bosun.j's Comments

Thursday Outlook: Commodities, Emerging Markets

Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:40:55 -0500

The Author wrote:

"The Treasury auctions continue. While bonds are getting sold, the results in the aftermarket for them haven't been good. There are more bonds to be sold than you can shake a stick at which is why many want to short."

Indeed. The rest of the world has woken up to the fact that America is bankrupt in every sense of the word. Can't really blame them for that.

China is on a buying spree in an attempt to unload their $2T reserves before the dollar collapses or is seriously devalued.

Few outside America are buying America's bull anymore. Sooner rather than later no one will.

Fiscal Responsibility: Obama Takes the Reins

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:35:09 -0500

Thumbs up for your reasoned post. Much of your post is more truth than tale.

I want business out of medicine altogether though. No insurance company making profit and no hospital making profit. Pharma must be made to sell drugs at the same price they sell them for here in Thailand (about 10% of US price). No management flying around on private jets and no more million dollar parties. No huge bonuses. That will save allot money that can be used to build more hospitals and install better equipment.

Yeah, I know. It's just un-American to not have some scum sucking businessman making profit off of people's suffering!

On Feb 25 05:13 PM PainfullyAware wrote:

> Medicare and Medicaid pay 65% of all medical bills in the USA. They
> are one of the main contributing factors as to why the cost of medical
> care is so high.
>
> The second greatest contributing factor are the "Lottery Lawsuits"
> for malpractice. Nevada has been decimated because of these. The
> cost of Malpractice Insurance is staggering.
>
> The system that has just been passed in the stimulus bill makes it
> so that if a doctor does not do what the state recommends as "Treatment"
> they will not be allowed to practice. This consequently rules out
> all forms of "Alternative Medicine" and Innovation.
>
> When your health becomes a statistical accounting entry to the government
> you be come expendable.
>
> Rarely are doctors in the field as a way to make lots of money.
> By nature of the job, and the pain to obtain it, most are benevolent.
> Attempting to protect themselves from the government and the "Ambulance
> Chasing" Lawyers has caused much of the systems ails.
>
> The running of the "multitude of tests" are a way to get money from
> the insurance to offset the costs of Malpractice insurance and the
> free services that are given at the emergency room because by law
> you can not refuse someone help that shows up there.
>
> There are many factors of complexity that can not be accounted for
> with hasty generalization.
>
> One can come to any conclusion if they limit the data to only premises
> that support their paradigm.
>
> The socialization of the Medical System and the Education System
> should be implemented not in totality, but with an allocation that
> is attached to the person to receive the benefit; Without the mandate
> of where to spend it. Schools and Doctors would thus compete to
> succeed and those that do not perform well will not benefit greatly.
> With the other methods of socialization there is no incentive to
> do well and thus the system rots.
>
> Money achieved without effort is usually spent foolishly.

Fiscal Responsibility: Obama Takes the Reins

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:59:35 -0500

I'll readily agree Obama is more hope than change. Keeping Gates was the first thing that made me angry, Most of his cabinet posts are old line neo-liberals and neo-cons. About the only thing he's good for so far is he can complete a sentence and the rest of the world seems to be in love with him. Sorry to say even thats allot better than Bush.

On Feb 25 04:45 PM Robert Nabloid wrote:

>
>
>
> What it all boils down to is this: Obama is not fiscally responsible
> - neither was Bush.

Thoughts on Last Night's Speech by the President

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:45:00 -0500

Didn't know he's German, not sure it matters. Been to Germany many times. Some were like that many weren't. Austrians are still that way though.

I see the editors removed his racist rant post. Too bad. Free speech means knowing who you can trust. Not pretty, but safer than not knowing. Oh well, its their site.

On Feb 25 04:01 PM bricki wrote:

> He's a German. That's what they do.
>
> On Feb 25 03:43 PM bosun.j wrote:

Fiscal Responsibility: Obama Takes the Reins

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:26:15 -0500

As a retired merchant seaman I recall getting 100% no out of pocket healthcare from the public health service prior to chuckle nuts Reagan getting into office. First class care in every way.

After chuckle nuts Ray Gun got in he screwed us out of that so our next contract provided that the shipping companies had to contribute so much for each day on the ship into our health and welfare account. We then had to find private doctors pay them and submit triplicate forms to get reimbursed. Pretty screwed up. Mostly greedy shitty doctors. I preferred the clinic.

As I aged previous medical problems from my Naval service became serious enough that the VA started treating me. Great cutting edge doctors. Asshole bureaucrats to get through to see the doctor. A fine doctor at the VA hospital in Portland fixed a problem no other Dr could. Yeah, socialized medicine screwed me over. NOT!

Ronnie Ray Gun was one of those assholes who hated people too. (not saying you do!) Hated people, unions and just about anything that wasn't good for his corporate masters. I smile knowing that shitbag is burning in hell! I know his corporate masters are or will be right there next to him in hell.

On Feb 25 03:52 PM Robert Nabloid wrote:

> I don't see where we have a difference in values? We both want people
> to have good health care. My country does socialized medicine and
> is fiscally responsible (most of the time). We do not normally run
> massive defecits to pay for it (though we are going to be running
> a big deficit to "stimulate" the economy (which I don't agree with)).
> In my province 40% of the budget is health care, but we do pay for
> it with higher taxes and mandatory state run health insurance. I'm
> not arguing FOR or AGAINST socialized health care it right now.
> I'm argueing that the US of A can't afford it at the moment without
> raising taxes for ALL, which could in turn hurt the fragile economy.
> If you want socialized medicine, that is fine. But the list of services
> the government is promising continues to grow and none of this is
> fiscally responsible until you honestly tell the American people
> how it will ALL be paid for without taking on more debt. You can't
> tell me Obama, or anyone, is the saviour of fiscal responsibility
> for as long as there is a deficit, PERIOD.
>
> I'm here to tell you, the grass isn't really greener on the other
> side of the fence. We have serious labour shortages for doctors
> and nurses, much worse than in America... wait times ARE killing
> people and this problem is just as bad as not having health care
> because that is essentially what it is at times!
>
> Whether it is socialized or not, the money comes from the same place...
> the people and economy. We can pretend the government pays, but you
> must not forget where the government gets its money - either way
> it comes from the economy THROUGH AN INCREASE IN TAXES OR AN INCREASE
> IN DEBT WHICH CARRIES INTEREST AND HAS TO BE SERVICED WITH TAXES.
>
>
> Why am I mentioning this? This article is on fiscal responsibility,
> not on whether or not we should have these services to begin with
> - that is for another article and is a whole 'nother debate which
> I might be on the same side of with you. We humans need health services,
> we all know that. The argument seems to be over who pays for it...
> when in reality we pay no mater what way you slice it (assuming you
> work). The poor don't generally pay for such services anyways.
> I'm not arguing against socialized medicine - I'm telling you it
> isn't perfect and it still has a cost that the entire society bears,
> whether or not you are rich or poor. Yes, even the poor pay, just
> not out of pocket.
>
> And to answer your question... I don't think the banks should get
> trillions... obviously. We can't afford to give them trillions without
> raising taxes (or going into massive debt of which we now have to
> pay interest on...). I wasn't in favour of bailing out corrupt banks.
> You can't use our fiscal irresponsibility as a reason why its okay
> to be fiscally irresponsible on other matters... I agree, it would
> have been a better fiscally irresponsible use of money to spend on
> health care rather than banks...
>
> The way I look at it, they are bailing out banks, they want to have
> socialized medicine, SS, and a billion other services to be controlled
> by government. All I'm saying is you can't call any of this fiscally
> responsible unless you increase taxes to pay for it. So let's be
> honest here. So far, none of this is fiscally responsible. It becomes
> fiscally responsible when you find a way to pay for it other than
> taking on more debt or printing money out of thin air.

JPMorgan's Dividend Cut Is a Clever Move

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:56:01 -0500

A fluff piece.

"we're good! Really! NO, REALLY! WE ARE! Don't need to take us over even though we'd not be here if you hadn't given us BILLIONS to stay afloat! We're th good guys! YES WE ARE!!!!!!

Earnings Preview: General Motors

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:53:00 -0500

Citi, now there is a reliable stock rater!

Fiscal Responsibility: Obama Takes the Reins

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:27:23 -0500

I get that we aren't going to agree. Its a fundamental difference in values.

That said, addressing your fiscal responsibility argument. I agree there are allot of interests lined up at the trough for their piece of the pie. So, should people die for lack of medical care because the government gives TRILLIONS to Banksters who then pay themselves BILLIONS in bonuses they claim to have "earned" running their banks into the ground rather than spend a fraction of those TRILLIONS on healthcare? What? Hmmm?

On Feb 25 03:16 PM Robert Nabloid wrote:

>
>
> The jist of my argument is that socialized medicine will hurt America's
> governmental fiscal situation in a very negative way. Whether it
> is socialized or not, the money comes from the same place... the
> people - don't dare lose site of that. We can pretend the government
> pays, but you must not forget where the government gets its money
> - either way it comes from the economy.
>
> What you don't seem to get is that this article is on fiscal responsibility
> and I'm trying to point out that it is going to be quite hard when
> you add up all the things that people want to be done... If you want
> socialized medicine, go for it.

Fiscal Responsibility: Obama Takes the Reins

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:07:58 -0500

OK, let's assume your premise is correct. At one time America had a great healthcare system.

Easy to understand why it was, if it was! Greedy insurance companies weren't insuring ultra high risk investment vehicles and weren't pissing away your premiums on fleets of private jets and million dollar parties for fat asshole management turds!

On Feb 25 02:45 PM jksisco wrote:

> America, at one
> time had a great healthcare system, let's figure out why that was,
> and then eliminate whatever caused it to get where it is and then
> keep it that way, end of problem.

Fiscal Responsibility: Obama Takes the Reins

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:03:20 -0500

The jist of your premise is reflected in your contention that you are healthy and others are not. It goes to values. Such as in valuing humans more than money. Such as in none of us are better than the least of us and we can only be well off if we make sure the least of us are taken care of.

As for the cost, as that's your focus...money, how about the cost of people without jobs or insurance going to county hospitals emergency rooms for care? They not paying there! No money, no job, no insurance! Guess who pays? YOU PAY!! SO you are gonna pay either way. How about medical insurance? Some schmuck pays into insurance for years never makes a claim....gets some rare form of cancer and the insurance asshole won't pay all of the bills because his insurance caps at $1m per incident. Who pays? YOU DO! Your insurance goes up because the for profit fucking hospitals gotta raise the cost of services because they got screwed by the same shitbag insurance asshole they play golf with! WHO FREAKING PAYS? YOU DO! Congratulations!

On Feb 25 02:48 PM Robert Nabloid wrote:

> In 2007 Canada spent almost 11% of GDP (almost double what you thought)
> and it isn't enough and that is why we must increase it faster than
> our GDP grows to catch up and try and reduce wait times. Why should
> this matter anyways? We are talking GOVERNMENT FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY
> in this article. Do you want this 11%-16% of your GDP to become
> government spending? - and it's increasing faster than the GDP can
> grow!!! You do know where they will get that money to pay for it,
> right? That money comes from us anyways.
>
> As a healthy human who takes care of myself quite well, I don't visit
> doctors, so it would cost me zero percent. Unfortunately over 40%
> of my money is stolen to pay for others who drink a gallon of Pepsi
> a day and eat way too many potato chips while they do BC Bud and
> binge drink every Friday night.
>
> Regardless, right now we are talking about GOVERNMENT FISCAL responsibility.
> If you want socialized medicine, fine. Just don't complain to me
> when you wait 8 months for a surgery for a life threatening illness.
> We pay high taxes and we still end up having to go to other countries
> and paying out of pocket to get treatment right away when we need
> it... Not saying socialized medicine is evil, I'm just trying to
> tell you there are downsides... if you want to do it in a fiscally
> responsible manner you must raise taxes dramatically on everyone,
> not just the rich. Then you have the wait times. Line ups when
> you're dying are no fun - I can wait 8 to 12 months for regular treatments
> on non life threatening issues - but I will not wait for life threatening
> things. That's why so many canucks head down to America, Mexico,
> Brazil, Thailand, etc, and pay anyways, even though they already
> paid for it in their taxes...
>

Fiscal Responsibility: Obama Takes the Reins

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:50:25 -0500

I don't give a flying flip whether you believe it or not! Do your own damned research within these pages and you'll see where others seconded the 6% of GDP number and corrected my outdated research some months ago to reflect 16% of GDP in Yank land rather than the earlier 12% of GDP I had read months earlier.

On Feb 25 02:45 PM jksisco wrote:

> Since we're throwing numbers around without any facts to back it
> up, I think Europeans spend 60% of GNP on healthcare, perhaps that
> includes other social programs, not sure, don't really care, just
> so sick of the whole socialized is better argument. America, at one
> time had a great healthcare system, let's figure out why that was,
> and then eliminate whatever caused it to get where it is and then
> keep it that way, end of problem.

Fiscal Responsibility: Obama Takes the Reins

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:19:18 -0500

Canadian? Sorry, you sound so much like a tinkle down extremist-capitalist neo-CON I made the incorrect conclusion (assumption) you're a Yank. My mistake.

That said, I'd be very surprised that the cost of socialized medicine in the great white north exceeded 6% of GDP Which is in line with all other western economies. Furthermore I'd be very surprised if it came anywhere near the 16% of GDP the Yanks spend!

On Feb 25 02:09 PM Robert Nabloid wrote:

> You don't spend much time in Canadian hospitals and haven't looked
> at a Canadian budget obviously.
>
> In socialized medicine they do all the same tests, just simply because
> they are free... (though they aren't).
>
> How can the US have socialized medicine and not have fiscal problems?
> This article is about fiscal responsibility. Think about it.

International Competitiveness: U.S. Rank Is Slipping

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:12:23 -0500

The rah rah rah sis boom bah we're number one crowd is going to come out of the woodwork on this one!

Fiscal Responsibility: Obama Takes the Reins

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:42:37 -0500

Oh freaking please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...

America spends more than twice % of GDP on healthcare as the other western economies do and gets a lower standard of care. Get the greedy insurance companies out of the middle of the equation and we'll all be better off.

Don't believe it? Eliminate all the bullshit unnecessary tests that Drs do to protect themselves in the event the screw up anywhere in the proceedure. An American quack wanted to do $12000 worth of tests before he'd do a $1500 proceedure. Reasoning? I had a heart attack 10 yrs previously.

Waited until I got home to Thailand and had the procedure done for $750 by a board certified surgeon!

You're getting screwed and you're damn proud of it!!!!

On Feb 25 01:28 PM Robert Nabloid wrote:

>
> Oh and a word of warning... if you want socialized health care, which
> is certainly on the agenda... be prepared to have ~40% of your government
> budget go toward it or don't even attempt it. Go do some research
> on it first and then figure out where that money will come from...
> it will take some fiscal responsibility to pull it off. Lucky for
> us, we have the saviour of fiscal responsibility in the Whitehouse...
> we don't need to worry about such issues. He's taking care of it
> for us. Where can I get some of this kool-aid. I'm thirsty but
> can't seem to find any...

Thoughts on Last Night's Speech by the President

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:24:21 -0500

Yes indeed! The shit bag that held the office until 1159 20JAN09! He certainly screwed the pooch!

On Feb 25 12:00 PM Donald Johnson wrote:

> Has a president ever
> had so much power and ambition to make colossal mistakes that will
> cost America even more than we've already lost?

Fiscal Responsibility: Obama Takes the Reins

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:18:39 -0500

Every? The dipshit from Kennebunkport/Midland was certainly full of something, just not words. Fratboy "C" student cheerleader drunk coke freak that he was....

On Feb 25 08:10 AM j_remington wrote:

> Obama is full of choice words and exclamations...like every President
> before him.

Citigroup vs. Treasury

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:01:03 -0500

Nationalization: The new "N" word!

A Few Things to Consider Before We Re-Regulate

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:59:12 -0500

Make certain that these new regs have the same teeth that Chinese regulations have. Banksters and captains of industry that screw up a shot. Problem solved right after the first bunch come down with acute lead poisoning!

Citigroup vs. Treasury

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:48:50 -0500

Felix,

Keep pounding away! Remember: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Americans have a particularly difficult time with truth - most especially when that truth runs counter to the propaganda they have saturated with from birth.

Chok dee.

Policy Announcement Fatigue

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:31:51 -0500

Perhaps if there had been socialized medicine in America as there is in all civilized western countries your cancer might have been caught earlier. Just me, I could be wrong.

My wife died very young from cancer. One of the things I learned watching her slowly and painfully waste away, and others on the ward, was that they had so very little time to waste it with rancor. Then again she and they we're Thais and also Buddhists.

Choke dee Prudent man. Peace.

On Feb 25 10:26 AM Prudent Man CFA wrote:

> But, Obama is going to wave his wand and cure cancer. As a terminal
> leukemia, cancer and heart disease patient I look at this guy as
> a political hack at it worst. Especially, never even having a real
> job himself. There is no possible way he can deliver on his promises
> without, at the least, increasing taxes which would end up in lower
> total tax revenues because productive workers won't have an incentive
> to produce more.
>
> I, personally, was "Obama'd Out" over a year ago. All sizzle and
> no steak. A smug liberal who really thinks, like Clinton and his
> socialistic health program thought, that Congress will jump to his
> every wish. Well, Congress is elected on a local level and increased
> taxes don't sit well with those who take the time to vote in off
> year elections unless they are paid by ACORN with our money.
>
> Shame on Obama for making promises he doesn't have a chance to keep.
> Shame! Shame! Shame!

Phoenix Rising: Day 1 Update

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:31:22 -0500

NITWIT, er, NITRAM:

Gotta start taking your meds again!

On Feb 25 08:07 AM NITRAM wrote:

> I agree. With a socialistic president, tax cheats, and incompetant
> cabinet and congress members, we will break under 7000 on the Dow.
> More importantly we will enter a full depression. This pretend president
> is the greates spin doctor ever to be in office.

Thoughts on Last Night's Speech by the President

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:25:48 -0500

Why would anyone strive so hard to elected to a job only to get handed a huge platter of shit and a few slices of stale moldy bread?

Fiscal Responsibility: Obama Takes the Reins

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:02:05 -0500

NITWIT, er, NITRAM:

Have you forgotten to take your lithium again?

On Feb 25 07:54 AM NITRAM wrote:

> You must have ---- in your ears. He said there is no pork. Are you
> that stupid? Schumer says Americans dont care about pork. What planet
> does he live on. Obama is a socialist, and wants to be a Tzar that
> rules a socialistic nation. The man lies better than anyone in the
> history of politics. He keeps pushing a bill that he hasnt read.
> Look at our learders:
> Obama RACIST SOCIALISTIC LIER SUPPORTS REV WRIGHT
> GEITHNER TAX CHEAT
> RANGLE TAX CHEAT
> DASCHELL TAX CHEAT N FORCED TO LEAVE
> EMANUELL BOARD MEMBER AT FREDDY WHEN BILLIONS LOST
> FRANKS PAID FOR BY FREDDY AND FANNY
> RICHARDSON FORCED TO WITHDRAW.
> Do you really think these ass holes will make things better.
> OBAMA IS A PATHOLOGICAL LIER

Fiscal Responsibility: Obama Takes the Reins

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:59:22 -0500

He kept your family safe for 7.5yrs? Interesting that 7.5 isn't it? Convenient for you to attempt to ignore that he wasn't keeping you safe on 9-11?

Keep you safe? Borrowed Trillions from China and brought the economy and country to its knees. Safe?

You are truly too propagandized by feau news to waste any more energy on you.

Sad. So sad.

On Feb 24 11:48 AM Evaluator wrote:

>Bush kept
> my family and I safe for 7+ years, and I appreciate that.

Is Robert Reich the New Dr. Doom?

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:41:05 -0500

Jimbo! March your civilian ass down to the recruiter and demand the Corps make you a rifleman!

On Feb 24 11:35 AM Jimbo wrote:

> The author has some valid points. But, like many Libertarians, he
> disses the military. I would suggest an experiment, but to do so
> might cause a real calamity: Lets shut down the entire military and
> watch what happens. The U.S. is constantly being hammered as "warlike"
> and "aggressive" but in times of trouble, who do all those self-righteous,"peacef...
> nations run to?

GM Wants Another $27B at a Minimum: What's the Use?

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:14:47 -0500

Rah rah rah sis boom bah we're number one! If your teachers taught you that EVERYONE in Russia drove gray colored boxes blah blah blah then they did you a disservice! Hardly anyone in USSR had a car. The Trebbie was a box in several colors and it did break often but still has a major fan base in Eastern Europe because its cheap to buy, fix and operate.

Take your ear off Limbaugh's bullshit! GM workers do not make $50-$75 an hour no matter how long that fat scumbag screams it.

On Feb 24 10:48 AM Pilm wrote:

> When I was in high school we were taught the reason America was stronger
> than Russia was that our businesses were competitive, and competition
> forced creativity and innovation. Meanwhile in Russia, the government
> sponsored companies had no competition, and thus, no creativity,
> that's why everyone drove gray colored boxes for cars that fell apart
> in 2 years. Is this what we want to do here? Can we afford to support
> car companies that have no vision or creativity, and depend on the
> government to cover for their ineptitude? Can we as a country really
> afford to pay people $50/hour ($75/hour including benefits) to snap
> together our gray colored gas guzzlers? In a sense, the American
> people have already answered this question, that's why we buy Camrys,
> Maximas and Accords.

Fiscal Responsibility: Obama Takes the Reins

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:03:20 -0500

John, always enjoy your manner and the thought that goes into your comments.

Kindly consider that government is not a business. Government exists to provide services for the commons. Trying to run gov't like a business leads bureaucrats to make stellar decisions like betting that a Katrina like storm wouldn't hit New Orleans and therefore failing to adequately defend a major port city form devastation.

bosun

On Feb 24 10:43 AM John Lounsbury wrote:

> 3. Improving efficiencies in government and other broad service
> areas, such as

GM Wants Another $27B at a Minimum: What's the Use?

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:05:22 -0500

Already did! Years ago, thanks!

On Feb 24 07:48 AM Cobra 1 wrote:

>
> That's what AMERICA WAS FOUNDED ON! I am unbelievably angry with
> clowns like you ranting about socialism, MOVE OUT!!!!!!!!!!!
>

U.S. Should Take a Lesson from Chile

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:20:14 -0500

Yet another tax rant!

What Would J. Pierpont Morgan Do?

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:18:07 -0500

Humorous.