|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 23, 2010 20:14:21 GMT
When the government does something to spook the market it impacts investors, corporations, and all those who depend on them. And? That doesn't actually mean anything though because the markets often take the short term, shelfish and greed position and when anything gets in the way of that the market falls. One major example in this Country. RBS, when the Government bailed out RBS they got together with the banks to thrash out the deal for the banks to pay back the loans. Once the deal went semi public and the banking shares took a nosedive. This was GOOD news as it meant the the market saw that the taxpayer got the good end of the deal. Had this deal signaled a chance for a quick and large profit the shares would have went through the roof. G Brown had got the best deal for the taxpayers and the bovver boys on the trading floor picked up the ball and went home. We win. Another thing. This week we saw a big American company bought up a British company. The FTSE 100 had a bit of an upswing on the news and RBS, who had let Kraft several million to do the deal got a share boost into the bargin. Everybody wins, execpt the 4000 people and their families, not to mention the British taxpayer who lose their jobs. So the market traders who help broker that deal get huge bonouses whilst the rest of us are having to shell out as more jobs are lost. We lose.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 24, 2010 2:48:07 GMT
My problem, Bushadmirer, is that I find your terms confusing. Liberals, in the traditional political sense, believe in free trade very much indeed. But you Americans use 'liberals' in a way that is strange to those of us used to European political analysis. Yes Riotgirl, I do think terms like liberal and conservative have different meanings to different people especially in different countries. Take the Political Compass Test here www.politicalcompass.org/testIf your score puts you very far to the left of center then you are a liberal as I see it.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 24, 2010 3:01:10 GMT
Another point is that our liberals are mostly Democrats in terms of their political affiliation. The Democratic party is heavily funded by labor unions and trial lawyers. Therefore, the Democrats cater to those two special interest groups.
Labor unions don't want free trade. They're happy with exports but they want big import taxes on foreign goods. They see foreign trade as a threat to their jobs.
Trial lawyers are the biggest single contributor to the Democrats. They contribute more money to the Democrats than corporations contribute to the Republicans. The Democrats are therefore unwilling to legislate tort reforms. One major reason that health care costs so much is that drug companies, hospitals, clinics, and individual medical doctors are frequently being sued in court by opportunistic trial lawyers working on a commission arrangement. The sad thing is that they usually win out of court settlements because it's cheaper to pay them off than to go through extended court proceedings. I think trial lawyers are about the same as Somalia pirates (cheaper to pay them off too). They work the system for large financial rewards and they're protected by the Democrats in Congress (and the White House currently). John Edwards is a wealthy trial lawyer and he was a candidate for Vice President of the United States recently (Democrat ticket of course). He's also a slime ball.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 24, 2010 13:28:22 GMT
Bushy
I'd never heard that argument about trial lawyers/democrats/health care costs before. If that is the case, then it does shed an interesting light on the health reforms.
What proportion of the health budget in the USA is spent on damages?
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Jan 24, 2010 16:47:47 GMT
I don't have a figure, riot, and it may be hard to nail down precisely. Doctors spend a significant sum on malpractice insurance and occasionally some rather absurd rewards make the headlines. What is often unreported are the occasions when those outrageous damages are reduced upon appeal. I have a cousin who is an attorney who has defended companies and doctors against frivolous or dubious suits. I can't recall all the details, but he has many stories to tell. Sometimes bad things happen to good people, and sometimes people do some awfully stupid things and are unwilling to suffer the consequences.
In the US, the electoral process took another major hit with a recent SCOTUS decision that permits corporations unfettered access to political campaigns.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 24, 2010 18:00:47 GMT
I don't have a figure, riot, and it may be hard to nail down precisely. Doctors spend a significant sum on malpractice insurance and occasionally some rather absurd rewards make the headlines. What is often unreported are the occasions when those outrageous damages are reduced upon appeal. I have a cousin who is an attorney who has defended companies and doctors against frivolous or dubious suits. I can't recall all the details, but he has many stories to tell. Sometimes bad things happen to good people, and sometimes people do some awfully stupid things and are unwilling to suffer the consequences. In the US, the electoral process took another major hit with a recent SCOTUS decision that permits corporations unfettered access to political campaigns. If the figure (spent on insurance) is a significant cost to the health service, then it does make sense that something would need to be done about that as part of any healthcare reform. Interesting. I don't understand your second paragraph. What kind of 'access'?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2010 20:18:37 GMT
Here's an article about the rising cost to the NHS of compensation claims, though I haven't quite got my head around the role conditional fee arrangments plays in this, given the corrrection at the top: link to Guardian
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jan 24, 2010 23:33:42 GMT
I think there should be some degree of tort reform in the health care bill. I'm sure it's difficult to decide how to protect doctors, etc. from frivolous law suits while still leaving options for patients who have serious reason to pursue compensation.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jan 25, 2010 3:18:59 GMT
I don't have a figure, riot, and it may be hard to nail down precisely. Doctors spend a significant sum on malpractice insurance and occasionally some rather absurd rewards make the headlines. What is often unreported are the occasions when those outrageous damages are reduced upon appeal. I have a cousin who is an attorney who has defended companies and doctors against frivolous or dubious suits. I can't recall all the details, but he has many stories to tell. Sometimes bad things happen to good people, and sometimes people do some awfully stupid things and are unwilling to suffer the consequences. In the US, the electoral process took another major hit with a recent SCOTUS decision that permits corporations unfettered access to political campaigns. If the figure (spent on insurance) is a significant cost to the health service, then it does make sense that something would need to be done about that as part of any healthcare reform. Interesting. I don't understand your second paragraph. What kind of 'access'? RG, this past week, by a vote of 5 - 4, the Supreme Court overturned the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) that was the landmark legislation of John McCain's career, and that restricted the monoeatry donations Corporations and Unions were permitted to make to candates for public office. IOW, it will open the flood gates for bought-and-paid for candidates to be sponsored by special interests. Here is Obama's comment: "We’ve been making steady progress. But this week, the United States Supreme Court handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists – and a powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence. This ruling strikes at our democracy itself. By a 5-4 vote, the Court overturned more than a century of law – including a bipartisan campaign finance law written by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold that had barred corporations from using their financial clout to directly interfere with elections by running advertisements for or against candidates in the crucial closing weeks. "This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way – or to punish those who don’t. That means that any public servant who has the courage to stand up to the special interests and stand up for the American people can find himself or herself under assault come election time. Even foreign corporations may now get into the act. "I can’t think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington, or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections." And McCain's remarks: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), co-crafter of landmark campaign finance legislation in his career, said he thought not much could be done to counter the Supreme Court's decision Thursday to lift long-held restrictions on corporate donations to political candidates. "I think that there's going to be, over time, a backlash," McCain said. "Because, when you see the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns -- but, in the short term, the Supreme Court has spoken. I respect their decision." McCain said he expected the reversal to happen, and thinks the lack of political experience on the court affected some justices. "I was not surprised at the Supreme Court decision," he said. "I went over to observe the oral arguments. It was clear that Justice Roberts, Alito and Scalia, by their very skeptical and even sarcastic comments, were very much opposed to BCRA (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act)." He added that justices of the past that supported financing limits, despite their usual conservative positions, had experience in politics and knew the ramifications of their decision. "I would point out that both Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor, who had taken a different position on this issue, both had significant political experience," McCain pointed out. "Justices Roberts, Alito and Scalia have none. But it is what it is." voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/01/mccain-skeptical-supreme-court.html?wprss=44
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 25, 2010 11:42:27 GMT
Not so good.
Mind you, the UK is also facing scandals and questions about political campaign finance.
There doesn't seem to be an easy solution, unless we get into the state funding political parties, and, while I haven't really considered it, it doesn't sound like a good idea.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 26, 2010 9:39:57 GMT
BushAdmirer, I am deeply upset with you. I have already explained that Obama's popularity is a non-issue, I explained this months ago and showed you the chart to prove it. Now you are acting like my words meant nothing to you. Nothing! You are breaking my heart, BA.
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Jan 31, 2010 16:51:51 GMT
What is always missing is that no one person or one political organization is able to fix everything with a set of laws or a magic wand, and this pertains to the economy more than any other issue. Some are lucky and others are not. Coolidge left office on the eve of the Great Depression, yet all the ingredients were in place.
From the late 1970s through 2005 or so the Federal Reserve managed the US economy and the president was merely along for the ride. Interest rates were jacked up in 1979 to break the vicious inflationary cycle, and in so doing contributed to President Carter’s defeat. As inflation subsided, rates were gradually reduced and eventually businesses and individuals began borrowing again. This enabled Reagan to declare that it was “morning again in America” at the onset of the 1984 campaign. Reagan’s policies generally were designed to halt or retard the growth of domestic government and had nothing to do with economic recovery.
Bush was elected in 1988 as a stay the course candidate because the economic conditions were favorable; Clinton was elected four years later because of the perception that the economy was in the dump (it was actually in recovery from the 1991 recession at the time). Both Bush and Clinton raised taxes in the early 1990s, and as result the massive Reagan-era deficits became surpluses, while the recovery and subsequent boom resumed unabated, despite claims to the contrary by the right wing.
Greenspan cowered to administration pressures and kept the interest rates unrealistically low and the system broke down (along with stupid financial deregulation). It’s now left to the Obama Administration to fix this huge mess and of course they can’t do it alone, they can’t work miracles. They can help the process, but they can’t fix it in a short time period. A colleague of mine said that he didn’t want Obama to win in 2008 because regardless of who won, we were in for an extended economic slump and whoever won would unjustifiably receive the blame. He was an Obama fan and he didn’t want history to place the only African-American president next to Mr. Hoover. Whatever saving grace Obama received is that the meltdown occurred on Bush’s watch. The US lost 700,000 jobs in January 2009 alone, but it could have happened a month later, and that would have given the right wing pundits plenty of ammo to launch an effective disinformation campaign.
Unlike Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush II, Obama can't merely allow the systemt to correct itself. He needed to take proactive measures, as FDR did in 1933. The conservative solution (tax cuts for the rich and austerity) is what Mr. Hoover tried, and it failed miserably. Many conditions were identical. We had "Hoovervilles" then; we have "Bush Blights" now. FDR created the middle class over a period of time, and perhaps Obama can bring it back. He has a lot of damage to undo.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Feb 1, 2010 21:35:28 GMT
Here's an interesting comparison.
If you search on Google for List of Obama's Failures you will get 24,500,000 web hits. That's quite a lot for only one year in office.
Now do the same search on Google for a List of George Bush Failures. You'll be expecting a lot more hits because results would include both George W Bush and his father George H Bush who had a combined twelve years in office. Surprisingly this search turned up only a relatively modest 6,240,000 hits.
That's especially surprising when you consider that the overwhelming majority of Americas television news departments, newspapers, and news magazines are totally in pocket of the Democrats and have been for as long as I can remember.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Feb 2, 2010 16:36:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Feb 6, 2010 16:30:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 3, 2010 1:21:12 GMT
He destroyed the Clinton Political Machine – Driving a stake thru the heart of Hillary’s Presidential aspirations – something no Republican was ever able to do. Remember when a Hillary Presidency scared the daylights out of you! He killed off the Kennedy Dynasty – No more Kennedy’s trolling Washington looking for booze and women wanting rides home. American women and Freedom are safer tonight! He is destroying the Democratic Party before our eyes! Dennis Moore had never lost a race – quit Evan Bayh had never lost a race – quit Byron Dorgan – had never lost a race – quit Harry Reid – bid for re-election doesn’t look good These are just a handful of the Democrats that whose political careers Obama has destroyed! By the end of 2010 dozens more will be! In December of 2008 the Democrats were on the rise. In the last two election cycles they had picked up 14 senate seats and 52 house seats. The press was touting the death of the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party. In one year Obama put a stop to all of this and will probably give the house, if not the senate back to the Republicans. He has completely exposed liberals and progressives for what they are. Every Generation seems to need to relearn the lesson on why they should never actually put liberals in charge. He is bringing home the lesson very well! Liberals tax, borrow and spend – check Liberals won’t bring themselves to protect America – check Liberals want to take over the economy – check Liberals think they know what is best for everyone – check Liberals aren’t happy till they are running YOUR life - check He has brought more Americans back to conservatism than anyone since Reagan In one year he rejuvenated the Conservative movement and brought out to the streets millions of Freedom Loving Americans. Name me one other time in your life that you saw your friends and neighbors this interested in taking back America!? In all honesty one year ago I was more afraid than I had ever been in my life. Not of the economy but of the direction our country was going. I thought Americans had forgotten what this country was all about. My neighbors, friends, strangers proved to me that my lack of confidence of the Greatness and Wisdom of the American people was flat out wrong. When the American People wake up, no smooth talking teleprompter reader can fool them! Barack Obama woke up these Great Americans. Again I want say Thank you, Barack Obama!
|
|
|
Post by beth on Mar 4, 2010 3:21:00 GMT
Gee, I don't know so much about that, das. My friends and neighbors - and some are certainly conservatives - are, for the most part, laying low at the moment. They are (almost to a man/woman) so disgusted with the Sarah Palin, violence spouting Tea Party bunch they are taking some time out until they have a better idea of how the wind will blow. Take a moment and read this Frank Rich article - don't poo-poo it because I'm out here in JimBunningLand and can tell you Rich is pretty accurate on this one. www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28rich.html
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Mar 4, 2010 21:28:19 GMT
Beth I don't know how the NY Times, liberal rag that it is, comes up with such deluded and moronic writers. When you consider that they not only have this clown but other halfwits like Maureen Dowd, Nicholas Kristof, and the ultra-moron Paul Krugman, it can't be long before they add Keith Olbermann and Noam Chomsky. Then they'd have the collective intellect of a bucket of cement.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Mar 4, 2010 21:59:05 GMT
Beth I don't know how the NY Times, liberal rag that it is, comes up with such deluded and moronic writers. When you consider that they not only have this clown but other halfwits like Maureen Dowd, Nicholas Kristof, and the ultra-moron Paul Krugman, it can't be long before they add Keith Olbermann and Noam Chomsky. Then they'd have the collective intellect of a bucket of cement. Then, how do you explain the many people who have this same concern and take it seriously? What is your view of the extreme, ultra partisan, pro violence tea party movement? Who are you viewing , kindly, as the Republican's best hope for 2012? It's easy to nay-say. I'm seriously interested in what YOU think.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 5, 2010 8:00:10 GMT
Beth, I've been trying to read up a bit about these Tea Party people.
Am I picking it up right, or are they really seriously suggesting an end to taxation?
To me they seem more like anarchists than anything else. They want no government, no taxation.
Nutters.
|
|