Americans' net worth shrinks $1.33 trillion in 1Q

[knuckleboner]

The stimulus money thus far though, has returned little if any positive benefit. Cranking that level of result up is a net negative effect.

there are quite a few economists that disagree.

when jobs are being lost by the 600,000s each month, temporary government spending, especially on infrastructure that puts people to work, is likely to have a positive effect.

[Big Train]

From the article:

But at the end of the day, the economists concluded that anything pumping money into the economy will help in the near term.

Near term is not a solution, it is just an overpriced band-aid. The problem to me isn't spending on infrastructure, it's the spending on government itself and wasteful side projects under the guise of stimulus.

For every one example in the stimulus that has lasting long term economic impact, there are three with short term to no impact to the economy long term, which is the point of the exercise. Taking all the wasted money and applying it to simple debt reduction would do more to save the economy.

[GAR]

hahaha.. I see Tim Geithner like the kid who helps tip the apple cart then goes "hey mister, I'll help pick up the apples if I can keep half of 'em..?

I hope the public really wake up and see what's going on took over a decade to plan and execute and we all have to be on guard for the Daily Obama Fuckup to ring our Democrat reps in DC to tell them "enough is enough."

Now it's the stab at Health Insurance for Everyone - that is NOT reform!

Then, it'll be Auto Insurance for Everyone. Then it's Free Car for Everyone and last but not least the final nail in the auto industry coffin with Cap Imaginary Pollution and Trade Imaginary Pollution.

Cap and Trade Tax is gonna be the EU kicking the door wide open to fucking totally own us. I've seen it with that RoSH "lead free manufacturing" standard being implemented here in the US and it sucks!

Money money money.. it's all about a money grab and has nothing to do with reality. They need to be stopped.

[knuckleboner]

From the article:

But at the end of the day, the economists concluded that anything pumping money into the economy will help in the near term.

Near term is not a solution, it is just an overpriced band-aid. The problem to me isn't spending on infrastructure, it's the spending on government itself and wasteful side projects under the guise of stimulus.

For every one example in the stimulus that has lasting long term economic impact, there are three with short term to no impact to the economy long term, which is the point of the exercise. Taking all the wasted money and applying it to simple debt reduction would do more to save the economy.

the near term is important.

if we do nothing, the assumption is that the economy, in terms of unemployment, wage loss, GDP decrease, etc., would all be worse now and in the shorter term. which would mean that it would take longer to recover.

at the same time, increasing debt will also have effects, either pushing inflation and/or interest rates.

so the real question is whether or not the longer term costs of the stimulus funding outweigh the minimizing effect on the recession.

and right now, i think they won't.

[Nickdfresh]

Question for ya...

I do not know if this is a factor in that drastic difference in money spent but...

Are your rates set for different injuries?

For example.

If you break your arm...does one clinic cost more than an other?

I know here...hospitals/doctors bill the gov according to set rates for different procedures...they can not just make up whatever amount the doctor sees fit.

I'm pretty sure HMOs here have different rates for different injuries, yes...

[Nickdfresh]

This is America, where it will never get that cheap via socialized medicine. It is more likely to end up under Obama like GM with it costing 12k per person and Elvis' nurses union owning 55% of Blue Cross.

Not to mention, the words "Standard of Care" would be drastically different. What passes muster in another country will certainly not in this pampered country of ours.

Then how come Massachusetts and a few other states have managed to tackle healthcare with much success?

And why "can't" we? It's largely (but not only) the pharmaceutical companies that dictate drug prices and collude to some extent simply by paying off congress with their lobby. What if Medicare COULD bargain with the drug companies?

And spare us the "union" crap in this as it is such a nonissue...

[Big Train]

The union stuff is a huge issue, but for purposes of responding to your specific request, I'll leave that out for now.

My home state has enforced such nonsense on it's citizenry. The land of welfare cars has had ok success with it and I'm sure it's gotten a few poor kids to the dentist and what not.

Massachusetts demographics and income per household is a drastically different story than say California. I don't see how you could apply an enforcement of this nature (the poor HAVE to buy in, it's required). In this state, where half the people are getting benefits without a decent taxable income base, the state can't even break even. Adding their heathcare bills into the equation makes even less sense.

If healthcare goes nationalized, what is the great benefit vs. what you would give up (i.e. individual choice, individual care options, layers of red tape for simple things, wait lists).

To me, nationalization is only worthwhile for price considerations. The question remains: Is that the most effective way to get costs under control? I don't believe so. I see it as a nuclear option and one that is being considered without weighing any alternatives at all (witness the White House informercial next week).

[BITEYOASS]

Question for ya...

I do not know if this is a factor in that drastic difference in money spent but...

Are your rates set for different injuries?

For example.

If you break your arm...does one clinic cost more than an other?

I know here...hospitals/doctors bill the gov according to set rates for different procedures...they can not just make up whatever amount the doctor sees fit.

The reason for the difference is that the CEOs and owners who sit on their ass all day take half of what is spent on health care for their own use. Which consists of either salary, extra stock, lobbyists, bribes and/or campaign contributions to those in DC in order to keep the current status quo of american health care in existence.

[Igosplut]

Then how come Massachusetts and a few other states have managed to tackle healthcare with much success?

Trains right on that. They FORCE you to get it, and if you don't they wack you on your income taxes. So there's a pile of people (mostly young) that can't afford the healthcare, but are basically losing any tax refund they might be getting back (I've been told it's like 400.00-600.00$ fine for tax brackets 30.000-40.000 for non-compliance) So for Deval-tax-it-all it's a win-win. He mandates compliance, keeping the levels high enough that if you can't afford it, he'll get your tax refund by sort-of default (Two guys told me MA attached his federal return to get the fine amount) The thinking was the young really don't need coverage, and they (that tax bracket) are better equipped to pay the fines (and less likely to organize formal complaints).

[GAR]

round 2 coming up: the commercial real estate implosion!

[hideyoursheep]

So there's a pile of people (mostly young) that can't afford the healthcare, but are basically losing any tax refund they might be getting back.

What refund?

[Nickdfresh]

Trains right on that. They FORCE you to get it, and if you don't they wack you on your income taxes. So there's a pile of people (mostly young) that can't afford the healthcare, but are basically losing any tax refund they might be getting back (I've been told it's like 400.00-600.00$ fine for tax brackets 30.000-40.000 for non-compliance) So for Deval-tax-it-all it's a win-win. He mandates compliance, keeping the levels high enough that if you can't afford it, he'll get your tax refund by sort-of default (Two guys told me MA attached his federal return to get the fine amount) The thinking was the young really don't need coverage, and they (that tax bracket) are better equipped to pay the fines (and less likely to organize formal complaints).

There's not perfect solution on the state level and they've done the best they can. But without a national Medicare like entity to force down coverage rates and the ability to bargain directly with drug companies for the lowest bidder, HMOs will keep things high...

[GAR]

The price goes up, not down, when government gets involved.

First they'll tack on adminstrative fees, then lobby for higher rates like the utilities do for whatever flavor of the month reason that month gives convenient.

Then they'll say, the private sector that pays full rate without asking is dropping off, so they need to cover for that as everyone with a brain will cheat on their forms to get in on it.

Then they'll say, oh the system doesnt work afterall and we need a makeover, so the taxpayer has to feed the paper losses on that claim too.

Fuck this. Do the math, be a man and pay the doctor cash instead of pussing out trying to justify why people "need" healthcare insurance!

This is not a problem. The problem is insurance and pharma corps having more say than the taxpayer.

[Igosplut]

Fuck this. Do the math, be a man and pay the doctor cash instead of pussing out trying to justify why people "need" healthcare insurance!

Another statement by the coward that proves he doesn't inhabit the real world....

[Nickdfresh]

The price goes up, not down, when government gets involved.

....

Then please explain why the US spends almost double on healthcare than any other country, including those with "sosh'yule'liyzed meddy'sun."

I know it must feel grate to ignore complete posts in a thread to make a completely false assertion. But try to keep up, ass-spunk...