Anyone really think that changing from Obama to Gingrich or Romney will do anything significant? Let's get focused here: The big financial institutions---with their fat cats---own this country. While disparaging "socialism" that helps ordinary Americans, THEY rely on the government to bail them out when they take risks resulting in huge losses.
Who pays for Bernanke's zero interest rates so that banks can borrow from the Fed for almost nothing and take the same kind of risks that led to the '08 crisis. This, while not making the small loans necessary to help the economy.
Friends, you can vote for whomever you want, but you don't have lobbyists. You have no power in this deteriorating democracy, a democracy that is being lost to crony capitalism day after day. (Read *Republic, Lost* by Lawrence Lessig.)
The financial institutions that were "too-big-to-fail" are even bigger now---subsidized by the Fed to play the spreads in all sorts of risky assets once again. Obama surrounds himself with the very sort of people who were responsible for the mess---Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and the CEO of General Electric. He dines in N.Y. with the fat cats whom he publicly disparages---and gladly accepts their campaign money.
Not only has Congress been bought, so has the White House, it would seem. I hope that Obama keeps his word of the other night: "No more bailouts." Or does he think it's a safe bet to make that statement now? If so, he's deluding himself.
One hopeful sign is that Geithner won't be asked to remain for another Obama term.
In the meantime, Bernanke continues to rely on the humble taxpayers by denying them interest on their savings, just so the big banks can keep up their games and become richer than ever.
This is all going to end very badly. Maybe then we will be able to find the willpower to stop Wall Street's highly leveraged gambling while the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class disappears.
You think Romney or Gingrich is going to change this? I have to laugh. The Constitution is being undermined every day---not by liberals or conservatives, but by the interests of wealth and power that control this country. "The People" have no say any longer. Vote for whomever you like, but it's all the same---the rich will increase their power and control until we change how political campaigns are financed. Until then, nothing will improve.
Most of TARP has been paid back by banks. Idiot Obama and his regulations i.e Dodd-Frank are the real inhibtors of lending.
Oh by the way, that fat fuk Barney Frank is almost solely responsible for requiring banks to lend to low income people. Get a grip.
Davenport....I would be interested to know where you worked...if you are retired...if you inherited your wealth.
Our politics and the people we elect are a reflection of our population. Until we force change in Washington by our vote, then we must accept the consequences.
We live in the most democratic society on earth...and the people we elect truely represent out population.
Well then let's just turn into a socialist nation like most of Europe is?
Oh wait they're more screwed up economically than the US is.
But you keep trying to get the US to be socialist so that socialist US will bail out socialist Europe.
And who will bail out socialist europe & Us after we we give "free" stuff to everyone like europe did?
Wake up & stop drinking communist poisoned koolaid disguised as socialist ambrosia.
<<Oh wait they're more screwed up economically than the US is.>>
Someone mentioned the short memories people have. Ask yourself: Why did Europe suddenly suffer economic difficulties? Answer: 20 trillion dollars in MBSs (Mortgage Backed Securities) sold by Wall Street banks and brokerages worldwide, along with the near collapse of the financial system. Obviously, the most vulnerable countries suffered the most.
Is there a connection with European socialism? Only when it is mismanaged---as in rampant Greek corruption where the rich pay almost no taxes and make bribes instead.
If socialism were at fault, Scandinavia would be the worst off. And they are doing just fine.
I believe in democratic socialism, not pure socialism, and certainly not communism. I also believe in common-sense free markets with rules that allow equal access and participation.
<<You can choose to believe what you wish . . .>>
You have a habit of making assumptions about what I believe. Surprise, I am not a big fan of Obama's heatlh care plan. I do think we can provide universal care, however, and perhaps better than Britain's. Unfortunately, you are unable to respond to specific points (such as my example about fee-for-service model and its relationship to unnecessary procedures, hence costs), then cut off discussion and go into hiding. You seem interested only in your own opinions and prejudices and therefore can't learn anything outside of the box you've built for yourself. You believe that because you, personally, have given a subject a lot of thought, that your conclusions must be correct. You subscribe to Ayn Rand's philosophy, for example, but have no interest in understanding its logical fallacies. Or any interest in what another person actually thinks as opposed to what you assume they think in presumptive cliche terms.
Final comment on this thread then no more from me.
You can choose to believe what you wish, but it is an unshakeable fact that nationalized single-payer healthcare has been a failure any where you'd care to look. I've done considerable reading on the subject and all the info is out there for anyone to read: the UK's NHS is among the worst, Canadian system has lots of problems as well, Scandinavians in trouble as well.
Do we have problems? Yes, of course, people do fall through the cracks, the system is not perfect. Let's address those particular situations rather than re-engineer the whole system into some monstrosity that serves no one. Just ask the taxpayers in Massachusetts how they like THEIR single-payer system.
This scheme is actually driving up costs -- not reducing them.
Doctors, nurses, lab-techs and admin. personnel all have a right to profit from their labors and expertise to the full extent provided by a free labor market. I'm not hearing anyone suggest we place wage restrictions on carpenters, plumbers and electricians to help lower the cost of housing. How dare those nasty plumbers charge me $75/hr to fix a leaky faucet! We need plumber-reform in this country and we need it now!
<<Yea, right -- provided the NHS thinks you're worth saving . . .>>
Let me tell you a story.
Want to know why health insurance costs so much here?
Decades ago, I was told by my dentist that I ought to have my lower (inpacted) wisdom teeth removed. I went to an oral surgeon who of course concurred.
I asked what the chances were of having a problem with these teeth that were horizontal underneath the gums. He said he didn't know.
So I asked where I could find the statistics. There weren't any, he said, because "we always remove inpacted wisdom teeth. They might become infected."
Remember when most kids in the 50s had their tonsils removed "because they might become infected"?
Yanking wisdom teeth is the bread-and-butter of oral surgeons. Yet even if you get an infection, you can treat it with anti-biotics.
I went home and checked on the Internet about inpacted wisdom teeth. I found a website that told the truth about such teeth. The site did not recommend that you yank out inpacted wisdom teeth until they start causing problems or interfere with the teeth next to them.
I saved my insurance company a lot of money---and myself a lot of pain---and I still have those inpacted wisdom teeth 30 years later. I'm sure I'll go to my grave with them.
The website was British.
<<I choose to stand and fight the forces of ignorance and evil.>>
Like health care for everyone! (How evil can you get?!!)
And what about those ignorant, incompetent British surgeons! You could die just looking at them! :-)
" ... so if you chill out, we can continue debating. "
Rude? I AM chilled out -- you haven't seen me get cranked up. That's the #1 problem in this country today, too many people are chilled out.
I choose to stand and fight the forces of ignorance and evil.
<<I'd say starvation is pretty darn serious and is always fatal.>>
Again, you miss the point. The point was about cost, not the level of necessity.
<<You have such a myopic and childish view of the world, typical of most liberals.>>
I am not being rude to you, so this kind of thing brings you down, not me. We agree on a number of things, apparently, so if you chill out, we can continue debating. The world does not revolved around your view of it and is unlikely to in the future, so you might as well relax and be polite.