schiff (I know, so what?) or William Niskanen, who wrote this recently;

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-36.pdf

and Willem H. Buiter, who whote this piece;

http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/01/can-the-us-economy-afford-a-keynesian-stimulus/#more-395

"As regards the required massive transfer of resources from the public to the private sector in the US, it has long been recognised by those who look at long-term prospects for taxes and public spending in the US, that a combined permanent increase in the tax share/reduction in the share of public spending in GDP of around ten percentage points would be required to fund existing Medicare and Medicaid commitments (and to a lesser extent Social Security commitments). In the past decade the US has legislated for its citizens (though Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security retirement) a West European-style welfare state. Obama’s proposals for universal health care will complete this process. The US has done so with a general government public expenditure share in GDP that is about 10 percentage points below the West European average (in the mid-thirties for the US, in the mid-forties in for Western Europe. Evolving demographics and entitlement will drive US welfare state expenditure towards the West-European levels, in the absence of political decisions in the US to limit coverage and entitlements.
This resource shift from the private to the public sector would only manifest itself gradually however, and no doubt, there will be changes in (whittling down of) these commitments before their full impact is felt.
The US Federal government has taken on massive additional contingent liabilities through its bail out/underwriting of the US financial system (and possibly other bits of the US economic system that are too politically connected to fail). Together will the foreseeable increase in actual Federal government liabilities because of vastly increased future Federal deficits, this implies the need for a future private to public sector resource transfer that is most unlikely to be politically feasible without recourse to inflation. The only alternative is default on the Federal debt. There is little doubt, in my view, that the Federal authorities will choose the inflation and currency depreciation route over the default route."

And this;

http://fintrend.com/ftf/MIP.asp

CURRENT INFLATION FORECAST

"It looks like Annual deflation has turned the corner. It reached a low of -2.10% in July and was at -1.48% last month. It has dropped to -1.29% for September. If you look at the chart "turning the corner" looks exactly like what happened as the red "actual inflation" line made a 90 degree turn and began heading upwards.
It will take a few more months for the deflationary effects to work out of the system. But beginning November and December we should see inflation beginning to rear its ugly head once again.
At this point the MIP is projecting that a year from now we could once more be at 5% inflation just as we were a year ago.
But once the effects of the "stimulus" package kick in we will probably see massive inflation (perhaps even hyperinflation). Generally, it takes about 2 years for monetary stimulus to result in inflation, so we could begin seeing massive inflation just beyond the MIP's window."


There is rational reason for concern not only about possible inflation spikes but also the stability of the dollar on a go-forward basis. Some very bright people are turning to gold for predictible reasons.

BTW, gold set a new high again today for the very reasons (and more) listed above.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0eaa4a80-c856-11de-a69e-00144feabdc0.html

I see you kids are still at play on this. If you are going to have this debate, I think it has to start with GWB's tenure and not Obama's. That was the last time the government had a budget surplus. That is of course, if you are actually interested in understanding the source of the deficit and not just bemoaning the steps necessary to curtail the latest recession (i.e., the stimulus).

And just for the record it is November and the Fed has kept the fed fund rate at . . . zero. And has indicated it will leave it unchanged until inflationary pressures mount and unemployment starts to decline.

 

[Anonymous]

Your first link mentions inflation 7 times. Most of the times to discuss a newly proposed monetary policy. The one time they discuss inflation in itself, they get it completely wrong:



As you know from the graph I provided, inflation turned to deflation around that time.

About your next link, I would like to comment on the bolded part (where it mentions inflation). I don't know why the author sees inflation as the only (or most likely) means of transfer of resources from private to public. Not since the 1970s this has been true for any of the Western European countries which are held up here as a model. We know that such a transfer (if necessary at all) is most effectively achieved via tax increases, which will have the least impact on the economy. Anyway, inflation discussed in this article is NOT seen as a consequence of the stimulus, it is discussed as a means to cover liabilities in the future (liabilities due to the bank bailout, NOT the stimulus, and potential future liabilities due to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and possibly the new Health Insurance bill). As I said above, these things could be handled by tax increases. Willfully increasing inflation to address this would be a stupid thing to do, and I don't think anyone really considers it. In essence it's a straw man argument.

Your third link is a forecast. It forecasts inflation around 4% with an uncertainty of less than 1% already in December 2009. I seriously doubt that. But let's wait and see. It won't take long. I looked up their predictions/reality comparisons, and they have nothing more recent than 2006? I'm sorry, but these are very different times from 2006. I would really like to see how they did 2008 AND 2009 because if you didn't do well then, your models are not likely well adjusted for the present conditions. I'm not impressed.

Your final link is gold again. It has nothing to do with inflation. Yes, some commodities increase, some decrease. Gold is at the moment in a huge speculative bubble. If that's your standard, than everything looks expensive. Fortunately, the price of gold is practically irrelevant when calculating inflation.

Anyway, inflation fear is a canard. We could spend 2-3 times the stimulus money without much inflation pressure, thereby jump starting the economy and reducing unemployment. I don't know why the public, after happily spending much more money on two useless wars and useless tax reductions for the rich is now suddenly in fear of inflation. The war spending and tax decreases came on top of enormous credit expansion and inflation was up to 5-6%. Now, we have a huge reduction in credit, tax reduction for the rich are running out (hopefully) and maybe (although I'm not holding my breath), war expenditures could finally ramp down. There'd be nothing wrong with another stimulus. The only thing which does really drive inflation is the bank bailout, which I hated, but unfortunately, Wall Street is too well connected with both the Dems and the Repubs.

Cobbles, I love you man but you are probably wrong on the inflation scenario, very wrong on spending another 2 trillion in "stimulus" with no effect on inflation (gotta pay the borrowed money back or declare war on our creditors) and completely wrong on this "tax reduction for the rich". I posted the actual tax revenue numbers from the IRS somewhere (i think in this thread). The "rich" pay a shitload more in taxes than the non-rich as measured by percentage of income and real dollars. Any tax cut or increase will effect "the rich" simply because they pay the vast majority of the taxes. Please don't quote Warren Buffet's comments on how his secretary pays more taxes than he does because if that is true he should be ashamed of himself and if it's not true then he should be ashamed of himeself. Either way a very poor example and certainly not typical.

I reckon we will not agree on this but I appreciate the joust without name calling. Encouraging, I'd say.

 

[scribe]

Well. The courageous health bill has passed the House and is on the move to the Senate.

It does not surprise me (but most certainly disgusts me) that conservatives who would spend billions of dollars bombing other countries, are crying about the expense of providing health care for Americans.

 

[Bala Verde]

Well. The courageous health bill has passed the House and is on the move to the Senate.

It does not surprise me (but most certainly disgusts me) that conservatives who would spend billions of dollars bombing other countries, are crying about the expense of providing health care for Americans.

National security obviously trumps the health of the people that make up the nation!

 

[scribe]

Yes! Especially when your cohorts in defense contracting are funding your campaigns and lining your pockets!!

The horror that the peasants would want their tax dollars to work towards their personal well being.

 

[richwagmn]

Yes! Especially when your cohorts in defense contracting are funding your campaigns and lining your pockets!!

The horror that the peasants would want their tax dollars to work towards their personal well being.

Remains to be seen what it looks like when the senate gets through with it. I'm not hopeful.

 

[ChrisE]

Yes! Especially when your cohorts in defense contracting are funding your campaigns and lining your pockets!!

The horror that the peasants would want their tax dollars to work towards their personal well being.

Whatever. The country should looks in its collective mirror. Info is out there if people want to be informed. The problem is most people wish to remain stupid.

Somebody once said the good thing about democracy is that you get what you deserve. It is also the bad thing about democracy.

This country is full of useful idiots. Turn on Foxnews or have a random conversation in Houston and you will see what I mean.

 

[scribe]

Remains to be seen what it looks like when the senate gets through with it. I'm not hopeful.

If they can get something useful through, there is hope that universal health care will eventually become a reality. All the things they will need to take out now can slowly be added later in future legislation sessions when it is proven that health care for all Americans is not apocalyptic as some conservatives would like the public to believe.

 

[CentralCaliBike]

Well. The courageous health bill has passed the House and is on the move to the Senate.

It does not surprise me (but most certainly disgusts me) that conservatives who would spend billions of dollars bombing other countries, are crying about the expense of providing health care for Americans.

The primary function of government is to insure the citizens can sleep without worry that someone is going to come in and force them out of their home or rob their businesses (summed up as in a particular document as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness").

The current society seems to want adult day care that insures everyone has health insurance, which means everyone should also be assured a job to pay for the insurance - why stop there, I suppose everyone should also have a right to a home. In the end, what type of government promises that everyone will be cared for from cradle to grave by the government? The only governmental systems I know that has made these type of promises have been unsuccessful in providing the the liberty and pursuit of happiness concepts that are the foundations of our nation. I do not think our government will be able to provide what it has been promised to the self interested (but short sighted) voters of today.