Robert Nabloid's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/92677/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/143257/comments?source=feed#comment-549456 549456
LOL, socialized medicine works well for some services... SOME. But some services end up being rationed to the point where you are on a wait list. Plenty of people die waiting. I'd prefer not to be one of them.

To each his own.

But what I do find funny is people think socialized medicine is free. Where do you think the money comes from? The people. I pay for it. Trust me, I pay for it. Too bad I don't always get to use it. I don't like paying for things I don't use but I have no rights to opt-out... I consider half of my high taxes to be a big health insurance premium. And boy, it is big. Yes, even bigger than health insurance in the US... So I really don't get why everyone envy's us for socialized medicine. ]]> Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:45:39 -0400
LOL, socialized medicine works well for some services... SOME. But some services end up being rationed to the point where you are on a wait list. Plenty of people die waiting. I'd prefer not to be one of them.

To each his own.

But what I do find funny is people think socialized medicine is free. Where do you think the money comes from? The people. I pay for it. Trust me, I pay for it. Too bad I don't always get to use it. I don't like paying for things I don't use but I have no rights to opt-out... I consider half of my high taxes to be a big health insurance premium. And boy, it is big. Yes, even bigger than health insurance in the US... So I really don't get why everyone envy's us for socialized medicine. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/143397/comments?source=feed#comment-549452 549452
Nothing about his fiscal policies are conservative. The liberals (I hate them too) were more conservative with money under Paul Martin than the conservatives, though I have no illusions and realize they would be spending just as much or more right now if they were in power. Now every party seems to be on the spending bandwagon... I hate it.

My definition and style of conservatism is 100% fiscal... DON"T SPEND more than you earn. It's a simple formula that has worked well for my province. Unfortunately, my province is abandoning that too...

Sadly, if the left got in power, they would have to spend more money than the conservatives to prove they are more left...

I'll vote for the party that promises NO CARBON taxes and to REDUCE the budget so we are back to surplus territory. Sadly, I don't think any of the parties now satisfy that simple metric.]]> Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:28:51 -0400
Nothing about his fiscal policies are conservative. The liberals (I hate them too) were more conservative with money under Paul Martin than the conservatives, though I have no illusions and realize they would be spending just as much or more right now if they were in power. Now every party seems to be on the spending bandwagon... I hate it.

My definition and style of conservatism is 100% fiscal... DON"T SPEND more than you earn. It's a simple formula that has worked well for my province. Unfortunately, my province is abandoning that too...

Sadly, if the left got in power, they would have to spend more money than the conservatives to prove they are more left...

I'll vote for the party that promises NO CARBON taxes and to REDUCE the budget so we are back to surplus territory. Sadly, I don't think any of the parties now satisfy that simple metric.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/143045/comments?source=feed#comment-548145 548145
America is lost. It is no longer a democracy. Choosing Party A or Party B every four years isn't democracy. Sorry, it just isn't. You get an incredible choice of ... two men. And when an elected official does something that EVERYONE is outraged with, what do we do? We write letters and make phone calls. Wow. "I'm so angry, I'm going to... write a letter!" What a threat.

And then if we remember, years later we vote them out, and the next guy with almost the exact same views gets in... and things continue down the wrong path, down the dangerous path.

And what is with the MSM! What a total failure it has been to us. It's nothing more than a propaganda machine controlled by an oligarchy. And with only their point of view hitting the main stream, they are able to control the mob and put candidates of their choosing onto the fast track. When we vote, we get a choice to vote for a variety of men that are all picked by the powers that be and fast tracked by the MSM. That's not choice.

There's something to be said for education. Too bad education reform can't happen. They'll just throw more at the school system without actually fixing the design of the school system. Then they'll make sure every student is reading the government mantra and politically correct propaganda that the school system is stuffed with.

Bush and Obama have both been disasters. Most likely anyone that becomes party leader for either the Democrats or the Republicans will continue to be a disaster for the country. We need a viable third party that cares more about this country than power, corruption, greed and petty politics. If Americans would stop voting for the Democrats and Republicans in mass, perhaps a viable third or fourth (or more) parties would be born and men that are independent given a chance to do the country right. Sadly, I doubt the average MSM watching American is smart enough to know any better. We've turned the once independent hardworking America into a nation of babies that cry for government to help them or bail them out and take care of everything. And that's what we're getting. We voted for it. Not that we had much choice.]]> Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:11:29 -0400
America is lost. It is no longer a democracy. Choosing Party A or Party B every four years isn't democracy. Sorry, it just isn't. You get an incredible choice of ... two men. And when an elected official does something that EVERYONE is outraged with, what do we do? We write letters and make phone calls. Wow. "I'm so angry, I'm going to... write a letter!" What a threat.

And then if we remember, years later we vote them out, and the next guy with almost the exact same views gets in... and things continue down the wrong path, down the dangerous path.

And what is with the MSM! What a total failure it has been to us. It's nothing more than a propaganda machine controlled by an oligarchy. And with only their point of view hitting the main stream, they are able to control the mob and put candidates of their choosing onto the fast track. When we vote, we get a choice to vote for a variety of men that are all picked by the powers that be and fast tracked by the MSM. That's not choice.

There's something to be said for education. Too bad education reform can't happen. They'll just throw more at the school system without actually fixing the design of the school system. Then they'll make sure every student is reading the government mantra and politically correct propaganda that the school system is stuffed with.

Bush and Obama have both been disasters. Most likely anyone that becomes party leader for either the Democrats or the Republicans will continue to be a disaster for the country. We need a viable third party that cares more about this country than power, corruption, greed and petty politics. If Americans would stop voting for the Democrats and Republicans in mass, perhaps a viable third or fourth (or more) parties would be born and men that are independent given a chance to do the country right. Sadly, I doubt the average MSM watching American is smart enough to know any better. We've turned the once independent hardworking America into a nation of babies that cry for government to help them or bail them out and take care of everything. And that's what we're getting. We voted for it. Not that we had much choice.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/142119/comments?source=feed#comment-539895 539895
I know several people that have fought the Fed. They're wealthier than ever. They stored all their savings in gold and silver since the 1920's. What do you think that family is worth now?

If you stuck with the Fed, you went to work, earned $1/day and put $0.10 away in a savings account. You save and save and save. But in the future, the money you saved is worth almost nothing...
Example, my great grandfather had worked his whole life (as everyone does) and gave my grandmother an inheritance of about $10,000. My grandmother kept it in bonds. When she died... it was worth barely more than $10,000.... Do you know how long it took her father to earn and save that money? A life time... and his lifetime of savings can't even buy a car today. If he had put all his earnings into gold and silver as he went, my grandmother would have been wealthy, simply because the Fed is doing a one way trick with the purchasing power of the dollar. Purchasing power goes down. Period.

So the family that I spoke of, that has been putting savings into gold and silver for generations, is a very very wealthy one. Why? They know where to store wealth (besides their real estate holdings, of course). Their great grandfather who earned $1 a day or a $1 a week or whatever the wages were back then, was able to keep his buying power with the money he earned to use at a later date. Their great grandfathers buying power remains today.

The way our fiat currency is made, it helps keep us commoner's down. Why should my great great grandfathers daily pay be worth less than what it would take for me to buy a pepsi? Why should I work and work and work and save and save if my savings won't buy anything in the future? So our culture has developed a BUY IT NOW attitude. It costs less now then it will in the future, so borrow to buy it if you have to... but then we get stuck paying interest on everything and when interest spikes or a job is lost, you get wiped out and have to start from scratch...

People can bet against the Fed and win. I know some that have been doing it since the Fed came into existence........


On Jun 09 07:21 PM JasonC wrote:

>
> Fools are still fighting the Fed.
>
> The article is right and the ideologues are wrong, as usual.
>
> Don't. Fight. The Fed.
>
> Use to be every trader knew this. Now they don't, and think it is
> some grand libertarian heroism on their part. It isn't, it is just
> blind stubbornness.
>
> The hyperinflation thesis died in the summer and fall of 2008. It
> isn't coming back. Give it up already.]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:42:55 -0400
I know several people that have fought the Fed. They're wealthier than ever. They stored all their savings in gold and silver since the 1920's. What do you think that family is worth now?

If you stuck with the Fed, you went to work, earned $1/day and put $0.10 away in a savings account. You save and save and save. But in the future, the money you saved is worth almost nothing...
Example, my great grandfather had worked his whole life (as everyone does) and gave my grandmother an inheritance of about $10,000. My grandmother kept it in bonds. When she died... it was worth barely more than $10,000.... Do you know how long it took her father to earn and save that money? A life time... and his lifetime of savings can't even buy a car today. If he had put all his earnings into gold and silver as he went, my grandmother would have been wealthy, simply because the Fed is doing a one way trick with the purchasing power of the dollar. Purchasing power goes down. Period.

So the family that I spoke of, that has been putting savings into gold and silver for generations, is a very very wealthy one. Why? They know where to store wealth (besides their real estate holdings, of course). Their great grandfather who earned $1 a day or a $1 a week or whatever the wages were back then, was able to keep his buying power with the money he earned to use at a later date. Their great grandfathers buying power remains today.

The way our fiat currency is made, it helps keep us commoner's down. Why should my great great grandfathers daily pay be worth less than what it would take for me to buy a pepsi? Why should I work and work and work and save and save if my savings won't buy anything in the future? So our culture has developed a BUY IT NOW attitude. It costs less now then it will in the future, so borrow to buy it if you have to... but then we get stuck paying interest on everything and when interest spikes or a job is lost, you get wiped out and have to start from scratch...

People can bet against the Fed and win. I know some that have been doing it since the Fed came into existence........


On Jun 09 07:21 PM JasonC wrote:

>
> Fools are still fighting the Fed.
>
> The article is right and the ideologues are wrong, as usual.
>
> Don't. Fight. The Fed.
>
> Use to be every trader knew this. Now they don't, and think it is
> some grand libertarian heroism on their part. It isn't, it is just
> blind stubbornness.
>
> The hyperinflation thesis died in the summer and fall of 2008. It
> isn't coming back. Give it up already.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141851/comments?source=feed#comment-539877 539877
Yes, outsourcing would occur anyways, to take advantage of arbitrage opportunities around the globe - produce with cheap labour, sell in expensive markets... But government interference has only exacerbated the problems..

Outsourcing in moderation would be fine. It would be alright if foreign countries were outsourcing some of their jobs to the US as well. Outsourcing could work both ways. But right now we just outsource EVERYTHING. Outsourcing the entire economy is unsustainable and a major problem. We can't just consume and produce nothing forever... it doesn't work that way.


On Jun 09 09:04 PM TERN wrote:

> The populist argument against outsourcing, made by some commentators,
> is wrong.
> Outsourcing is the free (labor) market in action. It has enabled
> wealth creation in countries that otherwise would be dependent on
> aid to avoid famine.
> It has allowed companies to dramatically increase profitability,
> both on the employing and the employees side.
> The American jobs that were the first candidates for outsourcing
> were the blatantly uneconomic ones.
>
> The internet has now added an entire new dimension to outsourcing
> of jobs and will make it impossible to reverse or even slow down,
> without draconian limitations on economic freedoms.
>
> Compared to the rest of the world, Americans have been overpaid.
>
> In the longer run, wage rates will tend to a global equilibrium.
>
> Wage protectionism is self-defeating.]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:26:02 -0400
Yes, outsourcing would occur anyways, to take advantage of arbitrage opportunities around the globe - produce with cheap labour, sell in expensive markets... But government interference has only exacerbated the problems..

Outsourcing in moderation would be fine. It would be alright if foreign countries were outsourcing some of their jobs to the US as well. Outsourcing could work both ways. But right now we just outsource EVERYTHING. Outsourcing the entire economy is unsustainable and a major problem. We can't just consume and produce nothing forever... it doesn't work that way.


On Jun 09 09:04 PM TERN wrote:

> The populist argument against outsourcing, made by some commentators,
> is wrong.
> Outsourcing is the free (labor) market in action. It has enabled
> wealth creation in countries that otherwise would be dependent on
> aid to avoid famine.
> It has allowed companies to dramatically increase profitability,
> both on the employing and the employees side.
> The American jobs that were the first candidates for outsourcing
> were the blatantly uneconomic ones.
>
> The internet has now added an entire new dimension to outsourcing
> of jobs and will make it impossible to reverse or even slow down,
> without draconian limitations on economic freedoms.
>
> Compared to the rest of the world, Americans have been overpaid.
>
> In the longer run, wage rates will tend to a global equilibrium.
>
> Wage protectionism is self-defeating.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/142056/comments?source=feed#comment-539474 539474
Lately I've heard rumours that the Chinese are about ready to stop using so many US dollars.
- There is a meeting between Russia, China, India and Brazil about NOT using US dollars coming up soon.
-I heard a rumour that the Suadi Arabian King wants to be paid with gold for his oil...
- The US is continuing to print and spend beyond imagination.

What is there to be pessimistic about in terms of the future of gold? It is so bright it is blinding...


On Jun 09 12:21 PM Louis Paquette wrote:

> Frank, we missed you at the Conference in Vancouver on Sunday and
> Monday. Everyone was so pessimistic. We could have used more of your
> positive outlook.]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:02:07 -0400
Lately I've heard rumours that the Chinese are about ready to stop using so many US dollars.
- There is a meeting between Russia, China, India and Brazil about NOT using US dollars coming up soon.
-I heard a rumour that the Suadi Arabian King wants to be paid with gold for his oil...
- The US is continuing to print and spend beyond imagination.

What is there to be pessimistic about in terms of the future of gold? It is so bright it is blinding...


On Jun 09 12:21 PM Louis Paquette wrote:

> Frank, we missed you at the Conference in Vancouver on Sunday and
> Monday. Everyone was so pessimistic. We could have used more of your
> positive outlook.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141935/comments?source=feed#comment-539470 539470

On Jun 09 01:15 PM jimmy46 wrote:

> will require all computers sold in the country to contain software
> that blocks access to certain websites."""""
>
> ANYONE HAVE THIS LIST?
> IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:56:02 -0400

On Jun 09 01:15 PM jimmy46 wrote:

> will require all computers sold in the country to contain software
> that blocks access to certain websites."""""
>
> ANYONE HAVE THIS LIST?
> IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141851/comments?source=feed#comment-539442 539442 Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:34:43 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/142119/comments?source=feed#comment-539431 539431
It won't happen. The dollar is dying.]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:28:45 -0400
It won't happen. The dollar is dying.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/142124/comments?source=feed#comment-539426 539426
Buy land, gold and silver. Hold. At least they'll retain their value better than holding dollars in a bank account. The dollar is in the hospital and has been given a grim prognosis: Cancerous Tumours that are growing at an alarming rate. The dollar is dying. Some people refuse to acknowledge the obvious. It's easier for outsider's to see the dollar is dying.]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2009 17:23:09 -0400
Buy land, gold and silver. Hold. At least they'll retain their value better than holding dollars in a bank account. The dollar is in the hospital and has been given a grim prognosis: Cancerous Tumours that are growing at an alarming rate. The dollar is dying. Some people refuse to acknowledge the obvious. It's easier for outsider's to see the dollar is dying.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141922/comments?source=feed#comment-538252 538252
Hmm. Maybe he shouldn't get them to borrow more... maybe, just maybe, they should save. The only problem I see is it is hard to find something worth putting your money into... to save it properly and be hedged against inflation and market fluctuations at the same time. The system is just soo corrupt. And politics always gets involved and screws things up so investing long-term is made difficult - if they don't confiscate your gold, they'll control the gold trading market and hold it artificially low. If they don't do either of those, they'll increase taxes dramatically so any gains you get are spoken for anyways. If they don't do that, they'll devalue the currency so fast your savings weren't worth saving to begin with.]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:10:42 -0400
Hmm. Maybe he shouldn't get them to borrow more... maybe, just maybe, they should save. The only problem I see is it is hard to find something worth putting your money into... to save it properly and be hedged against inflation and market fluctuations at the same time. The system is just soo corrupt. And politics always gets involved and screws things up so investing long-term is made difficult - if they don't confiscate your gold, they'll control the gold trading market and hold it artificially low. If they don't do either of those, they'll increase taxes dramatically so any gains you get are spoken for anyways. If they don't do that, they'll devalue the currency so fast your savings weren't worth saving to begin with.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141815/comments?source=feed#comment-538241 538241
It would suck short-term for our economy to raise interest rates - but I do think it's the best in the long-term. We need to stop borrowing and living beyond our means anyhow...

The Chinese have a fine line to walk - they want to retain some semblance of value in the USD so their reserves aren't worth nothing, but they also don't mind the US economy faltering in the long-term to allow them more room to increase their sphere of influence and power in the world. But they want us to be a little stronger economically for NOW - so we can keep building their infrastructure and factories at amazing rates. The Chinese government wants the US to keep on buying Chinese goods and going into debt to do it - so we get even farther in over our heads... My bet is that China was hoping the US would "remain strong" (as in, keep on borrowing from China to buy Chinese goods at alarming rates - not that borrowing money is actually is strong, it;s an illusion...) for another 15-20 years and then begin to falter as they assumed we will with our demographics and the sickening debt levels we would have by then if we remained on our course. They would be happy with us faltering then. But not now.

This economic climate is messing up their plans with this massive acceleration of the US economy faltering a little too soon - but just a little. And our leaders are doing dumb stuff. Two leaders in a row (Bush and Obama) have acted like economic idiots and appear to be sabotaging the economy with their "plans". Either way, we're screwing ourselves for any chance at long-term success and domination and The Chinese know it. And our government wants to continue the screw-ups, and the Chinese will be glad to help - but they must walk that fine line. It is scary when our government is screwing things a little too fast for even our enemies... lol. Bush 8 years + Obama 8 years = screwed]]> Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:56:09 -0400
It would suck short-term for our economy to raise interest rates - but I do think it's the best in the long-term. We need to stop borrowing and living beyond our means anyhow...

The Chinese have a fine line to walk - they want to retain some semblance of value in the USD so their reserves aren't worth nothing, but they also don't mind the US economy faltering in the long-term to allow them more room to increase their sphere of influence and power in the world. But they want us to be a little stronger economically for NOW - so we can keep building their infrastructure and factories at amazing rates. The Chinese government wants the US to keep on buying Chinese goods and going into debt to do it - so we get even farther in over our heads... My bet is that China was hoping the US would "remain strong" (as in, keep on borrowing from China to buy Chinese goods at alarming rates - not that borrowing money is actually is strong, it;s an illusion...) for another 15-20 years and then begin to falter as they assumed we will with our demographics and the sickening debt levels we would have by then if we remained on our course. They would be happy with us faltering then. But not now.

This economic climate is messing up their plans with this massive acceleration of the US economy faltering a little too soon - but just a little. And our leaders are doing dumb stuff. Two leaders in a row (Bush and Obama) have acted like economic idiots and appear to be sabotaging the economy with their "plans". Either way, we're screwing ourselves for any chance at long-term success and domination and The Chinese know it. And our government wants to continue the screw-ups, and the Chinese will be glad to help - but they must walk that fine line. It is scary when our government is screwing things a little too fast for even our enemies... lol. Bush 8 years + Obama 8 years = screwed]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141740/comments?source=feed#comment-536167 536167
I believe he just wanted power and to make history. He was power hungry and he is now worshipped. This is the same guy that sued Citibank to FORCE them to loan MORE sub-prime to a certain ethnic community... Then when sub-prime blows up, blames the banks for making sub-prime loans. Yes, he actually SUED Citibank... MSM didn't cover that in detail...

He is a politician. Not an economist or a economic/long-term strategist. A politician. He makes promises and stands on a podium and makes big speeches. That is his job - to make people like him and vote for him. Nothing more, nothing less. Same as any President. It's just a big popularity contest and has nothing to do with the long-term success of the country. But he does have his own goals and ambitions for a more socialist America... that is obvious. Only thing is, he thinks it's a good thing and doesn't see the contradictions in the values and economic outcomes of each.

Show me a socialist country where the wealth is more evenly spread amongst everyone than capitalist America... The rich are super rich and the rest are super poor in socialist countries. At least in US we have a middle class and the wealth is spread around MUCH better... No, it's definitely not perfect, but show me a system that is better at it where things are fair based off of "you reap what you sow".

On Jun 07 05:52 PM Northstar10000 wrote:

> Questions--
> Is the Obomanator a brilliant marxist who knows exactly what he
> is doing.
> Is the Obomanator so anti american that he knows how to simply destroy
> the country by any means necessary.
> Is he a complete economic fool and really believes this insanity
> will work.]]> Sun, 07 Jun 2009 18:17:15 -0400
I believe he just wanted power and to make history. He was power hungry and he is now worshipped. This is the same guy that sued Citibank to FORCE them to loan MORE sub-prime to a certain ethnic community... Then when sub-prime blows up, blames the banks for making sub-prime loans. Yes, he actually SUED Citibank... MSM didn't cover that in detail...

He is a politician. Not an economist or a economic/long-term strategist. A politician. He makes promises and stands on a podium and makes big speeches. That is his job - to make people like him and vote for him. Nothing more, nothing less. Same as any President. It's just a big popularity contest and has nothing to do with the long-term success of the country. But he does have his own goals and ambitions for a more socialist America... that is obvious. Only thing is, he thinks it's a good thing and doesn't see the contradictions in the values and economic outcomes of each.

Show me a socialist country where the wealth is more evenly spread amongst everyone than capitalist America... The rich are super rich and the rest are super poor in socialist countries. At least in US we have a middle class and the wealth is spread around MUCH better... No, it's definitely not perfect, but show me a system that is better at it where things are fair based off of "you reap what you sow".

On Jun 07 05:52 PM Northstar10000 wrote:

> Questions--
> Is the Obomanator a brilliant marxist who knows exactly what he
> is doing.
> Is the Obomanator so anti american that he knows how to simply destroy
> the country by any means necessary.
> Is he a complete economic fool and really believes this insanity
> will work.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141740/comments?source=feed#comment-535939 535939
There is no way foreign governments don't see where this is leading. Truth be told, it is cheaper for them to continue this charade while also diversifying their assets. They can destroy much of the American super power status (which is due to our economy, not our military - how do you think we afforded our military?) by helping us weaken and destroy us economically. Wars cost a LOT of money. Helping us do what we are already doing only costs US a lot of money. While they will lose much of the value of the US assets they hold, it is nothing compared to what a war would cost them. And yes, wars can and will still happen, but boys and girls, they are waging a 21st century war by defeating our economy with economics. And we want to continue it! The worst part is our enemies must only wait another 10-15 years until we have a massive % of population that is retired and no longer contributing to our economy... What will it look like then?

Bush for 8 + Obama for 8 = screwed from both parties, both ways + boomer's retiring in mass = end of American super power status + lower standards of living while a race to the bottom occurs with wages.]]> Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:29:58 -0400
There is no way foreign governments don't see where this is leading. Truth be told, it is cheaper for them to continue this charade while also diversifying their assets. They can destroy much of the American super power status (which is due to our economy, not our military - how do you think we afforded our military?) by helping us weaken and destroy us economically. Wars cost a LOT of money. Helping us do what we are already doing only costs US a lot of money. While they will lose much of the value of the US assets they hold, it is nothing compared to what a war would cost them. And yes, wars can and will still happen, but boys and girls, they are waging a 21st century war by defeating our economy with economics. And we want to continue it! The worst part is our enemies must only wait another 10-15 years until we have a massive % of population that is retired and no longer contributing to our economy... What will it look like then?

Bush for 8 + Obama for 8 = screwed from both parties, both ways + boomer's retiring in mass = end of American super power status + lower standards of living while a race to the bottom occurs with wages.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141413/comments?source=feed#comment-533819 533819 Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:42:50 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/136514/comments?source=feed#comment-496929 496929
If I own a company that is losing $1 million a month and then I manage to slow the losses to $800,000 for one month, that still doesn't do me much good... as the owner I'm still losing money and that is still negative no matter which way you swing it.

When job losses reach 0, or we start to see positive employment numbers then there will be something to be happy about. ]]> Sat, 09 May 2009 14:59:32 -0400
If I own a company that is losing $1 million a month and then I manage to slow the losses to $800,000 for one month, that still doesn't do me much good... as the owner I'm still losing money and that is still negative no matter which way you swing it.

When job losses reach 0, or we start to see positive employment numbers then there will be something to be happy about. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/134055/comments?source=feed#comment-484450 484450
On Apr 30 01:44 AM Jasper M wrote:
> Econ Philosopher, Yeah, I noticed food went down as well, despite
> all the talk of inflation.
]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:30:02 -0400
On Apr 30 01:44 AM Jasper M wrote:
> Econ Philosopher, Yeah, I noticed food went down as well, despite
> all the talk of inflation.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/129361/comments?source=feed#comment-451196 451196
On Apr 03 11:04 AM Hedged In wrote:

> Those forecasting recovery are perhaps basing themselves on this
> amazing statistic:
>
> "The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent or
> committed $12.8T to rescue and stimulus attempts so far. That's 14
> times the $900-odd billion in circulation; almost equal to the entire
> 2008 U.S. GDP; and works out to $42,105 for every man, woman and
> child in America." (Source: seekingalpha.com/artic...)]]> Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:50:23 -0400
On Apr 03 11:04 AM Hedged In wrote:

> Those forecasting recovery are perhaps basing themselves on this
> amazing statistic:
>
> "The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent or
> committed $12.8T to rescue and stimulus attempts so far. That's 14
> times the $900-odd billion in circulation; almost equal to the entire
> 2008 U.S. GDP; and works out to $42,105 for every man, woman and
> child in America." (Source: seekingalpha.com/artic...)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128316/comments?source=feed#comment-451154 451154
The problem is that the Obama administration has NO mid to long term plan to balance the budget. They increased everything in the budget including military ( and they increased the military budget by $75.5B - Obama the warmongerer (or is it peacemaker when he does it?)). Their idea of a balanced budget is only $500B in deficits in four years. Wow. Someone needs to do some math and realize $500B in deficit is still losing MORE THAN a BILLION A DAY. We all used to think Bill Gates was rich with ~$60 B. Now we know how little $60 B truly is in the grand scheme of things.

You can't increase social benefits and balance the budget and so I actually think you must be on heroin to believe Obama will balance the budget or has any intention of doing so. He preaches about fiscal responsibility in Washington and says he will change that - then he goes and makes the biggest spending bill in the history of mankind - a bill with more than 1,000 pages, and gives them 1 HOUR to read it and says they don't have time to read it all - they must pass it immediately. Then, after they pass it without knowing what is in the fine print of those 1,000+ pages, he goes on a weekend vacation before even signing it into law... We know they were dealt a bad hand, but they sure aren't making it any better for themselves by increasing government size and promising the world to everyone. And listening to Obama preach about fiscal responsibility is like listening to a gambler speak about financial planning. It is laughable at best, and the only reason I'm laughing is because it would hurt too much to look at this situation in any other way.

Do you honestly think Obama will lay off all those new government workers he and Bush have been hiring? DO you believe he will decrease the social benefits as the population increasingly asks for more while the boomers begin retirement with just 201k's (if they are lucky) when they used to have 401k's? Obama promised social benefits, he didn't promise to cut them to balance the budget. You must be one of those people that think Obama can work miracles like increase ALL spending dramatically and balance the budget at the same time...

Besides, it isn't us that must live with this deficit. It is our children. It is them that will be taxed in the future to pay interest on the money we spend today. Their long term planning is to let the kids pay for it.

You obviously follow the Keynesian school of thought when it comes to dealing with economics and that's why you were blind to see this mess coming and why you're foolish for wanting it to continue with more debt while we go into a period where the most productive segment of the population (the boomer's) begin to retire and stop producing productively and become a drain on the entire system. We don't need more debt going into the boomer retirement cycle... that will only hurt worse in the long run.

On Apr 01 07:33 PM Promod Radhakrishnan wrote:

> Nice article..i agree we need to make a long-term move towards a
> balanced fiscal strategy and work our way up the savings ladder.
> However, the current crisis is unforeseen and of enormous proportion
> - and hence the need for seemingly counter-logical interim steps
> to pull us out of the rut before we can work on a longer term strategy.
> As long as the current administration does have a medium-to-long
> term strategy of balancing the budget, we can very well live with
> an interim fiscal deficit brunt.]]> Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:27:10 -0400
The problem is that the Obama administration has NO mid to long term plan to balance the budget. They increased everything in the budget including military ( and they increased the military budget by $75.5B - Obama the warmongerer (or is it peacemaker when he does it?)). Their idea of a balanced budget is only $500B in deficits in four years. Wow. Someone needs to do some math and realize $500B in deficit is still losing MORE THAN a BILLION A DAY. We all used to think Bill Gates was rich with ~$60 B. Now we know how little $60 B truly is in the grand scheme of things.

You can't increase social benefits and balance the budget and so I actually think you must be on heroin to believe Obama will balance the budget or has any intention of doing so. He preaches about fiscal responsibility in Washington and says he will change that - then he goes and makes the biggest spending bill in the history of mankind - a bill with more than 1,000 pages, and gives them 1 HOUR to read it and says they don't have time to read it all - they must pass it immediately. Then, after they pass it without knowing what is in the fine print of those 1,000+ pages, he goes on a weekend vacation before even signing it into law... We know they were dealt a bad hand, but they sure aren't making it any better for themselves by increasing government size and promising the world to everyone. And listening to Obama preach about fiscal responsibility is like listening to a gambler speak about financial planning. It is laughable at best, and the only reason I'm laughing is because it would hurt too much to look at this situation in any other way.

Do you honestly think Obama will lay off all those new government workers he and Bush have been hiring? DO you believe he will decrease the social benefits as the population increasingly asks for more while the boomers begin retirement with just 201k's (if they are lucky) when they used to have 401k's? Obama promised social benefits, he didn't promise to cut them to balance the budget. You must be one of those people that think Obama can work miracles like increase ALL spending dramatically and balance the budget at the same time...

Besides, it isn't us that must live with this deficit. It is our children. It is them that will be taxed in the future to pay interest on the money we spend today. Their long term planning is to let the kids pay for it.

You obviously follow the Keynesian school of thought when it comes to dealing with economics and that's why you were blind to see this mess coming and why you're foolish for wanting it to continue with more debt while we go into a period where the most productive segment of the population (the boomer's) begin to retire and stop producing productively and become a drain on the entire system. We don't need more debt going into the boomer retirement cycle... that will only hurt worse in the long run.

On Apr 01 07:33 PM Promod Radhakrishnan wrote:

> Nice article..i agree we need to make a long-term move towards a
> balanced fiscal strategy and work our way up the savings ladder.
> However, the current crisis is unforeseen and of enormous proportion
> - and hence the need for seemingly counter-logical interim steps
> to pull us out of the rut before we can work on a longer term strategy.
> As long as the current administration does have a medium-to-long
> term strategy of balancing the budget, we can very well live with
> an interim fiscal deficit brunt.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/122797/comments?source=feed#comment-405260 405260
Eight more years of this crazy fiscal irresponsibility is scaring more people than its helping. We already had a bad eight year run - and now we are almost guaranteed to turn it into a bad 16 year run. I don't know if the US can take another bad eight years of social spending and big government - Look at what a toll the first eight did! The saying used to be "Uncle Sam Needs You!" Now? "Uncle Sam Owns You! (and your house, car, land, 401k's, children, pets, dollars, gun, job, etc)"

We are a broke nation who's main economic driving force will quickly be retiring (or they would be retiring if they could afford it!) and requiring medical services in a unprecedented scale. It's about time we realize demographics plays a huge role in all of this. You can't spend your way to economic prosperity with debt dollars or every third world nation would be prosperous beyond belief by now. Trust me on this, it didn't work for anyone else. I've never seen a single country or business use this model and succeed. America is following the typical and easy route that most drug users take - When it starts to feel bad, do more until it feels good again - but eventually you OD.

It helps that America has the world currency and can print it out of thin air (something the rest can only dream of) - but the world won't continue to buy them dollars forever if this continues. The dollar is not stable.

America is lost and headed down a dangerous path which leads to death. We must find our way back to fiscal responsibility, regardless of which party is in power. It's not a political thing - it's an economic and money thing. Besides, I think most of us can agree, Washington has centralized far too much power in its hands and it hasn't done a whole lot of good. Our rights are being infringed upon and a nanny state is emerging from which we all beg for crumbs. I'd be in favour of bringing more power back to the individual states and the individual citizen. This patient will be terminal if this continues for too long - and the scary part is we don't know how long is too long. Maybe it's already too late? ]]> Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:39:44 -0500
Eight more years of this crazy fiscal irresponsibility is scaring more people than its helping. We already had a bad eight year run - and now we are almost guaranteed to turn it into a bad 16 year run. I don't know if the US can take another bad eight years of social spending and big government - Look at what a toll the first eight did! The saying used to be "Uncle Sam Needs You!" Now? "Uncle Sam Owns You! (and your house, car, land, 401k's, children, pets, dollars, gun, job, etc)"

We are a broke nation who's main economic driving force will quickly be retiring (or they would be retiring if they could afford it!) and requiring medical services in a unprecedented scale. It's about time we realize demographics plays a huge role in all of this. You can't spend your way to economic prosperity with debt dollars or every third world nation would be prosperous beyond belief by now. Trust me on this, it didn't work for anyone else. I've never seen a single country or business use this model and succeed. America is following the typical and easy route that most drug users take - When it starts to feel bad, do more until it feels good again - but eventually you OD.

It helps that America has the world currency and can print it out of thin air (something the rest can only dream of) - but the world won't continue to buy them dollars forever if this continues. The dollar is not stable.

America is lost and headed down a dangerous path which leads to death. We must find our way back to fiscal responsibility, regardless of which party is in power. It's not a political thing - it's an economic and money thing. Besides, I think most of us can agree, Washington has centralized far too much power in its hands and it hasn't done a whole lot of good. Our rights are being infringed upon and a nanny state is emerging from which we all beg for crumbs. I'd be in favour of bringing more power back to the individual states and the individual citizen. This patient will be terminal if this continues for too long - and the scary part is we don't know how long is too long. Maybe it's already too late? ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/122634/comments?source=feed#comment-405234 405234
How often does #4 not occur?

#5 can last a while...

#6 is one of the major problems, not a solution!

#7 is another major problem.

It was funny how quickly America has transformed itself to manipulate all markets with the full power of the government.]]> Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:10:16 -0500
How often does #4 not occur?

#5 can last a while...

#6 is one of the major problems, not a solution!

#7 is another major problem.

It was funny how quickly America has transformed itself to manipulate all markets with the full power of the government.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/122205/comments?source=feed#comment-403569 403569
From the beginning I've been trying to say it's fine if you want certain services (like socialized health care) from the government... but it has to be done in a fiscally responsible way, period. That means Obama has to be honest and tell the American people where the money is coming from to pay for it. If that means raising taxes, then be honest and tell us. Please don't recite the class warfare stuff of "we'll tax the rich to pay for it". It will require taxes to increase for everyone. You can't be fiscally responsible until you find a way to balance the budget and stop printing money out of thin air or taking on more debt. End of story.

It seems like too many people want too many things but nobody wants to pay for them. You can't just have the services and not pay for them. Taking on more debt and printing more money are not options that will last forever and they are not sustainable or healthy.

What it all boils down to is this: Obama is not fiscally responsible - neither was Bush. When Obama finds a way to balance the budget with spending cuts or massive increases in taxes or a combination of both, then he will earn the title fiscally responsible. If America balances the budgets, I'll be the first person to say Obama is fiscally responsible. Until that day there is just no way to call him fiscally responsible while he promises people more services without any solid plan to pay for it. Projecting smaller deficits (that are still large) is not fiscal responsibility.


On Feb 25 04:26 PM bosun.j wrote:

> 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.]]> Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:45:50 -0500
From the beginning I've been trying to say it's fine if you want certain services (like socialized health care) from the government... but it has to be done in a fiscally responsible way, period. That means Obama has to be honest and tell the American people where the money is coming from to pay for it. If that means raising taxes, then be honest and tell us. Please don't recite the class warfare stuff of "we'll tax the rich to pay for it". It will require taxes to increase for everyone. You can't be fiscally responsible until you find a way to balance the budget and stop printing money out of thin air or taking on more debt. End of story.

It seems like too many people want too many things but nobody wants to pay for them. You can't just have the services and not pay for them. Taking on more debt and printing more money are not options that will last forever and they are not sustainable or healthy.

What it all boils down to is this: Obama is not fiscally responsible - neither was Bush. When Obama finds a way to balance the budget with spending cuts or massive increases in taxes or a combination of both, then he will earn the title fiscally responsible. If America balances the budgets, I'll be the first person to say Obama is fiscally responsible. Until that day there is just no way to call him fiscally responsible while he promises people more services without any solid plan to pay for it. Projecting smaller deficits (that are still large) is not fiscal responsibility.


On Feb 25 04:26 PM bosun.j wrote:

> 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.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/122205/comments?source=feed#comment-403498 403498
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.


On Feb 25 03:27 PM bosun.j wrote:

> 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?]]> Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:52:48 -0500
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.


On Feb 25 03:27 PM bosun.j wrote:

> 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?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/122205/comments?source=feed#comment-403457 403457
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. I honestly don't care - if that's what you want - go for it. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Even the poor who get health coverage for free here end up paying - economically.


On Feb 25 03:03 PM bosun.j wrote:

> 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!]]> Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:16:37 -0500
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. I honestly don't care - if that's what you want - go for it. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Even the poor who get health coverage for free here end up paying - economically.


On Feb 25 03:03 PM bosun.j wrote:

> 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!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/122205/comments?source=feed#comment-403426 403426
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...



On Feb 25 02:19 PM bosun.j wrote:

> 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!]]> Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:48:54 -0500
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...



On Feb 25 02:19 PM bosun.j wrote:

> 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!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/122205/comments?source=feed#comment-403368 403368
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.


On Feb 25 01:42 PM bosun.j wrote:

> 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!!!!
>
> ]]> Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:09:49 -0500
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.


On Feb 25 01:42 PM bosun.j wrote:

> 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!!!!
>
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/122205/comments?source=feed#comment-403289 403289
It's one thing for you to believe his stimulus bills will save the economy (it won't - that is our job)... it's a whole different ball game to credit the man who passes such a stimulus bill without giving time (he used fear to rush things through) for anyone to read it first as the saviour of fiscal responsibility... You complain that Washington is fiscally irresponsible and then give the man who rushed a bill on unprecedented spending through without letting anyone read it as the saviour of fiscal responsibility in Washington. You want them to be fiscally responsible? Then let them read and contemplate the bill for a few days at the minimum!!! It's the same thing as calling Bush the saviour of fiscal responsibility... which he obviously wasn't and let's be honest, Obama isn't either. Let's have SOME honesty please. I don't think Obama's a bad man and I think on a personal level he's a nice guy. He, like all politicians, uses rhetoric to promise all things to all people - except people believe him.

Just a few days ago he was in Canada telling them not to worry about NAFTA or their auto industry and that he wouldn't become protectionist - so in other words, Canadian steel and automobiles will continue to flow down. Now he talks about how he wants to keep jobs and auto manufacturing within the US from now on and rebuild America... That stance is certainly fine, but why tell a country that exports 80% of its vehicles to the US not to worry and then make those comments? He tells people what they want to hear. He was going to change NAFTA - then he says he won't to the Canadian Prime Minister - while at the same time in a speech a few days later he implies that he will change it... I don't care if he does change it - just tell us the straight truth and stop the flip flopping. Uncertainty at this time is not helping matters...

Obama doesn't even know where the automobile was invented... He said the nation that invented the automobile can't walk away from it now... He clearly doesn't know that the internal combustion engine and automobile was a German invention - not American. But hey, the man's brilliant and is a genius, he can do no wrong... I didn't like Bush, and the man couldn't seem to do anything right, but my God, Obama can't seem to do anything wrong in so many people's eyes. Criticism can be a healthy thing, but the second anyone criticizes the man a bunch of his "believers" scold you and laugh you off as a redneck racist hillbilly neocon without even knowing anything about you.

How about we stop this fear mongering and give our representatives some time to read the stimulus bill before shoving it down their throats Mr. Obama? Maybe the bill is good (I doubt it) but at least give them time to read it before signing it - isn't that part of the reason so many got into the sub-prime mess? (They didn't read the contract before signing it!)

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... ]]> Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:28:33 -0500
It's one thing for you to believe his stimulus bills will save the economy (it won't - that is our job)... it's a whole different ball game to credit the man who passes such a stimulus bill without giving time (he used fear to rush things through) for anyone to read it first as the saviour of fiscal responsibility... You complain that Washington is fiscally irresponsible and then give the man who rushed a bill on unprecedented spending through without letting anyone read it as the saviour of fiscal responsibility in Washington. You want them to be fiscally responsible? Then let them read and contemplate the bill for a few days at the minimum!!! It's the same thing as calling Bush the saviour of fiscal responsibility... which he obviously wasn't and let's be honest, Obama isn't either. Let's have SOME honesty please. I don't think Obama's a bad man and I think on a personal level he's a nice guy. He, like all politicians, uses rhetoric to promise all things to all people - except people believe him.

Just a few days ago he was in Canada telling them not to worry about NAFTA or their auto industry and that he wouldn't become protectionist - so in other words, Canadian steel and automobiles will continue to flow down. Now he talks about how he wants to keep jobs and auto manufacturing within the US from now on and rebuild America... That stance is certainly fine, but why tell a country that exports 80% of its vehicles to the US not to worry and then make those comments? He tells people what they want to hear. He was going to change NAFTA - then he says he won't to the Canadian Prime Minister - while at the same time in a speech a few days later he implies that he will change it... I don't care if he does change it - just tell us the straight truth and stop the flip flopping. Uncertainty at this time is not helping matters...

Obama doesn't even know where the automobile was invented... He said the nation that invented the automobile can't walk away from it now... He clearly doesn't know that the internal combustion engine and automobile was a German invention - not American. But hey, the man's brilliant and is a genius, he can do no wrong... I didn't like Bush, and the man couldn't seem to do anything right, but my God, Obama can't seem to do anything wrong in so many people's eyes. Criticism can be a healthy thing, but the second anyone criticizes the man a bunch of his "believers" scold you and laugh you off as a redneck racist hillbilly neocon without even knowing anything about you.

How about we stop this fear mongering and give our representatives some time to read the stimulus bill before shoving it down their throats Mr. Obama? Maybe the bill is good (I doubt it) but at least give them time to read it before signing it - isn't that part of the reason so many got into the sub-prime mess? (They didn't read the contract before signing it!)

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... ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/120863/comments?source=feed#comment-393024 393024
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for politicians to become fiscally responsible in a society that wants more and more social programs... good luck convincing them to cut back on social programs!! The dollar will continue to devalue itself and the politicians just won't increase the budget quick enough if they don't have access to the dough and no one wants to buy it in such large quantities.

You can run, but you can't hide. Economics can't be cheated over the long term.]]> Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:31:03 -0500
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for politicians to become fiscally responsible in a society that wants more and more social programs... good luck convincing them to cut back on social programs!! The dollar will continue to devalue itself and the politicians just won't increase the budget quick enough if they don't have access to the dough and no one wants to buy it in such large quantities.

You can run, but you can't hide. Economics can't be cheated over the long term.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/116494/comments?source=feed#comment-369231 369231
Constructe, I must agree, recessions are made worse by government intervention and in some cases they wouldn't have occurred had there been no government/Fed Reserve intervention in the first place. I also agree, the Fed and Treasury can't even fathom asking that question of themselves... They are a detriment to our economy.... but who among us can eliminate them from interfering? Certainly not the man of "change" who puts in place the same old same old... some of them are new faces but they all come from the same school of thought. It's a sham to call it change. Yes, there will be some changes, duh... but it's still government on the road to getting bigger and interfering more in our day to day lives. Sad, really.]]> Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:35:50 -0500
Constructe, I must agree, recessions are made worse by government intervention and in some cases they wouldn't have occurred had there been no government/Fed Reserve intervention in the first place. I also agree, the Fed and Treasury can't even fathom asking that question of themselves... They are a detriment to our economy.... but who among us can eliminate them from interfering? Certainly not the man of "change" who puts in place the same old same old... some of them are new faces but they all come from the same school of thought. It's a sham to call it change. Yes, there will be some changes, duh... but it's still government on the road to getting bigger and interfering more in our day to day lives. Sad, really.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/111671/comments?source=feed#comment-337259 337259
Regardless, Yahoo has great sites that are extremely sticky. Yahoo was the first real search engine (in my opinion) that was good on the Internet. I've used it for almost a decade and I still go back to it. Do I use Yahoo search? Yup. I also use google. But I love Yahoo's news on the front page and their finance site is awesome... They have so many things going for them... To say they are a dying company is ridiculous. Dying companies aren't profitable and debt free... yes, they made errors and made less profit - but they still made money.]]> Wed, 24 Dec 2008 00:41:24 -0500
Regardless, Yahoo has great sites that are extremely sticky. Yahoo was the first real search engine (in my opinion) that was good on the Internet. I've used it for almost a decade and I still go back to it. Do I use Yahoo search? Yup. I also use google. But I love Yahoo's news on the front page and their finance site is awesome... They have so many things going for them... To say they are a dying company is ridiculous. Dying companies aren't profitable and debt free... yes, they made errors and made less profit - but they still made money.]]>