Quote :

"You know this is a fallacy. You make an argument and it must be true unless someone disproves it? Come on."

not at all. I showed HOW the bubble was created. and you have yet to refute that. asking you to refute what I have said is NOT disingenuous.

Quote :

"The tech bubble? Dutch Tulip bubble?"

clearly you missed the word "almost" that came right before "all." The herd behaviour, even though it is not gov't caused, is pushed in a given direction by gov't action. Durrr

Quote :

"Where?"

read, motherfucker.

Quote :

"Then how do you explain all of the bubbles that happened before the establishment of the Fed?"

maybe because the fed isn't the only gov't entity that affects the economy?

Quote :

"Isn't it just as likely that the government didn't have the right money set aside to handle all of those in a more structured manner yet"

but it just happened to have the money ready five minutes later in order for JP Morgan to make the big purchase? you can't honestly be arguing that







oh, by the way, how about those guys forgetting to put something in the bill that would make sure kids weren't denied coverage for having pre-existing conditions? i mean, even our own dear Supplanter pointed out how the bill covered kids in that situation. WOOPS! maybe they should have, you know, READ THE FUCKING BILL before they voted on it.

3/25/2010 8:03:55 PM

Quote :

"not at all. I showed HOW the bubble was created. and you have yet to refute that. asking you to refute what I have said is NOT disingenuous."

You showed one theory albeit a stupid one. I've explained how by not having accurate rating systems, risky mortgages were able to be sold at the price of safe mortgages, encouraging risky investments far more than just having the fed rate a bit low did. If the fed rate is low, more mortgages will be offered, they won't be proportionally any more risky. Our bubble was one of RISKY mortgages, not all mortgages, and you seem to have missed that.

Quote :

"clearly you missed the word "almost" that came right before "all.""

So by "almost all" you mean "one". What a great backpedal.

Quote :

"maybe because the fed isn't the only gov't entity that affects the economy?"

So then by that logic the government couldn't have caused the bubble alone, could it?

Quote :

"oh, by the way, how about those guys forgetting to put something in the bill that would make sure kids weren't denied coverage for having pre-existing conditions?"

You do realize that is an argument for the EXPANSION of the bill, don't you?

3/25/2010 8:30:49 PM

the 10% tanning bed tax is RACIST!

3/25/2010 8:35:30 PM

I hate white people

3/25/2010 8:36:06 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/11_predictions_for_the_health-.html

3/25/2010 8:43:44 PM

Quote :

"Isn't it just as likely that the government didn't have the right money set aside to handle all of those in a more structured manner yet. If what you are saying is true, and the government had some secret list of favorite companies, why did they set up a fair system for companies to get money later? "

So they didn't have the money set aside to bail out Bear Stearns directly, but they somehow had the money available to lend JP Morgan so that they could buy up Bear Stearns? Even though for the week or so up until that point they had been telling Bear Stearns they would be bailed out?

As for secret lists, there's no secret here:
Hank Paulson - ex-ceo goldman sachs, secretary of treasury during bail out
Stephen Friedman - ex-coo and chairman goldman sachs, head of NY Fed Reserve during bailout
James Dimon - current CEO / chairman JP Morgan class A director of NY Fed Reserve , board member NY Fed Reserve and CEO of JP Morgan during bail out.
Neel Kashkari - ex vp goldman sachs, special assistant to secretary of treasury (Paulson) / over saw TARP during bailout

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover/print (a bit over the top, but follows the money)

3/25/2010 10:51:34 PM

I just have to doubt these kind of conspiracies, I just don't think someone could get away with it nowadays.

3/26/2010 12:10:18 AM

Well, they did get away with it. But it's not even a conspiracy, it's just simple human nature. People look out for their own, and the people who had the power and were in charge of directing the bailout were all ex goldman sachs / jp morgan types, which means they were more familiar with, and more comfortable with (and to be honest, probably had a better dialogue with) GS / JP Morgan than the other banks, so when it came time to dole out government money, the people they knew and liked best got the best deals.

It's the whole reason I'm such a huge fan of small, limited government; Because I'm not at all surprised about special deals and favoritism from government to business. I expect it as it is 100% human nature. A limited government, without the power to do these things however, means that special deals can't be cut.

[Edited on March 26, 2010 at 8:13 AM. Reason : dsaf]

3/26/2010 8:12:57 AM

Quote :

"A limited government, without the power to do these things however, means that special deals can't be cut"

A fantastic post like this gives me hope that the Wolf-web is not completely lost to liberals.

3/26/2010 11:05:37 AM

Quote :

"I just have to doubt these kind of conspiracies, I just don't think someone could get away with it nowadays."

What is it with communists, everything is a conspiracy. Kris, it does not require a conspiracy to do what we are suggesting. No money changed hands, no one was bought off, nothing of the sort. It does not require an evil overlord in the back room to get someone to implement policies that favor their close friends and colleagues.

3/26/2010 2:47:01 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100326/ap_on_hi_te/us_tec_at_t_health_care;_ylt=AoQLm2Qm1x5.EI_2vPwOaqRH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTNjcTVvMTM0BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMzI2L3VzX3RlY19hdF90X2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDNQRwb3MDNQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2F0dHdpbGx0YWtlMQ--

The health care bill is cutting benefits already. Way to go Obama!

3/26/2010 3:27:33 PM

can we fuck over America on healthcare? YES WE CAN!

3/26/2010 3:53:28 PM

ok, so AT&Fail overreacts, and it's the holocaust already?

3/26/2010 3:54:34 PM

Wait until people with employer provided health care start getting reduced benefits. The democrats are fucked. So much for the promise we can keep our current plan.

3/26/2010 3:54:38 PM

^4 more big companies as well, and many others have expressed the possibility of doing this in the future. What happened to the cost of health benefits costing http://townhall.com/blog/g/3cec9326-b847-4ee0-b704-67e11748e88c 3000% less for employers?

3/26/2010 3:56:06 PM

What's new, the quality of employer provided insurance has been going down for years while the cost to the employee has been rising for years.

This isn't new, this isn't really Obama's fault. This is the way things have been trending for the last 5-10 years and Obama's just given them a new excuse to continue the trend.

3/26/2010 3:59:15 PM

but but but Obama said employers cost would be lower by %3000. It's his fault he lied.

3/26/2010 4:00:36 PM

Who said he lied? Who said he lied and the employers aren't currently lying?

Who said they aren't both lying?

3/26/2010 4:01:51 PM

^Lol 3000% doesnt make any fucking sense. He lied. Unless employers are getting paid 30 times what they were paying for benefits, he lied.

3/26/2010 4:07:04 PM

People are being fucked by their employers over health benefits. So what else is new? AT&T is hardly a model corporate citizen. Using them to justify opposition to the health care bill makes as much sense as using a desk fan to freeze your TV dinner.

3/26/2010 4:14:16 PM

God fucking damn it people, I swear I'm going to make you understand this if it kills me.

The only reason employers provide health benefits is because of the tax code. The tax code can be changed, it would solve a ton of our health care problems. We have a third party payer system. That's very bad and it drives up prices. Please, please get educated on this. It's just not just some fringe libertarian bullshit I'm dreaming up here.

After doing a google search on it, this is a pretty good article to read: http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/blog/unshackling-health-care-change-tax-code

[Edited on March 26, 2010 at 4:24 PM. Reason : ]

3/26/2010 4:21:29 PM

^I agree. There is no reason for your employer to provide health care. It would give people more of an individual voice/more competition if employers didnt provide it.

3/26/2010 4:38:17 PM

RAWR RAWR RAWR!!!!

HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES SUCK AND ARE EVIL!!!!

*passes bill forcing everyone into health insurance*

3/26/2010 4:41:06 PM

And the powers that be seem to agree. "the family getting the health exchange policy would receive a total subsidy of $17,400, while the family receiving employer-based insurance would receive a total subsidy of $4,143."
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Health-Insurance-Exchange-Subsidies-Create-Inequities.pdf

3/26/2010 4:43:46 PM

Quote :

"But it's not even a conspiracy, it's just simple human nature. People look out for their own"

So now it's human nature that we look out for others? I've always heard it's stated that human nature is to look out for one's self, which in this case would argue that since they would suffer if it were found out that they were acting unfairly, they would look out for their own interests. I guess human nature can be whatever fits your argument best at the time.

Quote :

"What is it with communists, everything is a conspiracy."

When have I argued conspiracies?

Quote :

"No money changed hands, no one was bought off, nothing of the sort. It does not require an evil overlord in the back room to get someone to implement policies that favor their close friends and colleagues."

That is a conspiracy. The location of the room does not dictate whether or not something is a conspiracy.

Quote :

"The only reason employers provide health benefits is because of the tax code. The tax code can be changed, it would solve a ton of our health care problems. We have a third party payer system. That's very bad and it drives up prices. Please, please get educated on this. It's just not just some fringe libertarian bullshit I'm dreaming up here."

Most people who have done any research about the healthcare system know about this already. The difficulty is in getting it passed. There was enough opposition to the rather small bill he put forward.

3/26/2010 5:18:36 PM

You are arguing this is a conspiracy. Hence your obsession with conspiracy.

Quote :

"That is a conspiracy. The location of the room does not dictate whether or not something is a conspiracy."

Quote the dictionary: "Conspiracy is the secret planning by a group of people to do something illegal."
Nothing they did was illegal. Also, it was all above board, everything they did was done out in the open, so there was no secret. They went on TV and said they were bailing out AIG to secure its creditors, of which it was no secret GS was owed a lot of money by AIG. Also, as I and others have said, we don't even believe Goldman Sachs asked for help, so there was no "planning by a group of people".

And as is quite obvious by your own position on this issue, most people don't even believe this was unfair treatment to bail out their friends. Not to mention, most of them managed to get jobs in the next administration, so it seems there were no costs whatsoever to themselves by doing this.

And only you could believe someone would kill their mother to secure the last slice of pizza. Humans tend to care, about others and themselves. This is not illogical. Someone can be greedy in one instance then endlessly selfless in the next in accordance with their free will.

3/26/2010 5:50:37 PM

Quote :

"Also, it was all above board, everything they did was done out in the open, so there was no secret."

When the bailouts were announced, we didn't hear that they were done to specific companies because of whatever sinister reason you are claiming, thus it was secret.

Quote :

"so there was no "planning by a group of people""

Then the entire bailout was established by one person alone?

Quote :

"And only you could believe someone would kill their mother to secure the last slice of pizza."

You're not talking about someone's mother, you're talking about their former employer. I doubt many people would risk their position, money, respect, and freedom for a former employer.

3/26/2010 6:00:37 PM

Quote :

"Then the entire bailout was established by one person alone?"

I believe his name was Hank Paulson. Might need to check my notes.

Quote :

"You're not talking about someone's mother, you're talking about their former employer. I doubt many people would risk their position, money, respect, and freedom for a former employer."

And as I said, they risked none of these things. Not even you see anything wrong with what they did. How could they have?

Quote :

"When the bailouts were announced, we didn't hear that they were done to specific companies because of whatever sinister reason you are claiming,"

I did. I heard about it before the AIG bailout occurred. This story was in a friggin' econtalk podcast within a month. I no longer understand what you are arguing. Is it really your position that they bailed out AIG without realizing that doing so was in the interest of their friends and coworkers? If so, then they would, and apparently you, have been the only people caught unawares.

3/26/2010 11:29:33 PM

Kris, stick to telling us all about how the Republicans are filibustering in the house, dude

3/28/2010 8:00:34 PM

Quote :

"I believe his name was Hank Paulson. Might need to check my notes."

I'll bet he had some meetings, and they probably weren't by himself.

Quote :

"And as I said, they risked none of these things."

Sure they did, if what you were saying is true, then people would probably be pretty upset. I would, but this conspiracy doesn't have enough evidence, a motive isn't enough, hell it's not even a decent motive.

3/28/2010 8:44:21 PM

people are upset. just not enough to make a difference

3/28/2010 9:50:38 PM

Well, there are these things called elections which are won by getting more of your people to vote than other people...

3/28/2010 9:53:54 PM

what do you mean your people

3/28/2010 10:08:58 PM

angry white conservative males?

3/28/2010 10:10:54 PM

3/28/2010 10:14:30 PM

I wonder how quickly this bill will get to SCOTUS. All that has to happen is someone refuse to buy health insurance, and then refuse to pay the fine, on the basis that it's unconstitutional to force someone into the health insurance market (hint: it is). I hope that the Supreme Court will not once again be derelict in their duties to uphold the constitution.

3/29/2010 12:59:34 PM

Quote :

"All that has to happen is someone refuse to buy health insurance, and then refuse to pay the fine"

I, and at least a dozen people I know have already pledged to do exactly this.
In fact, I've heard of polls where 1 in 5 respondents said they would also do this.

I mean, holy god damn fuck!
How in the bloody hell can congress even think for a second that it's okay to force everyone to purchase an optional business service?

[Edited on March 29, 2010 at 1:36 PM. Reason : ]

3/29/2010 1:35:49 PM

Quote :

"How in the bloody hell can congress even think for a second that it's okay to force everyone to purchase an optional business service? "

you cant consider it optional when congress also forces hospitals to care for emergency patients
If everyone gets emergency care, which a lot of times is used for primary care, then everyone should be forced to have insurance
or we could repeal the emergency care act and let people die on the street if they dont have insurance

both options are not very attractive, so stop whining and come up with a better solution

3/29/2010 1:43:47 PM

Quote :

"I, and at least a dozen people I know have already pledged to do exactly this. In fact, I've heard of polls where 1 in 5 respondents said they would also do this. I mean, holy god damn fuck! How in the bloody hell can congress even think for a second that it's okay to force everyone to purchase an optional business service? "

I have no problem with people who do not want to get health insurance. My only stipulation is that hospital's should be allowed to throw patients back on the street. If you make enough, not qualifying for Medicaid, and you choose to forego health insurnace (given the new legislation to make it more "affordable") than you are doing Darwin a favor when you flip your pickup truck and need emergency care.

3/29/2010 1:51:58 PM

the only weird thing is if 80% of americans have health insurance, most of the rest cant afford, and those who cant afford it are exempt from a fine, then the mandate is not really going to affect most people

so why the big fuss from the Tea Party, and why even implement this controversial plan from obama

it doesnt make much sense either way but i do see the technical necessity, but considering it benefit to controversy ratio, it doesnt seem worth it

3/29/2010 2:02:00 PM

^^ - Not that I don't agree with your point, in theory, but that is a position that cannot be reasonably enforced. The guy who flips the truck and needs emergency care may or may not have insurance, and there is no way to tell.

If this thread is back to actually being a Healthcare Thread again, I want to see if anyone has a good answer to this question: In x years, when this bill actually does create 30something million newly insured people, people who will be seeking health care services in a much different manner than they do now, who is going to provide these services for them?

3/29/2010 2:28:44 PM

Oh, no ... Now we are in real trouble ... As a result of all this the GOP has decided to stop working together on bipartisan solutions. That will bring the government to a standstill ...

3/29/2010 6:48:12 PM

Quote :

"My only stipulation is that hospital's should be allowed to throw patients back on the street. If you make enough, not qualifying for Medicaid, and you choose to forego health insurnace (given the new legislation to make it more "affordable") than you are doing Darwin a favor when you flip your pickup truck and need emergency care."

Yeah, if I've got a pole through my chest, that's what I'd want them to start checking my financial history and insurance information. They shouldn't start treating me until they're sure they're getting paid!

3/29/2010 6:57:18 PM

it's not at all possible that people would spurn hospitals that didn't give emergency care to whoever, is it? nope, gotta codify that into law, so that we can then expand upon the definition of emergency care.

you got a pole sticking out of your chest? That's emergency care. You got a cold? That aint. A hospital that doesn't help you with that pole would be quickly out of business.

3/29/2010 7:00:19 PM

Quote :

"it's not at all possible that people would spurn hospitals that didn't give emergency care to whoever"

They might, but I don't really get to choose where I get hurt, besides that there may not be more than one hospital in the town. Most likely hospitals that gave out possibly free care would not be able to compete with those who didn't.

Quote :

"A hospital that doesn't help you with that pole would be quickly out of business."

I'd rather them be held criminally responsible, which is nothing less than they would deserve.

3/29/2010 7:07:05 PM

Quote :

"it's not at all possible that people would spurn hospitals that didn't give emergency care to whoever, is it?"

we're talking about health care, not ordering a pizza. jesus tap-dancing. it's not like the hospital can give you a "free x-ray scan with the purchase of another" coupon if they accidentally let you die the first go-around.

3/29/2010 7:25:34 PM

or you can accept that you owe someone payment when services are rendered. seems like a pretty fucking simple idea to me. They have the choice to help you, though.

3/29/2010 7:39:17 PM

Quote :

"or you can accept that you owe someone payment when services are rendered."

Oh shit, just like it is now!

Quote :

"They have the choice to help you, though."

I think you already see the problems with that

3/29/2010 7:52:48 PM

I see no problem with what that would bring. Some hospitals would be charitable and help. Hell, most, in not all, would. And those that didn't would be ostracized. And in areas where there was only one hospital, you better believe that there would be massive ostracism in society of any bastard hospital administrator that didn't help out his "neighbor." All of that is much better than the highly immoral act of demanding someone's services with no plan ever to pay them

Quote :

"Oh shit, just like it is now!"

only, not. you can choose not to pay them with absolutely no harm to yourself

[Edited on March 29, 2010 at 7:57 PM. Reason : ]

3/29/2010 7:56:54 PM

so your solution to the healthcare debate........is charitable hospitals?

[Edited on March 29, 2010 at 9:35 PM. Reason : that's not to mention the people who would die in an effort to distinguish one hospital from another]

3/29/2010 9:19:01 PM