Bush-o-nomics

[Wild Cobra]

Who is going to pay to help all the home owners who screwed up and bought a home with a ARM and Bush wants to help out?

I am not in favor of freezing rates. I believe in the free market.

I'm not sure what the effect will be, but I cannot believe it will be good. I have little compassion for those who gave bad loans, and those who took out bad loans. Sometimes the best lessons in life are the hard ones. Why should everyone else help share the burden of other poor choices?

[LaMarcus Bryant]

So has the gap between rich and poor widened or closed? Is the middle class falling behind or experiencing growth in wages after adjusted for inflation?

Rushmore bound, i saidddd

[Clandestino]

i love how these posters complain how the government can't be trusted, is full of , etc.. yet, 2 posts later they want the government to run their healthcare!

[leemajors]

does anyone else remember the 80s electro song by Project Future called " Ray Gun Nomics"? watch it trickle.

[boutons_]

I love how clanny confounds political operators in the Exec with govt run healthcare, eg, VA.

I love how clanny, implicitly, trusts for-profit health care with his health care, when in fact for-profit health care's priority #1 - #3 is profit, not his health.

[Wild Cobra]

i love how these posters complain how the government can't be trusted, is full of , etc.. yet, 2 posts later they want the government to run their healthcare!

I know...

Isn't that a gas?

I wonder what their sanity level is?

[Clandestino]

I love how clanny confounds political operators in the Exec with govt run healthcare, eg, VA.

I love how clanny, implicitly, trusts for-profit health care with his health care, when in fact for-profit health care's priority #1 - #3 is profit, not his health.

then you don't understand business. a for profit company has to treat its customers right... bc what happens if they don't??? then customers leave... and they do what??? LOSE PROFITS... so, they do the best job they can to keep customers and shareholders happy.

when was the last time you were treated at a VA hospital? I have my VA card, but I have only gone ONE TIME... I would rather pay money then get my healthcare for "free" at the VA government run hospital.

and boutons, you're the one of the first dumbass to post threads about the VA not taking care of the troops... you crack me up.. now you want the government taking of your lazy ass!

[Nbadan]

i love how these posters complain how the government can't be trusted, is full of , etc.. yet, 2 posts later they want the government to run their healthcare!

Isn't our military run by the government? What about health-care for military personnel and even Congress...all run by the government...not that your straw man argument held any water in the first place....just saying...

[boutons_]

"then you don't understand business."

... proving that you are such a ideololgical-dumb that you can't comprehend NOT-for-profit healthcare.

Here's a bunch communist/socialist hippie assholes and jerkoffs' recommendations fo the US health after they compared it with other industrialized countries' national health plans:



http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/fu...801010-00196v1


For-profit health care means the maximum amount of profit for the least-amount of product delivered, just as it does for any for-profit business. Other sophisticated countries have promoted health care up to a "human right" for the citizens, while the US has decided that health care is not a human right, but just another consumer product, for which a family of four will pay $10K year forever (and it's inflating faster than inflation) forever. The industry care industry makes a bundle, the consumers get bled, just like any other for-profit business.

[xrayzebra]

"then you don't understand business."

... proving that you are such a ideololgical-dumb that you can't comprehend NOT-for-profit healthcare.

Here's a bunch so communist/socialist hippie assholes and jerkoffs' recommendations fo the US health after they compared it with other industrialized countries' national health plans:



http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/fu...801010-00196v1


For-profit health care means the maximum amount of profit for the least-amount of product delivered, just as it does for any for-profit business. Other sophisticated countries have promoted health care up to a "human right" for the citizens, while the US has decided that health care is not a human right, but just another consumer product.

So should the government buy cars/TV's/houses as
basic human rights. If not, why?

So if someone comes over to your house sticks a gun
under your nose and says that give me money so I
can go to the doctor it would be okay?

Because that more or less what you are telling me
I should do, just fork over money to the government
to give to someone else for their health care, housing
needs, cars, tv's or whatever else they/you decide
is a basic need/human right. Now, I await you
reply or others that tell me how cold a human being
I am and selfish and just plain mean to say all these
things. But you tell me, where does it stop?

[xrayzebra]

Here boutons, is another column by Dr. Williams you might
find informative. It says it lot better than I did in the above post.



Jewish World Review Nov. 28, 2007 / 18 Kislev 5768

Bitter partisan politics

By Walter Williams




http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Some people complain about bitter partisan politics. I welcome it. The greater the number of decisions made in the political arena the greater the conflict. Let's look at it by way of a few examples:


I like the Lexus LS 460. I also like Dell computers. Many other people have a different set of preferences. Some might prefer a Cadillac and an HP computer while others prefer a Chrysler and IBM computer. With these strong preferences for particular cars and computers, we never see people arguing or fighting in an effort to impose their preferences for cars and computers on other people. There's car and computer peace. Why? You buy the car and computer that you want; I do likewise and we remain friends.


There's absolutely no reason for car and computer choices to remain peaceful. Suppose our car and computer choices were made in the political arena through representative democracy or through a plebiscite where majority ruled. We would decide collectively whether our cars would be Lexuses or Cadillacs or Chryslers. We also would decide collectively whether our computer would be a Dell or HP or IBM computer.


I guarantee you there would be nasty, bitter conflict between otherwise peaceful car and computer buyers. Each person would have reason to enter into conflict with those having different car and computer tastes because one person's win would necessarily be another person's loss. It would be what game theorists call a zero-sum game. How would you broker a peace with these parties in conflict? If you're not a tyrant, I'm betting you'd say, "Take the decision out of the political arena and let people buy whatever car and computer they wish."

Donate to JWR


Prayers in school, sex education and "intelligent design" are contentious school issues. I believe parents should have the right to decide whether their children will say a morning prayer in school, be taught "intelligent design" and not be given school-based sex education. I also believe other parents should have the right not to have their children exposed to prayers in school, "intelligent design" and receive sex education.


The reason why these issues produce conflict is because education is government-produced. That means there's either going to be prayers or no prayers, "intelligent design" or no "intelligent design" and sex education or no sex education. If one parent has his wishes met, it comes at the expense of another parent's wishes. The losing parent either must grin and bear it or send his child to a private school, pay its tuition and still pay property taxes for a school for which he has no use.


Just as in the car and computer examples, the solution is to take the production of education out of the political arena. The best way is to end all government involvement in education. Failing to get government completely out of education, we should recognize that because government finances something it doesn't follow that government must produce it. Government finances F-22 Raptor fighter jets, but there's no government factory producing them. The same could be done in education. We could finance education collectively through tuition tax credits or educational vouchers, but allow parents to choose, much like we did with the GI Bill. Government financed the education, but the veterans chose the school.


Government allocation of resources enhances the potential for human conflict, while market allocation reduces it. That also applies to contentious national issues such as Social Security and health care. You take care of your retirement and health care as you please, and I'll take care of mine as I please. If you prefer socialized retirement and health care, that's fine if you don't force others to participate. I'm afraid most Americans view such a liberty-oriented solution with hostility. They believe they have a right to enlist the brute forces of government to impose their preferences on others.

[clambake]

my favorite walter williams story is the one that argues our soldiers lives are being traded for quarts of oil. the arguement is about ones favorite brand.....mobil 1....castro....penzoil...etc.....and who should be in charge of choosing just one.