As you all probably know, I lean on the conservative side of things. That does not mean that I agree with everything that comes out on Fox News. That also doesn't mean that I disagree with everything on MSNBC and NBC news.
With that said, I can't believe the administration is continuing it's march to diminish Fox News as a news organization. This is EXTREMELY dangerous for any politician or group. Does anyone remember Richard Nixon? He went up against the media and look what happened to him. Of course, he was caught up in a huge scandal (not the media's fault) but trying to bash/marginalize the media just quickened his demise. If you look a little deeper there are a few parallels: economic woes and unpopular war, for example. Nixon hated all media equally for many years, although there was no FOX News back then.
I thought it was just a few rouge individuals who were going to hang themselves out on this one, but when David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel joined in yesterday I just couldn't believe it. They need to let this go and get on with the important business of running the government.
In a free society, you just have to deal with things like this. You know, like I have to deal with GJ! :)
oh you asked for it...can't wait to hear what the liberal giant has to say :P
GJ said about 3 hours later
The liberal giant, indeed. As Steve will testify, I'm more conservative than probably anyone else in the family on several financial management / business issues, but at the same time I support the concepts of welfare / social justice, equal rights for every dang human, right of a woman to choose, and several other left wing planks. So of course, that makes me a liberal. Whatever.
That said, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and CNN are all pathetic excuses for news.
Fox, like it or not, is the mouthpiece of the right wing of the Republican Party. If you can't see this, you're blind. There is one voice of reason on Fox (and the only one I watch on Fox), and his name is Shepard Smith. The rest of them are unabashedly biased--but then again, half of what passes for news on Fox is entertainment. Glen Beck, anyone? Sean Hannity? I could go on an on. As for news reporting, see what I have to say about CNN. They're guilty of the same sins.
CNBC whorships (yes, that's a intentional pun, folks) at the altar of the financial gods. They continually portray the false images that the market can be timed and played (it cannot), that certain financial managers are very talented and that's why their returns are so good at the moment (which is total BS), and basically plays up Wall Street like it's the damn most important thing in the world. They have a very one-dimensional view of the economy, and frankly most of what they report on pretty much useless. Kind of like Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.
MSNBC--these doofuses are kind of like the liberal equivalent of Fox. There is at least a little good programming on--as liberal as she is, Rachel Maddow is a great interviewer and actually respectful of her guests. Olbermann is a blowhard, not quite as bad as Beck but my leftist tendencies are probably coloring my opinion. As for their news reporting, look to what I have to say about CNN, as the same holds here.
CNN--these guys were the first real 24/7 news organization. You know what? We don't need 24 hours of news--there isn't that much going on that you can fill a day, at least not enough to justify ratings. So, instead, they invent BREAKING NEWS and URGENT BROADCASTS and beat them to a pulp. Remember Balloon Boy? Michael Jackson's death? Any pretty white girl gone missing? It's not that these guys are liberal, it's more that they're just a bunch of no-nothing talking heads who jump on any old thing that might be great tabloid material, dress it up in fancy graphics, and endlessly rehash minimal details and expand on them illogically.
News in this country absolutely sucks--it's turned very much into an entertainment venue, and the value of news they deliver today is almost non-existent. It's a waste of my time, but more importantly, what values is this teaching to our kids?
So, you ask, where do I get my news? Mostly internet (AP news feeds), print (The Economist and the Wall Street Journal), and the John Stewart show. Before you laugh at that last one, give me a second. Yes, he's got a liberal bent, and yes, it's a comedy show, but I have news for you: he covers news items that are fairly important, yet the big news channels don't bother with. Add to that he does interviews with fairly interesting people and asks some pretty good questions. It's pretty ironic that I go to an ENTERTAINMENT show and find more news there than on a NEWS PROGRAM. That's not just ironic, it's sad.
However, as much I find that Fox News is a joke, I agree with Eric that this effort by the Obama administration to go after Fox is ill advised. I know they're trying to win in the court of public opinion, but they need to face up to the fact that a significant portion of the population is both crazy and die hard (insert right or left wing here as appropriate) and will eat up whatever crap Fox, CNN, MSNBC or even CNBC claims as fact without any real evidence, no matter how outrageous. Those people will never be swayed--concentrate on the swing voters, people who actually think about political issues rather than just repeat sound bytes they've heard, and get them on board your programs. Or (Obama, are you listening?), put together a program that will fix the health care problem, not simply expand on the mistakes of the past.
Geoff said about 5 hours later
conservative business issues? GJ? Now this I have to hear. Throwing money into welfare programs is about as distant from "conservative" values as the nearest star is from Earth. Now, the term conservative has quite a few meanings, so perhaps you have a different interpretation than I, but I'd be curious to know some of these "conservative" issues you fall in line with. :)
GJ said about 5 hours later
"Throwing money into welfare programs" is a typical sound byte from a wannabe conservative. You have a well-known aversion to welfare, big hairy deal. You also fail to recognize the need for any kind of welfare, and would rather live in a dystopian Ayn Rand world. Enjoy.
Conservative? Here you go. No corporate welfare. Bailing out the domestic automakers and then going on to practically buy GM was STUPID, and the GOP were the "conservatives" who came up with this. Let the economics of the day determine which industries live and which die.
Taxes have a purpose. Keep them as low as possible to prevent starving the economy, but don't cut them recklessly for political points. Balance the budget, and stop floating huge deficits and claiming that "it's the way business gets done in Washington." Cut all programs as needed to achieve this--share the pain, from the military to education to health/human services. It's this pain that will definitely show government which programs have the most value by their absence and ramp up of problems. Use those findings to set future budgeting priorities.
Welfare, yes, let's talk welfare. Purpose--to alleviate suffering of the unfortunate. For the younger crowd--help educate those who slipped through the cracks in our education system--try to enable them to become productive citizens, and become as self-sufficient as possible. For the older crowd--we have lots more of them floating around now that the average lifespan of people have gone up so much. We should be prepared to help feed, clothe and house them if we value life so very much, since not everyone had the smarts or the opportunity to save for their old age. Certainly, you can't give them a life of luxury, but do you turn them out in the street? Yeah, I know Geoff would. But the country as a whole doesn't think that way, which is how the welfare systems have survived so long.
I won't claim for a second that there is no fraud, nor that it's not a significant drain on the money we pour into these programs. That doesn't mean we just shut off welfare, either.
Back to conservative ideas:
The Constitution is not a joke. Acts to circumvent it outside of lawfully prescribed methods of changing it should be dealt with harshly (Bush/Cheney and their Patriot Act, I'm looking at you).
Foreign policy: we need to be much less focuses on spreading democracy and far more focuses on spreading human rights. Keep a potent fighting force, but greatly scale back our nuclear arms. Look to encourage free trade as much as possible, and avoid forming trade treaties that give unreasonable terms for either party.
Revise the tax code--but keep the idea that the more money you make, the more the government takes. Get rid of all the goofy exemptions, etc. Pursue tax dodgers aggressively.
See, I'm not quite a full-bore liberal. More like a left leaning moderate. Until you get me talking about the religious right. :)
Geoff said about 6 hours later
I never said eliminate welfare, it needs to be far more strict however. I've always believed the majority of welfare goes to the least contributing citizens. I don't believe in encouraging or providing for these people. It serves the country no good. I Would like to see some statistics as to how much welfare has increased over the years...in both availability and the number of people participating. It appears to be growing...not good. I'll have to do some research.
At what point should the hard workers stop working hard if their effort pays the effortless? The current economy is a great example. Tried to hire an intern and she refused (laid off, on government pay) because she was being paid more by the government. Right there, it goes to show that the program itself encourages fraud and abuse. I don't blame her...she can make more money doing nothing. And to boot, they've lengthened benefits yet again. Woohoo!
GJ said about 7 hours later
Or is it an indictment of how much you offered to pay the intern? :)
Geoff said about 8 hours later
$12/hr to answer phone calls??? (and we only get maybe a dozen or so calls a day) I'd say that is far greater than flipping burgers for $8/hr. Thats a little over $2000 a month...not horrible pay compared to making $0/month.
While that doesn't pay as well as her original job, it was a temporary job while she looked. In that regard, she could have reported the income, had reduced government benefits (thus saving tax payers money) and still make enough to survive...well maybe not the American way, but you could eat food and live someplace for $25k/year. It's a lousy system as Dad has come to find out. It needs fixing.
Lets hope the economy continues up as the stock market appears to be doing. This country needs all the money we can get.
GJ said about 11 hours later
Yep, I'd agree there's a lot to fix. Hey, we agree on something. :)
The market recovery--don't bet it will last. There are more storms brewing on the horizon that should erupt in the next six months or so. I'm not sure we even saw bottom, unfortunately, but only time will tell.
Geoff said about 12 hours later
Ok we need more people to jump in and argue...GJ and I can only beat each other up so much...however enjoyable it may be.
Any takers? :P
Eric said about 20 hours later
Well, the discussion took an amazing turn that has nothing to do with what I originally wrote.
News organizations will continue to exist. Everyone has an opinion, I don't care who you are or what news organization you are with. It is going to be present in your news reporting. Some are left-leaning and some are right-leaning. Some more than others. None are completely in the center and it's dangerous for the administration to tell the American people that CNN and ABC are acceptable news organizations but not FOX news. Sounds like something Hugo Chavez might have said before he took control of the media in Venezuela.
For their sake, they better back down or there's going to be a huge backlash. FOX personalities are in a feeding frenzy over this. And they have a HUGE following. It doesn't matter how crazy you think they are.
I knew this would happen if I opened up the political floodgates, but I just couldn't stop myself. This is my biggest concern with government. Tax the crap out of me. Take away this, make me do that. But don't tell me what to think. You say FOX news is not a news organization, you are basically saying that their opinion is wrong. IT'S NOT WRONG. IT'S A DIFFERENT OPINION. And that's okay in the US. Or it used to be.
Eric said about 21 hours later
Oh and Rachel Maddow? No offense but she is one of the most annoying personalities in news as far as I'm concerned. I don't agree with a single thing that comes out of her mouth. Just my opinion.
Eric said 1 day later
On the other items (since we're talking about them):
No Bailouts! (agree with GJ)
Low Taxes, Cut Spending, Balance Budget (agree with GJ)
Welfare - necessary, especially for disabled (physically and mentally) and for those caught in situations that are no fault of their own (layoffs, accidents, etc.) I kind of agree with GJ, but I agree with Geoff somewhat too. Tough because it's mostly a state issue, not federal. Or should be. Fed keep out!
Constitution is the law of the land. (agree with GJ)
Foreign Policy - kind of agree with GJ. Don't spread democracy, but strongly encourage free societies. Free societies will foster better human rights (although it may take considerable time.) Free trade? Won't happen. Fair trade needs to happen. Charge same fees they charge for imports. Seems fair to me.
Revise Tax Code - Absolutely. Flat tax. Done deal. Russia did it. The government takes in a ton more cash than it did before and everyone's on the same playing field. Seems fair to me.
In general, the Fed needs to back way off. This is the UNITED STATES. Our government was founded on principles that protect States rights. That has worked very well in the short time it has been our nations backbone. Yes, the Federal government has a purpose in many aspects of our lives. However, there are many things going on right now (like Health Care ding ding ding!) that are State responsibility, not Fed. The reason why so many other countries have so much government control is because THEY DON'T HAVE STATES! Their Fed IS the only government! In the US, the States hold the greatest amount of government control - or should. If you don't agree with this, than you better take a look at the Constitution again. Especially with this Health Care bill looming, I cannot believe this is not the major arguement on the airwaves. I think it's absolutely important to have proper health care (notice I didn't say health insurance) for everyone. But it is the State's responsibility to enact it, not the Fed.
Geoff said 1 day later
I couldn't agree more...and probably more reason for me to get the hell out of NY since they would be the first to pass any health legislature reform. This state's taxes are so ludicrous, not to mention my town! In the past 2 years my monthly mortgage has increased by $140/month due to taxes (I've got a fixed loan). 13% increase...damn town! And don't get me started on what it costs to provide health care to our employees. Anyone in need of an international website? There are on sale this week!
GJ said 1 day later
Flat tax has some serious flaws. I'm not going to go into them right now, but there's a reason why the billionaires like this one a lot. :)
States rights are overblown. The reason why we have so much government it because of duplicate government functions at the state and federal level. The Constitution favors state rights over federal, but the federal government (both conservatives and liberals) have moved a lot of the onus onto the federal level. We're also a player on the world stage far greater than the writers of the Constitution ever imagined. Due to that, we pretty much need a strong federal government, lest we simply break up the union and effectively become 50 independent countries.
I find it endlessly amusing that those that want the strongest military and most aggressive foreign policies often are the strongest proponents of state's rights. The two aren't overly compatible.
Early on in the country's history, most of the laws on the books were state based. However, left to their own devices, states maintained slavery, and the feds intervened. Left to their own devices, states allowed factories to exploit children, and the feds intervened. Again, left to their own devices, some states encouraged and expanded segregation and Jim Crow laws, and the feds again intervened. Was the fed out of line? My bet is, you can find a whole lot of conservatives who think the fed overstepped their authority in each instance. You may or may not agree. You can probably guess where I fall on that scale, being the big bad liberal.
So, there is a lot precedent for the feds acting on health care. However, the fed is really good at screwing this sort of thing up. From what I can tell, they aren't so much screwing this one up as they are pretty much not making any meaningful changes. Costs will not be contained, maybe 50% of the uninsured will now have some coverage, and taxes will go up. That's not a solution in my book. Obama has the power to ram home real change here, but it would take courage, since the mainline Dems don't really want the hard choices fixes and neither does the GOP (the "don't touch our seniors" party).
Speaking of NY taxes, they are indeed high. Quite a bit of that is waste, but we also carry way more services than many other states and spend a whole lot on education so our kids get smart and move out of state. :)
Geoff said 1 day later
Guess I missed that class :)
Eric said 1 day later
The rest of us got that one! Not that Michigan's the best place to be right now.
Needless-to-say, the vast majority of people in this country agree on 90% (give or take) of everything. It's that last 10% that fires everyone up!
I don't know how ending slavery or imposing child labor laws gives precedent for giving people "affordable" health insurance. If that's true precedent, than what isn't? Oh, and did you see who the group is that is significantly increasing their support of the public option? Seniors! Why in the world would seniors support a public option? They already have a public health plan, duh!
Marc said 2 days later
Eric keeps mentioning things should be done at the state level and not fed. I agree. To be honest though, it seems like the media and possibly even the state representatives are constantly pushing the federal government to take action. Maybe it's just down here in NC, but the state level representatives don't seem to do much of anything other than escalate things up to the feds. What's the cause of that problem and how do we fix that? While the president and federal government are supposed to protect our rights and constitution, they can't be expected to get everyone's opinion, that's why we have this representative based government.
And don't tell me the way to fix it is to get involved in politics. I'm paying these people's salaries so I don't have to bicker about this kind of stuff all day. :)
GJ said 2 days later
OK, Eric, I'll spell out the precedent for you. The Fed intervenes when the States fail to act. The States have a history of failing to act. Since health care is the domain of the state (according to you, and for the most part, that's correct), you claim the feds should butt out.
Why is that? Because the states are doing such a bang-up job of managing health care? Ding ding. They're not. Why do you think we're having all this fun? Because, frankly, medical spending is bankrupting the federal and state govenments, bankrupting employers, and not doing a very good job of keeping the population as a whole healthy. So, that's why the Fed is taking this on.
So rather than play this game of "hey, hands off, this is a state issue" how about we play "hey, stop playing around here and make some real changes to this stupid system that both saves on cost but ensures basic coverage for all." That would seem to be the more productive of the two, imho.
Sorry, Marc, but if you check out and leave the governing to the politicians, you get the lovely corruption we have today. Accountability is what keeps these morons in check.
Eric said 3 days later
I'm going to sound like a republican jack@$$ now, but here goes.
Medicare is out of control. Social Security is out of control. Those need to be fixed. They need to propose some solutions, pick the most viable ones and run with it. And not add to the deficit.
Everyone in America (citizen or not) can get the health care they need 24 hours a day. Yes, there are problems with that. I understand. We pay the cost of the uninsured. Too bad. That's one of the things we need to deal with until the government gets their costs under control. Do people get turned away? Not often, since it's illegal. Do we need to enforce this and make sure everyone is treated fairly? Absolutely. And notice above that I said "need." If you look at your health insurance policy there are a ton of things covered that you don't necessarily need. But everyone should have access to care that is needed to keep them healthy and cares for them in emergency situations. Does that mean they need an insurance policy? Not necessarily.
GJ, you yourself said we need to sacrifice. You said the government needs to get spending under control and be fiscally responsible. I don't see the bailouts, stimulus package, cash for clunkers, climate bill, or health care bill as being fiscally responsible. The only one I even have any support for (small as it may be) is the health care issue. Only because I agree that every needs to have access to quality health care. So do the minimum right now to make sure that everyone has that - they don't need insurance necessarily, and they don't need to be on Medicare+. Then, once govermnent spending is under control, fiscally responsible decisions can be made to come up with a health care system that is fully funded within the federal (or state) budget.
I think you have to agree that the current bill won't solve all the issues and will increase spending dramatically. Look at Massachusetts. Everyone is covered by insurance by their employer or by a state insurance program. Spending is out of control. Sure it gave everyone insurance. But now they are looking at scaling back the program and reducing or eliminating services to try to get the costs under control. Why would the federal plan be any different? Because it can be funded from wasteful spending within the Medicare system? Please. Based on past performance, the federal government will be lucky to keep Medicare spending at the current level. Let alone the fact that the number of people joining the ranks of Medicare over the next 10 years is going to skyrocket.
Do I still think the Fed should butt out? Absolutely, for now. There was not enough money to run the government during the Bush Administration, which was a nightmare. The spending now is unfathomable. I don't know how anyone in their right mind can think at this rate the country will every recover, financially. Prove me wrong. Maybe the Fed is buying lottery tickets. It better be one big windfall.
Geoff said 3 days later
Now if we had just elected Ron Paul we could be rid of the Federal Government and put some money in our pocket :)
-ANONYMOUS UNITED
GJ had posted a very good article awhile back that I thought had a very good approach to health care. I'd encourage any of you who didn't take a look at it to read it. Treat health insurance like car insurance. Car insurance doesn't cover oil changes or tire rotation...and health insurance shouldn't cover our regular check ups...it should cover the unexpected and costly procedures. This would obviously reduce costs and put more money in our pocket to decide when we REALLY need to go to the doctors. It's quite a bit more detailed than this, but just to give you an idea. It's a good read.
GJ said 3 days later
Actually, you came off sounding pretty reasonable. I don't agree with you in many places, but you sound a hell of a lot more reasonable than what I hear on Fox News. :)
Medicare/Social Security: agreed. Probably need a serious redefinition of the mission, and almost certainly a reduction in benefits. Probably going to be impossible to do without a grandfather clause that doesn't affect existing retirees, and then affects others closer to retirement on some kind of sliding benefit scale. This one will require a huge amount of political capital to pull off.
Health care: No, everyone cannot get the health care they need 24/7/365. Don't have insurance? You pay more than double than what the insurance companies pay, and medical care is expensive. Darcy was in the hospital for a week back in 1994 prior to us having insurance. That cost us $18,000. A freaking bottle of glucose was $400---four hundred dollars for a liter of SUGAR WATER!! Our yearly income was $24,000 at that time. Yeah, that was affordable--and we ended up getting NYS welfare to help us out. Had we not had that option, we would have been thrown into bankruptcy immediately. Had the hospital known that welfare was available to folks like us, they would have turned us away. Yeah, that's not health care for everyone, that's healthcare for the insured and the wealthy. Thus, the health care debate isn't just about money.
Sacrifice--yes, we do. We have grown accustomed to too much medical care--we spend far too much on expanding the lives of very sick people, and far too little on preventative care and health education. We need to move the health system to a system of competition, where you pay for results, not work done (like legions of testing, as a prime example of waste).
I would agree that the plan being proposed today will do the following:
* not be economically responsible
* not cover everyone, but drop the number of non-covered folks by half
* cost so much in political capital that we won't dare to touch this again for another ten years
* and in the end, we will end up making the same mistakes that Massachusetts made.
However, the idea of having the fed "butt out" is simplistic. They're already in the game, in the form of Medicare. Are you saying they should just drop Medicare and let the states pick up the responsibility? I don't profess to know the state of Michigan's finances, but New York is running an sweet deficit right now too. They're also not exactly the bastion of efficiency, either--so all we're doing it moving the costs to the states. For richer states (NY is one of these), it may be hard, but they can probably pull it off and replicate the crappy federal solution. For poorer states, (WV is one of these), you can pretty much write off that health care, since they don't have the resources and rely more heavily on the fed to make it.
So, no, the answer really isn't "dump it on the states" so much as it is "cut costs, cut benefits, cut corruption and inefficiency." It's also "change the game." The insurance model in this country has to go buh-bye, and instead we should look at turning medical care into any other consumer-driven industry. That's a very difficult thing to do, but necessary in order to provide cost containment going forward. So, how do we get that done?
Geoff said 3 days later
We simply can't. Too much damn money in the medical/pharma industry. Their political pull is mighty and unless we get someone with the balls to give them the finger and actually revolt against the system, nothing is going to change dramatically. Band-aids on a leaking damn is all this is. We'll continue down this road until it gets so bad people get so fed up they actually DO something about it...and by DO I don't mean Talk, I mean Molotov Cocktail. REAL change requires some significant action. Not that I encourage violence, but that is usually a common catalyst for change.
GJ said 3 days later
You think the medical and pharmaceutical companies are the only players here? How about the insurance companies? How about all the retirees? They vote a whole lot more than people your age do, and their elected reps pay attention to THEM as a result. So those elected reps won't touch Medicare or Social Security. See how this game works? You want change, you can effect it--by encouraging your generation to participate in government, rather than just complain about it or make dangerous seditious statements.
Keep drinking that Kool Aid. If you believe that the only true mechanism for change is violence, you obviously don't believe in the American Experiment. Since you don't think this form of government works, what form would you suggest? A hint--dictatorships are very good at getting things done, and quickly.
Geoff said 3 days later
Kool Aid...sure sure. The old fogies out number us young folks so there isn't much we can do but watch our money burn under the current scheme of things. I voted. I've emailed my reps. Got any other suggestions?
GJ said 3 days later
Kill a few old fogies?
Marc said 3 days later
What did we learn? Violence brings change! :)
GJ said 3 days later
Oh, it does. Just often, not the change originally envisioned, and typically at great cost. But, as the grand history of the human race has shown, we resort to it rather depressingly frequently, and I have little doubt we'll do it again someday even here in the States.
I'll be the first to admit that MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is easily just over the top, btw. Funniest clip about him had to be the Ben Affleck sketch of him on SNL, though.
So there's this debate about healthcare going on--and as usual, politics of the day means that most people don't really know the details, so instead they make up facts and argue for/against those. Take one example here from the Investor's Business Daily...claiming that, among other things, the system of healthcare in the U.K. is so bad that someone like Stephen J. Hawking, the brilliant wheelchair bound scientist, would not have had a chance to survive in such a system. Good thing he didn't grow up there, huh?
Except that he did. And lives there to this day. Well, you know what they say--don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!
"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," he told us. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."
Fox News Channel has been on a rampage over the past year to demonize Amsterdam as Hell on Earth (tm). See, Amsterdam is very liberal, and very agnostic. They don't outlaw pot, nor do they criminalize prostitution, and, egads, they allow people to off themselves in a nice, peaceful manner if they don't feel like experiencing terminal cancer in person to the end. All of this is against Fox News' version of morality, so obviously, they need to portray Amsterdam in the proper light so that it doesn't occur here. I mean, it's their moral duty!
Apparently, at least one resident of Amsterdam doesn't take kindly to this slander:
Let me note that the biggest perpetrator of this nonsense is none other than Bill O'Reilly. Take Bill O, Glen B, Sean H, and a few others out of the picture and Fox would come off as simply somewhat conservative (nowhere near fair and balanced).
Steve said 4 days later
Hence the reason I despise Fox News above all others. I have more respect for the National Inquirer, at least they have fun with their lies....
GJ said 4 days later
:) Very true, but I find the Weekly World News even more creative. Bat Boy, anyone?
I think I know the Republicans strategy...smear themselves so much, that the Republican party becomes completely ridiculous, then some of the "smarter" republicans will start a new party in the hopes of rebuilding the republican political beliefs and this country (seems like a good tag line). There has to be some logical explanation for how ridiculous many of them are acting.
An Easily Understandable Explanation of Derivative Markets:
Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit. She realizes that virtually all of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer afford to patronize her bar. To solve this problem, she comes up with new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later.
She keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans).
Word gets around about Heidi's "drink now, pay later" marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi's bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in Detroit.
By providing her customers' freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages. Consequently, Heidi's gross sales volume increases massively.
A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes that these customer debts constitute valuable future assets and increases Heidi's borrowing limit. He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral.
At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert traders transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then bundled and traded on international security markets. Naive investors don't really understand (and/or this info is withheld from them) that the securities being sold to them as AAA secured bonds are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics.
Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb, and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation's leading brokerage houses.
One day, even though the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi's bar. He so informs Heidi.
Heidi then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed alcoholics they cannot pay back their drinking debts. Since, Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and the eleven employees lose their jobs.
Overnight, DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS drop in price by 90%. The collapsed bond asset value destroys the banks liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community.
The suppliers of Heidi's bar had granted her generous payment extensions and had invested their firms' pension funds in the various BOND securities. They find they are now faced with having to write off her bad debt and with losing over 90% of the presumed value of the bonds. Her wine supplier also claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers.
Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multi-billion dollar no-strings attached cash infusion from the Government. The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed, middle-class, non-drinkers.
I wish tax paying was more like investing. It'd be nice to allot my tax dollars to specific places I feel deserve/need it. This was good little article Kristen, I knew what was coming, but sometimes it's almost comical to read through the whole process.
GJ said about 12 hours later
I'm guessing Drew has a slightly different take on derivatives? :)
Kristen said 1 day later
I'm not sure, but he at least probably knows what one is. LOL
I'd like to see some statistics of how effective Canada and UK's government health care is really like, and how well that would transfer to our country...seeing how we are much much larger, and probably less heatlhy (that's just a guess by the way). I found it quite surprising to hear that Medicare is MORE efficient than private insurance. Last time I dealt with them it was a joke. Applying for it was like a crash course in Nuclear physics, and then telling those folks we no longer needed their services was less enjoyable than pulling teeth from a walrus. There is no doubt that our current system is terrible. I'm not sure our current government as it exists today is willing and able to handle such a government program cost effectively.
I think having equal insurance coverage for everyone is a great thing, we simply can't afford it unless we put some numerical value on life. Good luck getting that passed through congress. I'm sure what we'll see is just an expanded Medicare program at this point. I don't see much progress at this stage, especially with the economy in the crapper. We probably wont see any significant legislature for a few more years.
GJ said 1 day later
Numerical value on life--interesting point. I've brought that up before. Doing that IS required to do the whole health care thing, and the conservatives will go bananas. The alternative, of course, is not going this route, and seeing far more human suffering than should really be happening, which drives liberals bananas.
As soon as you put a value on life, you have to deny certain expensive treatments that only prolong life a brief period, because, as the argument goes, the cost outweighs the benefit. As soon as you do that, however, why bother treating anyone who is retired and poor? They don't pay much if anything in taxes, and do not directly contribute to the bottom line, so we could be justified in cutting them off from health care, right? I'm not claiming that's what you're saying--I'm just outlining the conservative argument, which is quite valid.
If we don't do this--if we keep making this a profit-driven private industry, who is really the benefactor? It's not the patients, by the very definition of the business. It's the shareholders. And guess what? Those pesky private insurers have a dirty little secret--they put a value on life, too, and they like to deny all sorts of expensive treatments. Don't think so? Come down with a nasty form of cancer that kills you slowly but definitely if left untreated; the treatments grant you an extra 10-20 years of life, but it's expensive and is continuous. Bingo--watch your insurer refuse to cover that treatment as "experimental," or better yet, drop you all together. It's kind of just like the "socialist" solution, but it's even more evil--simply because these decision are made not to break even, but to produce a profit. This, then, is the liberal argument, and I think it is stronger of the two.
Geoff said 1 day later
What is the liberal solution? As you've indicated, putting a numerical value on life will inherently justify not paying for the poor and retired. There is no way we can afford universal health care for everyone unless we reduce the quality of care or tax the living hell out of the middle class.
So, my next question, should everyone be entitled to health care? The liberals say yes, but haven't really offered a solution that wouldn't bankrupt us.
I say no. Everyone is not entitled to health care. A: We can't afford it. B: Since we can't afford it, why should we reduce the quality of care for upstanding US citizens so we can care for illegal aliens, the government leeches (and there are plenty of them out there), and don't forget, the poor.
Cruel? Very. I don't see the financial or evolutionary benefit of perpetuating those members of this species who simply can't, or are unwilling to contribute to society. Handicap folks, they get treated so long as they contribute or had contributed, veterans for example. Perhaps we need some kind of measure of contribution to society. Taxes, well that is obvious. For those who can't pay taxes, what are they to do? Charity work perhaps, or government work. God knows how many roads and bridges need a fixing.
If you think everyone is entitled to quality health care without limitations, by all means please tell me how we are actually going to implement it. I'm trying to live in reality, and reality tells me some folks get the short end of the stick. We call this survival of the fittest.
Unless we as a society drastically change how we live, true, universal health care ain't gonna happen. And if it does, it won't last long. Just no way to sustain it at this point.
There, I succumbed to the Ron Paul agenda. Come get some (I'm really a nice guy, I swear ;)
GJ said 1 day later
You do need to look up the straw man fallacy, Geoff. Your response is full of them. I'll return with some ad hominems later. :)
Geoff said 1 day later
I just presented a better question and answered it from my perspective. We've already determined that universal health care requires a numerical value on life in order to work (and a lot of money)....but that doesn't mean we should incorporate it. That is why I asked the question, should everyone be entitled to health care?
See, if everyone is entitled to health care, that technically means you can't limit health care covereage. And we know, universal health care can't promise that. So basically, it was a trap for those liberals who say everyone is entitled to health care, but their plan doesn't promise it.
Marc said 1 day later
I'm not sure what the correct approach is, but I do get the feeling our country is jumping into this full steam ahead without letting the majority of the people know the huge ramifications this will have on society. This is similar to social security, only with the ending being a lot worse. When social security runs out of money and the people paying into it won't see any benefit (read: us), it's just going to simply die or be completely overhauled. But with health care, the only way to stay afloat is to reduce quality of care or everybody goes flat broke. Even with the stats from Canada and UK, I don't think it's a good indicator of what will go on in this country. Saying something like "well if Canada can do it, we sure could," or any comparison similar to that is flat our wrong. Like Geoff said, our country is much larger than the UK and Canada combined. On top of that, we have many other problems they typically don't. Immigration, unemployment, overwhelming desire to go into large and expensive wars every 5-10 years (and then be stuck in the countries for another 20), etc.
Perhaps a different approach needs to be taken, where general health care like primary care doctors and basic prescriptions is handled by a universal health care, but you need to pay the premium to get the more expensive services. I'm not overly against the measurement Geoff proposed as a method for getting premium services, except it would need to be modified. We can't go based solely on tax contributions because some people just flat out can't make what others do, but may be contributing more to society in some people's eyes. Look at teachers, they get paid crap and influence our children. An entry level engineer position usually pays out twice what a teacher makes and while their work is important, they certainly aren't entitled more health care. Perhaps general tax contribution gets you general health care, but the additional percentage of your salary you add on top, gives you a percentage higher quality of health care.
Unfortunately, I think there's far too many people who play the system and who will play this system. Knowing that makes it hard to convince me that my tax dollars are going to hard working people who need help and can't always afford it. If I could be guaranteed that, heck yea I'll sign up. Maybe we should go to a system where people have to present their case to a jury of their peers and not a government run administration. Then based on how well they present their case and why they need a specific expensive procedure, we vote Live or Die. Seems fitting for a country built on those very words.
Geoff said 2 days later
However we slice it, something needs to change. The rising costs of private health care will soon make it impossible for individuals and small business to provide coverage for employees. We've had to cut down on our plan because of the rate hikes (and even switched plans). And with employment so high, more and more folks are going to be on government plans. An expanded government role could persuade private insurance firms to provide coverage that is more affordable. Should we create some kind of "universal health care", it would be something we have the choice to participate in, including businesses. If the government can actually provide quality care at a reasonable rate, the insurance firms would have to change. I think this is the likely direction we are heading, and probably the most realistic solution.
GJ said 2 days later
There you go. This is something the government needs to take over. However, it won't be a "everyone gets everything they want/need" but rather "everyone is entitled to free basic care, and the heavy duty stuff is subject to maybe extra cost which the patient gets to pay." It's not fair, but it's more fair that what we have today. It costs more, maybe, especially since we'd put the medical insurance business just about out of business (that's XXX more people dumped back into the unemployment line).
Is it socialized medicine? Yep, you betcha. It won't turn us into the USSR, though. I think most of us can live with a more equitable health solution.
Geoff said 2 days later
It's like pot, it leads to "other" things. What comes after socialized medicine ;) hehehe
GJ said 3 days later
You're beginning to win the fallacy of the day award. Guess what that one's called? Yup, the slippery slope fallacy.
Something will come after socialized medicine. Why not look to Canada and Great Britain to see what happened there, rather than insinuate without evidence?
If we don't like where things went in those two countries, then we modify our implementation of such to try to shape the outcome a bit differently. It doesn't mean we turn into Cuba as a result.
I honestly thought that the sensible folks in the GOP (national level) would shout down the morons that have the microphone for the conservative movement in the United States. I figured that the Dems wiping the GOP off the map in the last election would give these decent folks them the upper hand.
Instead, the looney asylum at the GOP has run wild. Ask the common party member, and they can't really give you a cohesive answer as to who the voice of the party is. Worse, they are energizing the fringe far right wing--the gun-toting survivalists, the neo-nazis, the militant anti-abortionists are all louder than ever. FoxNews, mouthpiece of crazy-central, is happy to whip them up in a frenzy.
Crazy religious people are scary. They're the folks that make the best violence--because they believe they are divinely inspired, and will be rewarded in heaven. There is no denying that the fringe-right is heavily populated with religious crazies, and Fox News is happy to push them along.
What, then, to make of these, found on the FoxNation website recently:
Maybe it's a conincidence that they're pointing images of guns at prominent blacks. I really doubt it.
Exhibit B: constant referral to late term abortionist as baby killer, bringer of baby genocide, etc. Then posting HIS ADDRESS. ON THE AIR. What did they expect to see happen?
Last week, George Tiller was gunned down by a crazy anti-abortionist. But the fun didn't stop there.
This week,Holocaust denier James Von Braunn kills a security guard on his way into probably trying to kill a whole lot more people at the Holocaust Museum in Washington.
So, this prompts some reactions from the loonies in power:
Rush Limbaugh: "(James Von Brunn) has more in common with the marchers and protesters we see at left-wing rallies."
Harry Binswager (Ayn Rand Institute): "How did it happen that you look at people that are Nazis and you say that those are right-wing? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever!"
Wow, the crazy is strong in those two.
So, Shep Smith, the lone voice of reason on Fox, starts tearing into the loonies that write into Fox. He reads several of them on the air, and explains that encouraging this sort of thing is, well, DANGEROUS. Imagine what response he got for this.
Rush Limbaugh on Shep: he is "whining and moaning"
Pamela Geller: accused Smith of 'scary stupidity' and being a 'pompous elitist,' before arguing, 'Shep sucks. And Shep has always sucked, and it's time to get rid of the deadwood.... He has got to go.'
So, rather than toning down the rhetoric, instead, we get the "it's the liberal's fault" line. Again. And the loony faithful just keep eating it up.
The liberal left have some fairly "interesting" media moguls as well, but they do not appear to incite violence. Perhaps they're a more benign form of crazy? I dunno, but I fear this summer will see a whole lot more unfortunate politically based violence before it comes to a head. And that's just our "home-grown" terrorists!
I expect a lively discussion in the comments. :) Don't disappoint me!
I saw the YouTube video of Shep Smith on Fox and couldn't believe it was Fox News. It was all the rage on digg.com and they expected him to be fired any time now. :)
Fox News is like watching high school students gossip. While CNN isn't even close to how crazy they are at Fox News, I've seen them have similar ridiculous discussions. We're in very dangerous times when crazy people are watching these crazy news stations and taking things at face value, or on the opposite end, other crazies are getting attached to the "everyday journalist" (read: blogger) and reading those at face value. Sometimes I feel like I should just step back and let them shoot each other.
GJ said about 7 hours later
Nah, Fox won't get rid of Shep. They can hold him up and say, "see, we're not 100% crackpots."
Eric said 1 day later
Oh, boy. You've been watching to much NBC (Neurotic Bonehead Coalition)!
I'll be honest - I think everyone's crazy! The mainly liberal media (with the obvious exception of Fox News), the administration (spend, Spend, SPEND!), every feakin' politician that opens his/her mouth, the whole dang world! What the heck is going on? You can't blame it all on the GOP, although I agree there are crazies popping up all over the place.
You look at Fox News, and it's just the polar-opposite of MSNBC! It unbelievable! These people are taking pot shots at each other over the airwaves! I have never seen such outrageous behavior on either side. Why ARE we taking sides anyway! We are supposed to be one country of Americans, but these idiots are spliting the nation apart.
I say we forget all this nonsense and get back to the arguement that really needs settled:
Tastes Great! Less Filling!
Geoff said 1 day later
hahahaha
Eric said 1 day later
By the way, those images you posted above are obvious in intent and completely wrong. People are always entitled to their opinion, but it's against the law to make death threats (and that goes for SEIU and ACORN, too!)
GJ said 1 day later
Yeah, death threats seem to be a fixture on the far right lunatic fringe. The far left has a few that do this as well (Animal Liberation Front is a good example) but you generally don't see their ideals being championed by the mouthpieces of the left.
Steve said 1 day later
You guys actually pay attention to Fox news and Rush Limbaugh? I have to admit, I don't watch much news anymore, and certainly not Fox news (not even the local Fox station). If I watch the news, I'll watch a Lansing station, as they aren't nearly as annoying as Detroit stations are. Sure, the anchors aren't quite as polished - but who cares, they at least tell of news I care about, and don't seem anywheres near as one sided.
GJ said 1 day later
No, actually, I don't watch much in the way of news. Most of my news comes from BBC America, the AP news wire, Wall Street Journal, and the Economist. With Tiller's death, I did a little checking around to see what Fox's response was knowing their history with him. Little surprise that instead of apologizing for doing idiotic things like publishing Tiller's work and home addresses, they were instead publishing that same information about the next two leading late term abortion providers. Responsible journalism, that.
Limbaugh is being quote far more often in the legit news wires because the GOP doesn't appear to have a rudder at the moment. I don't think many people realize that he's an entertainer, not a legit pol. Same goes for Glen Beck, the crybaby loose cannon at Fox.
Eric's got a very valid point above. The separated-at-birth halves of the MSM seem to be designed to split America apart by the same divisions that split our politicians. I think it may well be simply that they need to put on a constant spectacle in order to justify 24/7 news coverage, but at what cost?
Eric said 2 days later
I don't watch much either. I pick and chose things to watch. I do watch Glenn Beck, mostly because I find him humorous. He may be a cry baby, but I enjoy his rants. I read most of my news online, but I get it all over the place (AP, Reuters, WSJ.) Even MSNBC from time-to-time, if you can believe that. I don't listen to Rush. He's a joke.
We have to get away from the finger pointing politics. GOP's and Dem's act like they are light years apart, but it's really not the case anymore. Just the dance alone is what makes Congress and the Executive Branch so ineffective. Not that I know how that gets done. Personally, I pay much more attention to local and state politics now.
Eric said 3 days later
By the way, GJ. I could not find any indication that someone posted Tiller's address on the air. Was it his home address or work address? Who posted it - O'Reilly? When was it posted?
Now, I'm familiar with revisionist history, and well aware that the winners write history. However, Russia's neo-Soviet government is toying with Soviet-era tactics, like, oh, I dunno, rewriting history. Nyet so fast, Boris! I think the Poles would like a word with you.
Want to know why the price of gas is going up? The oil companies are hoarding oil because they're expecting recovery from the recession relatively soon. When a product or service is no longer being controlled by supply and demand, but at the major companies discretion; isn't that the very definition of a monopoly?
They are not hoarding, they can't sell it. The demand market for oil crashed. Cars don't consume oil (usually--for the most part, they consume gas made from refining oil). So, if you can't get good prices for your product, you sit on it. It's not like oil expires--in fact, what will eventually happen (if the economy doesn't recover soon enough) is some *very* low prices as they run out of storage for their "hoard" and have to start getting rid of it at whatever price they can get for it.
The price of gas in this country has a lot to do with our refining capability (or lack thereof). All the oil in the world is useless to our gas needs if we don't have the ability to refine it to gasoline in the first place. If the price of gas was really killing people, demand for gas would shrink. It shrunk quite a bit with the recession in the first place, which is why prices began to tumble. The demand is still pretty high for gas, though, so prices won't drop back below $2/gal anytime soon--and the prices are high because we are limited in how much gas we can refine, not how much oil we can buy.
Marc said about 5 hours later
"The price rise is a function of optimism that better things are coming in the future." Optimism usually means lower prices, no? If they were so optimistic, they would keep prices stable, continue the normal output and be rewarded from customers by keeping prices low or at least competitive. But because the whole oil industry is corrupt and the demand for the product is to the point of a necessity, they raise prices with whatever explanation they deem appropriate and continue their 200% profit per quarter.
I'm sure food sales are down too, so farmers are suffering. But instead of coming together as a collection of farmers and raising rates, they find ways to keep the rates reasonable and competitive. Sure, farmers' profits suffer, but they should be equally hit by a recession as the rest of us. Why aren't oil companies held to the same standard?
They can sell it, just not as much as they'd like to. Too bad.
GJ said about 11 hours later
Marc, try reading this to learn what helps determine the price of gas.
Oil companies didn't create the need for oil. They are simply profiting from it. What's the big deal? If you don't want to pay so much for gas, there are ways to "beat the system" but mostly it involves loss of convenience. You pay a price for that convenience.
