For or against

I've heard in the news recently that Obama is soon going to make a broadcast to kids in class soon on the importance of school and has recommended questions for the teachers to ask the children. The questions are more like a reflection on what they saw and it asks how they felt about it. Some argue that this broadcast is a way of Obama "brain washing" children and promoting his "socialist ways". I think the broadcast is a good idea to really motivate students on the importance of school and help those smart ones who are bullied feel better about themselves. Bush  and Reagan did it so why not Obama? Any thoughts?

Original Post by thesuperbex:

well to suggest that self-exams take the place of a yearly mammogram for to me personally (as someone highly at risk for the disease) is just silly.  I don't care if the screenings are expensive, cancer treatments are more expensive, and so is palliative care. 

Fortunately I am not particularly at risk for breast cancer.  I'm also not at risk for diabetes, hemophilia, or MS.  And I'm really glad that (absent a universal coverage mandate) I can make the decision to pay $400 for a yearly mammogram if I decide it's worth the risk, instead of having to pay several thousand a year to insure me against the risk of diabetes, hemophilia, MS, and everything else I'm not likely to suffer from.

What sorts of diseases are you not at risk for that you're paying the insurance company to cover "just in case"?

Original Post by kathygator:

ok so I was generalizing. But credit default insurance was invented because of risky loans - most of which were fueled by deregulated credit markets, so yeah, we can say, very generally, that the housing bubble was fabricated and that Wallstreet ripped us off - then got paid bailouts because of the precarious world banking situation.

One way or the other, the rich who benefitted from deregulation and outsourcing knew the day would come when they'd have to pay the tab.

In addition to universal healthcare, they also owe me a new couch! ;D

No.  You are listening to Barney Frank.  Suggesting that the markets were in any way "deregulated" is mythical.  The markets are excessively regulated, which is fine when the regulation is in place to prevent deception, but not fine when the regulation is in place to further the government's policy aims by distorting the market.  Again:  The over-issuance of high risk loans only occurred because government policy encouraged it.

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by thesuperbex:

well to suggest that self-exams take the place of a yearly mammogram for to me personally (as someone highly at risk for the disease) is just silly.  I don't care if the screenings are expensive, cancer treatments are more expensive, and so is palliative care. 

Fortunately I am not particularly at risk for breast cancer.  I'm also not at risk for diabetes, hemophilia, or MS.  And I'm really glad that (absent a universal coverage mandate) I can make the decision to pay $400 for a yearly mammogram if I decide it's worth the risk, instead of having to pay several thousand a year to insure me against the risk of diabetes, hemophilia, MS, and everything else I'm not likely to suffer from.

What sorts of diseases are you not at risk for that you're paying the insurance company to cover "just in case"?

maybe i'm just dense, but isn't that the point of insurance?  considering i don't know much about my medical history in general, and would rather not pay out of pocket for treatments later, isn't it my own choice to pay the premium I pay in order to be covered if god forbid something happens? 

i'm not trying to be snarky or start trouble, and i totally agree that if you're willing to take the risk, then so be it.  but i'm not, and i don't ever want to be forced to.  to me the peace of mind, is worth a higher premium. 

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by kathygator:

ok so I was generalizing. But credit default insurance was invented because of risky loans - most of which were fueled by deregulated credit markets, so yeah, we can say, very generally, that the housing bubble was fabricated and that Wallstreet ripped us off - then got paid bailouts because of the precarious world banking situation.

One way or the other, the rich who benefitted from deregulation and outsourcing knew the day would come when they'd have to pay the tab.

In addition to universal healthcare, they also owe me a new couch! ;D

No.  You are listening to Barney Frank.  Suggesting that the markets were in any way "deregulated" is mythical.  The markets are excessively regulated, which is fine when the regulation is in place to prevent deception, but not fine when the regulation is in place to further the government's policy aims by distorting the market.  Again:  The over-issuance of high risk loans only occurred because government policy encouraged it.

Jumbo loans, no income loans, interest only loans...were not available to sub prime borrowers in years past, Lys. The ability of mortgage companies to lend was enhanced by deregulation allowing them to offer bigger and bigger loans to less qualified borrowers.

Regardless, they owe me a couch. :P

Original Post by kathygator:

re #132: unemployment is higher not lower - and it was well-predicted last year during the Octoberfest of money hand outs to Wallstreet.

Of course it's been bad this year- everyone said it was going to get worse before it got better on both sides of the aisle.

Judging President Obama's performance after only 8 months while he has faced the worst financial crisis since the Depression seems unfair, at best.

 Exactly.   It's like a huge chuck of ice in Antartica.  When Bush was in office the ice cracked into a chunk the size of Texas.... Even though Obama is now the President.. that ice still had to finish breaking off and collapsing causing the water to rise.  This wasn't Obama's fault - it was inevitable and everyone saw it coming.

I've been on a George Carlin kick lately.. reminds me of his joke: 

The upper class get ALL of the money and pay none of the taxes.

The middle class does ALL of the work and pays all of the taxes.

The poor are just there to scare the **** out of the middle class! Keep 'em going to their JOBS!  LOL 

Original Post by akgal:

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by kathygator:

Your explanation is forgetting derivatives, Lys, the real demon behind the financial collapse of the housing market. We didn't just stop loaning. We re-packaged the loans in bundles and sold them as 'investment opportunities' here and, more tragically, abroad.

And that derivative mess was allowed to exist because Wallstreet did some fancy-assed dancing around laws, by calling it insurance...thank you AIG. :/

AIG's problem wasn't derivatives.  Derivatives weren't the problem except for fraud in the rating system (yes, fraud, which is bad and should be corrected).  Where AIG ran into trouble was with credit default swaps, which really are insurance - they insure against the risk of loan defaults.  Sorta.  These caused a few problems, namely (1) risk wasn't being adequately assessed because of the problem with fraud in the rating system; (2) they were being issued by the same folks who were originating the loans, which means that when Lehman Brothers (for example) suddenly got stuck with a bunch of illiquid loans, they did not have the cash flow to pay on the credit default swaps.  That's why some of the largest financial institutions suddenly went bankrupt overnight.

 AIG's problems wasn't the derivatives - what??  Derivatives were a big part of the problem.  It was like trying to untangle fishing line because they had been rebundled and sold so many times.  That's why the bailout was so large because the bad loans could not be separated from the rest of AIG.

Umm ... No.  The bailout was large because the world's largest financial institutions had a major liquidity crisis.  These companies are large enough to easily absorb billions of dollars in bad investments, provided that they can still get the cash they need to do business.

Derivatives are nothing new.  They started to develop in Holland in the 17th century with a market for futures in tulip bulbs.  They are risky, like any investment; but a smart investor can hedge against potential loss if they have an accurate assessment of the risks involved.  Here, they didn't.

Seriously, if you want to blame somebody (and can't bring yourself to blame the government), blame Standard & Poors. 

I suspect it was more sinister - I think someone, somewhere overseas tried to call in their note, just like in "It's a Wonderful Life" - Probably the Saudi version of Mr. Potter. ;)

Don't you see what's happening, here? Potter's not sellin' he's buyin'! He's pickin' up some bargains!

Original Post by thesuperbex:

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by thesuperbex:

well to suggest that self-exams take the place of a yearly mammogram for to me personally (as someone highly at risk for the disease) is just silly.  I don't care if the screenings are expensive, cancer treatments are more expensive, and so is palliative care. 

Fortunately I am not particularly at risk for breast cancer.  I'm also not at risk for diabetes, hemophilia, or MS.  And I'm really glad that (absent a universal coverage mandate) I can make the decision to pay $400 for a yearly mammogram if I decide it's worth the risk, instead of having to pay several thousand a year to insure me against the risk of diabetes, hemophilia, MS, and everything else I'm not likely to suffer from.

What sorts of diseases are you not at risk for that you're paying the insurance company to cover "just in case"?

maybe i'm just dense, but isn't that the point of insurance?  considering i don't know much about my medical history in general, and would rather not pay out of pocket for treatments later, isn't it my own choice to pay the premium I pay in order to be covered if god forbid something happens? 

i'm not trying to be snarky or start trouble, and i totally agree that if you're willing to take the risk, then so be it.  but i'm not, and i don't ever want to be forced to.  to me the peace of mind, is worth a higher premium. 

Well, it's sort of the point of insurance.  The point is for you to pay into a pool based upon the actuarial likelihood that you will withdraw money from the pool.  Insurance companies need a big pool because they need to offset the extra money they need to pay out for the high-risk folks with the extra money they take in from the low-risk folks.

If you're a low-risk individual, it's hard to come out ahead with comprehensive insurance.  I got a quote from Blue Cross for comprehensive coverage that would cost me about $600/month.  Instead, I bought catastrophic coverage with a $7,000 deductible for $100/month and set up an HSA.  The reason why this works out is because I am not a big consumer of health care services.  I'm an Advil and ice pack kind of girl.

Mathwise, this means that the $500/month I save in premiums can be used (1) to save for my deductible, and (2) to cover non-catastrophic costs (checkups and such).  In slightly over a year I have saved my deductible entirely.  In two years I have saved my entire deductible as well as a big extra fund for ongoing care.  The likelihood that I will need catastrophic coverage (and have to spend/re-save my deductible) more often than every two years is, well, miniscule.

This is why I'm not enthusiastic about a universal coverage mandate.  My system works just fine, thanks, without me feeding extra money to the insurance companies.

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by thesuperbex:

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by thesuperbex:

well to suggest that self-exams take the place of a yearly mammogram for to me personally (as someone highly at risk for the disease) is just silly.  I don't care if the screenings are expensive, cancer treatments are more expensive, and so is palliative care. 

Fortunately I am not particularly at risk for breast cancer.  I'm also not at risk for diabetes, hemophilia, or MS.  And I'm really glad that (absent a universal coverage mandate) I can make the decision to pay $400 for a yearly mammogram if I decide it's worth the risk, instead of having to pay several thousand a year to insure me against the risk of diabetes, hemophilia, MS, and everything else I'm not likely to suffer from.

What sorts of diseases are you not at risk for that you're paying the insurance company to cover "just in case"?

maybe i'm just dense, but isn't that the point of insurance?  considering i don't know much about my medical history in general, and would rather not pay out of pocket for treatments later, isn't it my own choice to pay the premium I pay in order to be covered if god forbid something happens? 

i'm not trying to be snarky or start trouble, and i totally agree that if you're willing to take the risk, then so be it.  but i'm not, and i don't ever want to be forced to.  to me the peace of mind, is worth a higher premium. 

Well, it's sort of the point of insurance.  The point is for you to pay into a pool based upon the actuarial likelihood that you will withdraw money from the pool.  Insurance companies need a big pool because they need to offset the extra money they need to pay out for the high-risk folks with the extra money they take in from the low-risk folks.

If you're a low-risk individual, it's hard to come out ahead with comprehensive insurance.  I got a quote from Blue Cross for comprehensive coverage that would cost me about $600/month.  Instead, I bought catastrophic coverage with a $7,000 deductible for $100/month and set up an HSA.  The reason why this works out is because I am not a big consumer of health care services.  I'm an Advil and ice pack kind of girl.

Mathwise, this means that the $500/month I save in premiums can be used (1) to save for my deductible, and (2) to cover non-catastrophic costs (checkups and such).  In slightly over a year I have saved my deductible entirely.  In two years I have saved my entire deductible as well as a big extra fund for ongoing care.  The likelihood that I will need catastrophic coverage (and have to spend/re-save my deductible) more often than every two years is, well, miniscule.

This is why I'm not enthusiastic about a universal coverage mandate.  My system works just fine, thanks, without me feeding extra money to the insurance companies.

agreed.  it was always explained to me as a risk/benefit type deal.  If you want to take the risk, you'll be responsible for "X" amount (your deductible) and the higher your deductible the lower your premium.  I'm all for making health care insurance more affordable, and accessible to all, it's obvious something needs to change. however, the day i'm told what coverage i can and can't have, is where i draw the line.

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by akgal:

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by kathygator:

Your explanation is forgetting derivatives, Lys, the real demon behind the financial collapse of the housing market. We didn't just stop loaning. We re-packaged the loans in bundles and sold them as 'investment opportunities' here and, more tragically, abroad.

And that derivative mess was allowed to exist because Wallstreet did some fancy-assed dancing around laws, by calling it insurance...thank you AIG. :/

AIG's problem wasn't derivatives.  Derivatives weren't the problem except for fraud in the rating system (yes, fraud, which is bad and should be corrected).  Where AIG ran into trouble was with credit default swaps, which really are insurance - they insure against the risk of loan defaults.  Sorta.  These caused a few problems, namely (1) risk wasn't being adequately assessed because of the problem with fraud in the rating system; (2) they were being issued by the same folks who were originating the loans, which means that when Lehman Brothers (for example) suddenly got stuck with a bunch of illiquid loans, they did not have the cash flow to pay on the credit default swaps.  That's why some of the largest financial institutions suddenly went bankrupt overnight.

 AIG's problems wasn't the derivatives - what??  Derivatives were a big part of the problem.  It was like trying to untangle fishing line because they had been rebundled and sold so many times.  That's why the bailout was so large because the bad loans could not be separated from the rest of AIG.

Umm ... No.  The bailout was large because the world's largest financial institutions had a major liquidity crisis.  These companies are large enough to easily absorb billions of dollars in bad investments, provided that they can still get the cash they need to do business.

Derivatives are nothing new.  They started to develop in Holland in the 17th century with a market for futures in tulip bulbs.  They are risky, like any investment; but a smart investor can hedge against potential loss if they have an accurate assessment of the risks involved.  Here, they didn't.

Seriously, if you want to blame somebody (and can't bring yourself to blame the government), blame Standard & Poors. 

 Oh, I think there is enough blame to pass around to alot of different people not just the government.  Maybe derivatives are nothing new however it was my understanding that they were a big part of the credit default insurance that when the bubble burst all of it became crashing down resulting in the Lehman Brothers etc.  needing large amounts of cash.

as far as the OP goes, who cares if Obama tells my kids to stay in school?  I personally agree that education is very important.  But if I didn't, I'd tell my kids they could do whatever they want, including drop out, and not listen to a word the president says.  I still think they should be there to hear it though.   

I know when I was younger if the president told me one thing and mom told me another, I was goin' with what mom said! 

Original Post by kathygator:

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by kathygator:

ok so I was generalizing. But credit default insurance was invented because of risky loans - most of which were fueled by deregulated credit markets, so yeah, we can say, very generally, that the housing bubble was fabricated and that Wallstreet ripped us off - then got paid bailouts because of the precarious world banking situation.

One way or the other, the rich who benefitted from deregulation and outsourcing knew the day would come when they'd have to pay the tab.

In addition to universal healthcare, they also owe me a new couch! ;D

No.  You are listening to Barney Frank.  Suggesting that the markets were in any way "deregulated" is mythical.  The markets are excessively regulated, which is fine when the regulation is in place to prevent deception, but not fine when the regulation is in place to further the government's policy aims by distorting the market.  Again:  The over-issuance of high risk loans only occurred because government policy encouraged it.

Jumbo loans, no income loans, interest only loans...were not available to sub prime borrowers in years past, Lys. The ability of mortgage companies to lend was enhanced by deregulation allowing them to offer bigger and bigger loans to less qualified borrowers.

Yeah, that's true.  But it's also more complicated than that.  Deregulation in general promotes growth in the financial industry, which is good for the economy.  But, see, financial gurus in general are pretty risk-averse.  Ask them what they invest in and they'll probably tell you index funds.  I do not believe for a second that brokers thought to themselves, hmm, let's engage in enormously high-risk investments that will inevitably fail and leave us scrambling to recover.  They saw that government policy encouraged home purchases, which generated demand for mortgages, which drives up prices.  They saw that if they sold a bunch of these mortgages, Wall Street would buy them, bundle them and re-sell them.  What nobody saw is that the risk of the bundles was not being accurately reported, which means that the price of the bundles did not accurately reflect the risk of the investment. And again, once Wall Street figured out that the risks didn't seem to add up (these guys being the risk-averse financial gurus), they stopped buying the subprime mortgages ... voila, credit crunch.

In other words, had the market worked the way it is supposed to, the risk of the derivatives would have been accurately assessed and the price of the bundles would have reflected the value of the investment as a whole.  Wall Street would not have been willing to pay as much for the subprimes, which would reduce the incentive of the brokers to sell them, unless they can hedge the risk of any particular loan in other ways.

I'm not going to pretend that Wall Street isn't driven by the profit motive.  But they're not idiots who can't see the bigger picture.  I also don't doubt that there was a lot of short-term greed motivating executive decisions ... basic rule of corporate governance is to guarantee your job by guaranteeing returns to the shareholders.  But companies fail all the time due to bad decisions.  This was a much larger, much more systemic problem.

Re:143...

I didn't say nor did I imply that the poor are in that position through some lack of character.  I was pointing out that there are probably just as many in that situation because of bad choices, like a previous comment was made about how the wealthy have what they have because they're deceitful.

I do think that there are a lot of poor who could be in better positions by making better choices (ie. mothers who have 6 different kids from 6 different fathers and live on welfare), just like many wealthy people who are unjustly rich due to cheating their way to the top.

But since it's impossible to make different rules for every different situation, I don't feel that all poor people should feed off the rich, nor do I think that all rich should be penalized because some have shady characters.

Original Post by kathygator:

And I for one, would welcome universal healthcare coverage - and will happily let the wealthiest pay for it.

The rich have benefitted hugely in this country over the last 10 years or so. It's past time to 'give some back'. If that's wealth redistribution, so be it, because wealth theft is what created it.

This is what kills me about economic liberals. 

Any of you ever take an economics course???? Every single economic book says something to this effect "the economy and free market work best when there is no government interference." even things like tariffs, which are usually meant to help a country, end up hurting it in the long run. Sure, it might seem great to raise taxes, and I'm sure in the first few years, the economy WILL improve. But then it will plummet. 

Please take an economics course. All this government interference is NOT good for us.

As far as taking from the rich to give to the poor, let me give you my own personal spinoff of an analogy that's often used by conservatives. 

There are 5 of us in my family. All of us are very different and have varying degrees of intelligence. Some have more gifts than others. My 2nd oldest brother is a genius. Always had straight A's, valedictorian of his high school, National Merit Finalist, graduate of Princeton University...and the list goes on and on. 

Now my oldest brother is not so gifted in the intelligence department. He has always struggled. He may be smart, but his personality is such that he could never focus enough to study. Exact opposite of my other brother. 

It is not fair that one brother was naturally smart and responsible and the other was not. It is not fair that one brother didn't have to try and the other struggled immensely. But should my smart brother have shared his A's with my not so fortunate brother? Should the brother with the 4.0 average have shared his grades with the brother with a 2.0 average, so then they could both have 3.0s?? 

NO. 

This is simple. Life isn't fair. In fact, it really really sucks for some people. But that doesn't mean we should "steal" from the more fortunate. Some people are just born smart. Others are born lucky. And still others are born deceitful and ambitious. Don't punish someone for doing well. 

Original Post by samantha81:

No, alibsam - where you and I are different is that I accept different types of people based on quality;  you accept them based on quantity - the more people you "accept" the better you look.

It takes a little more effort, people, to see things as they are - as opposed to what you want them to be.

And that's where you assume you know anything about me... because you definitely don't. Where have I said I accept people based on quantity? 

Original Post by jcl76:

As far as taking from the rich to give to the poor, let me give you my own personal spinoff of an analogy that's often used by conservatives. 

There are 5 of us in my family. All of us are very different and have varying degrees of intelligence. Some have more gifts than others. My 2nd oldest brother is a genius. Always had straight A's, valedictorian of his high school, National Merit Finalist, graduate of Princeton University...and the list goes on and on. 

Now my oldest brother is not so gifted in the intelligence department. He has always struggled. He may be smart, but his personality is such that he could never focus enough to study. Exact opposite of my other brother. 

It is not fair that one brother was naturally smart and responsible and the other was not. It is not fair that one brother didn't have to try and the other struggled immensely. But should my smart brother have shared his A's with my not so fortunate brother? Should the brother with the 4.0 average have shared his grades with the brother with a 2.0 average, so then they could both have 3.0s?? 

NO. 

This is simple. Life isn't fair. In fact, it really really sucks for some people. But that doesn't mean we should "steal" from the more fortunate. Some people are just born smart. Others are born lucky. And still others are born deceitful and ambitious. Don't punish someone for doing well. 

 That's right, there are chosen human beings out there with inherent abilities that deserve to be put on a pedestal over the rest of us mere mortals.

What other traits do they have?  Perhaps some genetic engineering, selective breeding and ethnic cleansing is in order.

Original Post by dnrothx:

Original Post by jcl76:

As far as taking from the rich to give to the poor, let me give you my own personal spinoff of an analogy that's often used by conservatives. 

There are 5 of us in my family. All of us are very different and have varying degrees of intelligence. Some have more gifts than others. My 2nd oldest brother is a genius. Always had straight A's, valedictorian of his high school, National Merit Finalist, graduate of Princeton University...and the list goes on and on. 

Now my oldest brother is not so gifted in the intelligence department. He has always struggled. He may be smart, but his personality is such that he could never focus enough to study. Exact opposite of my other brother. 

It is not fair that one brother was naturally smart and responsible and the other was not. It is not fair that one brother didn't have to try and the other struggled immensely. But should my smart brother have shared his A's with my not so fortunate brother? Should the brother with the 4.0 average have shared his grades with the brother with a 2.0 average, so then they could both have 3.0s?? 

NO. 

This is simple. Life isn't fair. In fact, it really really sucks for some people. But that doesn't mean we should "steal" from the more fortunate. Some people are just born smart. Others are born lucky. And still others are born deceitful and ambitious. Don't punish someone for doing well. 

 That's right, there are chosen human beings out there with inherent abilities that deserve to be put on a pedestal over the rest of us mere mortals.

What other traits do they have?  Perhaps some genetic engineering, selective breeding and ethnic cleansing is in order.

Geez, come on.  STOP with the hyperbole already!  You're losing your moral high ground against the Republicans!

Sorry, leftists, it is not possible to legislate away constitutive luck.  So sowwy.

Original Post by lysistrata:

Original Post by dnrothx:

Original Post by jcl76:

As far as taking from the rich to give to the poor, let me give you my own personal spinoff of an analogy that's often used by conservatives. 

There are 5 of us in my family. All of us are very different and have varying degrees of intelligence. Some have more gifts than others. My 2nd oldest brother is a genius. Always had straight A's, valedictorian of his high school, National Merit Finalist, graduate of Princeton University...and the list goes on and on. 

Now my oldest brother is not so gifted in the intelligence department. He has always struggled. He may be smart, but his personality is such that he could never focus enough to study. Exact opposite of my other brother. 

It is not fair that one brother was naturally smart and responsible and the other was not. It is not fair that one brother didn't have to try and the other struggled immensely. But should my smart brother have shared his A's with my not so fortunate brother? Should the brother with the 4.0 average have shared his grades with the brother with a 2.0 average, so then they could both have 3.0s?? 

NO. 

This is simple. Life isn't fair. In fact, it really really sucks for some people. But that doesn't mean we should "steal" from the more fortunate. Some people are just born smart. Others are born lucky. And still others are born deceitful and ambitious. Don't punish someone for doing well. 

 That's right, there are chosen human beings out there with inherent abilities that deserve to be put on a pedestal over the rest of us mere mortals.

What other traits do they have?  Perhaps some genetic engineering, selective breeding and ethnic cleansing is in order.

Geez, come on.  STOP with the hyperbole already! 

 Goshdarnit, I told you already that it's parabole, not hyperbole!