No, we want you to USE them.
Hmmm... Consulting fees AND Stocks. It is the stocks where the real $ are made, but the "consulting fees" are highly questionable too. These are inflated because they are a means by which payoffs are made.
It's the oldest trick in payoff laundering... instead of giving the money directly to the individual you instead donate it to an organization with the condition that they must hire the individual as a speaker. It is similar is the book payoff, an individual writes a book and then you make sure it sells well, even if that means you must purchase the great majority of the books published... don't you remember that one?
Why bother, Bush gets far more coming out from a 2nd term. And you'd still assume he is driven by money alone. Power trumps money. You assume he risks his power for illegal payoffs he will
eventually get as if his own 14 million + 20 on retirement is not sufficient and he must break the law to squeeze out how much? It's your theory, how much would Bush risk his second term over?
Same deal. Since I do not have inside influence on the decision to goto war, there is no conflict of interest, and any such investments I might make are fair. If I had the ability to influence whether or not we go to war, and I was able to decided how much to invest in war related companies based upon such inside influence and information - it would not be fair or legal.
Who influences funding for which company? That's always missing
FACTS
Think what you want. But I am in accord with the true conservatives when it comes to the economy and the general principals of fiscal conservatism. While I have problems with, for instance, Pat Buchanan on some of his positions, on this issue I'm in general agreement.
Socialized health care is not a conservative position. Have you changed your mind since a week ago?
My point was the Soviet Union was never free from immeadiate threats from outside.
No one nation is ever free of threats. But Lenin had a good 20 year run from his indisputed position at the top of the state after 1918. Despite starving, murdering, or banishing millions of his own in pursuit of his selected commiittee edicts he managed to get mummified and entoumbed in the 20th century fashion himself. See the rotten corpse of Lenin, the original Marxist who pretty much set it up for Stalin to do in another 20 million or so.
Communist of any form is something I wish you could have experienced.
This allowed the ideals of the state to be easily thwarted by those using the need to protect it. The fundimental flaw of the Soviet Union was it failed to have anything like a bill of rights clearly defining the individuals role in society and putting limitations on the state.
Comminism does not cohabitate with democracy, property rights, individual rights, or a bill or rights. The nature of single party rule using total state domination of property IS the flaw.
I am not an advocate for communism. But that does not mean I cannot look at it objectively. You just foam at the mouth when talking about any political system other than unregulated capitalism - which is proving very clearly that it does not work either.
I lived in the USSR while it was a communist state. You imagine you might and then imagine from there. But I trully know a way of life you little understand. If I could I'd send you back to 1990 Ukraine under the USSR and let you stand in line for potatoes.
Some deficit spending yes. But the outragous deficit spending we've seen - no. Those $ have to be paid back someday. We are fastly approaching the point where the only way to pay it back is to devalue the currency, and thus the debt - and that has staggering consequences on the quality of life of the typical American.
You were the one to bring up universal healthcare as I quoted you from before.
A good portion of this bloated budget goes to fund the prescription drug program for seniors. This is still yet a baby step to what you propose as a universal healthcare objective.
Do you drop, keep, or expand this coverage?
Do you still allocate funds for wartime?
Are your strict standards relative to interest rates (now still in historical lows)?
Would you increase tax or reduce spending to make up for shortfalls? Increased tax to whom then? Or reduced spending in which programs? Answer these questions if you want to prove a point. Otherwise stop blowing smoke. DonÂ’t answer me unless you have percentages quoted and numbers added up.
Not necessarily. Government programs simply would only grow when the economy grows and tax revnues increase.
But Congress has good reason to borrow against future revenues in times of economic shortfall and especially in wartime. Such a system like you install would be counter-intuitive to smoothing economic cycles, and unduly restrictive to congressional authority in all matters of collecting revenue and making expenditures.
I never said no deficit spending ever. However, the total deficit should never be allowed to exceed about 25% of GDP. Our GDP is $10.98 trillion (2003 - 2004 figures are not in yet) and a NATIONAl DEBT of $7.383 trillion (to date). By the end of the year the debt will be in the area of $7.6 trillion. By the end of another 4 years of Bush economy, the National debt will equal or exceed the GDP.
The economy will grow at what rate over four years?
Are budgets based on tax and spending bills some trend you can plot or is this is all conjecture?
I have no problem with America in deficit because, like I said, I've seen much worse before until market forces adjusted and the US economy bounced back and hammered that deficit down in the upswing.
Right now we are at war, and the Federal interest rates loaned to banks are still in historical lows. Increased government orders for goods and services under the increased spending programs do wonders to grow the economy into the next expansion. Spending in a deficit makes perfect sense.
To put this in realistic perspective, today each citizen is on the hook for something around $25,000 of this debt. By the end of next year this will be close to $30,000 for every citizen. This against a mean family income in the US of about $43,000. In real terms this means that right now each family owes between $75,000 and $100,000 today, and this will expand to something between $90,000 and $120,000 by the end of 2005. Add in the private debt loading of the American family - which now well exceeds 100% of family yearly income, and the total debt figures are astounding - never in history have Americans put so much debt on the future generation.
We're not Argentina. The day the US goes bankrupt on debt the world you live in wonÂ’t leave you happy about it.
A notable increase of spending and increase in debt can be a signal for a boom in the economy.
So even if the USA will
absolutely increase debt by 20% in another year as long as we grow at some modest rate overall consumers will handle the interest on this debt with money to spare.
Do you not see that this economy is in very serious trouble?
Let me ask you, have you sold short on US stocks or not? When you get really feelthy rich from betting on the collapse of the US economy, youÂ’d be swallowed up in the chaos of worldwide economic meltdown and then what good is your stock advice then, huh?.
Our 2003 exports amounted to $714.5 bil., but our imports were $1.26 trillion, a net loss of almost $550 bil. There is no sign that trade is going to work us out of this disaster.
That's why everyone uses dollars. The US is rich and wants to buy stuff from others. The US is in a constant and ever growing trade deficit with others and so what?
No that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying if the only way to give bobby his lukemia treatments is not give Marge her triple-bypass, then that is how it should be. Marge will probably die anyway and saddle the public with a $200,000 debt. If she wants extrodinary measures in her 80's, she should provide for that herself.
Based on insurance rates for children and up to middle-aged adults, put the cost of all those under retirement age at 1/3 of those over retirement age. YouÂ’re not saving babies by leaving Marge to gasp for her last breath, but you certainly cut down on medicare costs.
Are you for universal healthcare, or are you not?
What I mean is that we are going to have to accept that we cannot spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on end of life health care - this is the perview of the private sector. The same holds true for adults with chronic (<--- please don't ignore this word) medical problems - if they have not insured themselves, they are shit out of luck, and should get comfort care only. The only place where I think the public should be on the hook for extremely high medical costs are for children, and reasonable coverage for them after they become adults (since they cannot get coverage at that point).
I agree, but children are cheap, adults even cheaper, itÂ’s seniors who demand the bucks for medical attention and our system takes care of children pro-bono as required by Federal law. Seniors too, but not to the degree they require for living a healthy life to itÂ’s fullest. I agree such a cut would help balance the budget but the seniors will stop that nonsense and vote you out lickety split.
Look again at what I actually said: "nobody in america should be ill or maimed because they cannot afford basic medical care or medicines." The word "basic" is key. The way it is right now, many Americans do not seek medical care for basic injuries and illnesses because they cannot afford the bill. The result is these relatively minor problems often become major problems, and then the taxpayer ends up footing the bill for threatment when it becomes life threatening.
You assume a lot without explaining the economics of your proposal in definitive terms.
Basic injuries or illnesses are more often not life threatening, but certainly tax funded regardless. And life threatening illnesses under such an assembly line of socialist health care are more less likely to be detected. And certainly never treated by basic medical care.
So then you prove how:
Basic care over and beyond insured parties funded by taxpayers
+
Cost of treating life threatening health factors discovered by basic care and not covered by insured parties
Is less than the current tax burden to health care which is:
0
That is just stupid - give the poor a free tetanus shot for God sakes, rather than foot the bill when they are hospiltalized for a full blown case of tetanus. If they are not poor, charge them according to their income level.
These are free to indigents.
I also think it would generally be a good idea to index payments for some treatments/medicines to income or tax levels, especially when those treatments and proceedures are developed on the public dime. It is not right that everyone pitches in for the development of treatments and drugs that only the wealthy can afford. An example is the drug Taxol, used to treat ovarian cancer:
But rating prices to income or taxes letÂ’s the billonares with
wealth alone get price less than the minimum wage earner.
Think this one through a bitÂ… and do you see a Communist nightmare?
The NIH spent $37 mil. developing Taxol, including the clinical trials and production processes. It then gave the formula for making the drug to Bristol-Meyers Squibb, who has the sole right to make and sell the drug. It takes an average of 6-8 treatments for the drug to be effective (if it is effective), and the cost of this is around $14,000.
If the public sector is going to foot the lions share of the R&D bill, they should all have access to the results.
Is 37 Million the lions share to Bristol Meyers own investment or less? What part of the story tells me why the rights should have gone to Bristol Meyers?
Stem cell research is a prime example of where the public is going to foot 98% of the bill, but only the rich are going to be able to afford to access the results which will be handed to the private sector. Another Bush policy of favoring the rich over the average American and using a morals argument as a smoke screen, and doing so on the average Americans tax dollars.
So take ‘the rich’ (top half) and their contribution to taxes (~90%) and since no on it profiting except from new health tech we determine if the 10% contribution made by the bottom 50% benefits them by at least 8% of the investment. You reasoned this out then?
No, I am a fiscal conservative. I'm also a social liberal on many but not all issues, but only within the bounds of fiscal conservatism, since otherwise the system cannot be sustained.
Then why the earlier flirtation with communism? You can either be a fiscal conservative or believe that the first step to utopia is the state seizure of all property. You canÂ’t choose both.
