a l t . m u s i c . d i o

iBeaux · DIO's #1 Lady Bandit

Have you been STIMULATED yet?

artcinco · Mob Ruler

I will pay down some bills although a new HDTV and PS3 have been calling me.

I don't think the stimulus was necessary but will accept it none the less.

iBeaux · DIO's #1 Lady Bandit

So Artie, do you mean generally the stimulus was not necessary or specifically for you because the Lord has blessed you since Katrina?

artcinco · Mob Ruler

iBeaux wrote:

So Artie, do you mean generally the stimulus was not necessary or specifically for you because the Lord has blessed you since Katrina?

The U.S. government should accept the fact that the market goes up and down and people either do well or lose their shirt. The government shouldn't bail out people who do have made poor choices like in the sub-prime mortgage stuff, lenders and borrowers alike.

This stimulus thing just spends more money the governement doesn't have. It sends it to everyone who makes under a certain amount of money whether they need it or not, have paid taxes or not.

It seems like a vote-buying scheme in an election year. I certainly can use it but think it is goofy. The economic cycle will continue. The government adjusts interest rates and does other tinkering already, sending checks to people is not the way to do it. But then many folks in the U.S. prefer the continued move toward socialism where more and more citizens will depend on the government as much as possible.

iBeaux · DIO's #1 Lady Bandit

artcinco wrote:

iBeaux wrote:

So Artie, do you mean generally the stimulus was not necessary or specifically for you because the Lord has blessed you since Katrina?

The U.S. government should accept the fact that the market goes up and down and people either do well or lose their shirt. The government shouldn't bail out people who do have made poor choices like in the sub-prime mortgage stuff, lenders and borrowers alike.
This stimulus thing just spends more money the governement doesn't have. It sends it to everyone who makes under a certain amount of money whether they need it or not, have paid taxes or not.

It seems like a vote-buying scheme in an election year. I certainly can use it but think it is goofy. The economic cycle will continue. The government adjusts interest rates and does other tinkering already, sending checks to people is not the way to do it. But then many folks in the U.S. prefer the continued move toward socialism where more and more citizens will depend on the government as much as possible.

Yeah one would think there's a better way to disperse the funds. Could be a vote buying scheme indeed.

Interesting take on socialism.

PippiLongstocking · Princess of Fairytopia

Mine's getting converted to gold.

Then it's going into a box.

In November of 2012, I will use it to buy bottled (or canned) water and food supplies, as well as weapons.

That way, when the End of Days comes on December 21st, 2012, I'll be set for awhile (if I haven't been cooked by the fallout or otherwise blown up).

iBeaux · DIO's #1 Lady Bandit

PippiLongstocking wrote:

Mine's getting converted to gold.

Then it's going into a box.

In November of 2012, I will use it to buy bottled (or canned) water and food supplies, as well as weapons.

That way, when the End of Days comes on December 21st, 2012, I'll be set for awhile (if I haven't been cooked by the fallout or otherwise blown up).

Interesting...who's saying the End Of Days is in 2012? Some believe in the Daniel/Revelations prophecy concerning the end of the Generation Of The Fig Tree, which is basically a 60 year generation since 1948, "the" significant date for Israel as a nation, projecting the End Of Days to occur this year.

The concentration camps that have been erected secretly by the government will be used when the banking system crashes next month and the EURO becomes our new currency. Its believed so many people will revolt against the induction of the Euro that they will be placed in these camps via Marshall Law, etc...etc....

Right now, I just want it to get warmer so I can get some freakin plants in the ground!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

artcinco · Mob Ruler

PippiLongstocking wrote:

Mine's getting converted to gold.

Then it's going into a box.

In November of 2012, I will use it to buy bottled (or canned) water and food supplies, as well as weapons.

That way, when the End of Days comes on December 21st, 2012, I'll be set for awhile (if I haven't been cooked by the fallout or otherwise blown up).

November of 2012 will be right after Obama wins his second term. biggrin

So will you have a handcrank record player for when the electricity stops or either the elctromagnetic pulse wipes out technology? And if so what are your top ten vinyl LPs that you will take into the bunker?

PippiLongstocking · Princess of Fairytopia

iBeaux wrote:
PippiLongstocking wrote:

Mine's getting converted to gold.

Then it's going into a box.

In November of 2012, I will use it to buy bottled (or canned) water and food supplies, as well as weapons.

That way, when the End of Days comes on December 21st, 2012, I'll be set for awhile (if I haven't been cooked by the fallout or otherwise blown up).

Interesting...who's saying the End Of Days is in 2012? Some believe in the Daniel/Revelations prophecy concerning the end of the Generation Of The Fig Tree, which is basically a 60 year generation since 1948, "the" significant date for Israel as a nation, projecting the End Of Days to occur this year.

The concentration camps that have been erected secretly by the government will be used when the banking system crashes next month and the EURO becomes our new currency. Its believed so many people will revolt against the induction of the Euro that they will be placed in these camps via Marshall Law, etc...etc....

Right now, I just want it to get warmer so I can get some freakin plants in the ground!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SEVEN REASONS WHY THE WORLD COULD END IN 2012

1. Mayan Calendar

The first mob to predict 2012 as the end of the world were the Mayans, a bloodthirsty race that were good at two things:

Building highly accurate astrological equipment out of stone and
Sacrificing Virgins.

Thousands of years ago they managed to calculate the length of the lunar moon as 329.53020 days, only 34 seconds out. The Mayan calendar predicts that the Earth will end on December 21, 2012. Given that they were pretty close to the mark with the lunar cycle, it's likely they've got the end of the world right as well.

2. Sun Storms

Solar experts from around the world monitoring the sun have made a startling discovery: our sun is in a bit of strife. The energy output of the sun is, like most things in nature, cyclic, and it's supposed to be in the middle of a period of relative stability. However, recent solar storms have been bombarding the Earth with so much radiation energy, it's been knocking out power grids and destroying satellites. This activity is predicted to get worse, and calculations suggest it'll reach its deadly peak sometime in 2012

3. The Atom Smasher

Scientists in Europe have been building the world's largest particle accelerator. Basically its a 27km tunnel designed to smash atoms together to find out what makes the Universe tick. However, the mega-gadget has caused serious concern, with some scientists suggesting that it's properly even a bad idea to turn it on in the first place. They're predicting all manner of deadly results, including mini black holes. So when this machine is fired up for its first serious experiment in 2012, the world could be crushed into a super-dense blob the size of a basketball.

4. The Bible says...

If having scientists warning us about the end of the world isn't bad enough,religious folks are getting in on the act aswell. Interpretations of the Christian Bible reveal that the date for Armageddon, the final battle between Good an Evil, has been set down for 2012. The I Ching, also known as the Chinese book of Changes, says the same thing, as do various sections of the Hindu teachings.

5. Super Volcano

Yellowstone National Park in the United States is famous for its thermal springs and Old Faithful geyser. The reason for this is simple - it's sitting on top of the world's biggest volcano, and geological experts are beginning to get nervous sweats. The Yellowstone volcano has a pattern of erupting every 650,000 years or so, and we're many years overdue for an explosion that will fill the atmosphere with ash, blocking the sun and plunging the Earth into a frozen winter that could last up to 15,000 years. The pressure under the Yellowstone is building steadily, and geologists have set 2012 as a likely date for the big bang.

6. The Physicists

This one's case of bog-simple maths mathematics. Physicists at Berekely Uni have been crunching the numbers. and they've determined that the Earth is well overdue for a major catastrophic event. Even worse, they're claiming their calculations prove, that we're all going to die, very soon - while also saying their prediction comes with a certainty of 99 percent- and 2012 just happens to be the best guess as to when it occurs.

7. Slip-Slop-Slap-BANG!

We all know the Earth is surrounded by a magnetic field that sheilds us from most of the sun's radiation. What you might not know is that the magnetic poles we call north and south have a nasty habit of swapping places every 750,000 years or so - and right now we're about 30,000 years overdue. Scientists have noted that the poles are drifting apart roughly 20-30kms each year, much faster than ever before, which points to a pole-shift being right around the corner. While the pole shift is underway, the magnetic field is disrupted and will eventually disappear, sometimes for up to 100 years. The result is enough UV outdoors to crisp your skin in seconds, killing everything it touches.

Unfortunately I can't take credit for this post. It was written by someone else,....so I approriated it.

squidhammer · Rising

artcinco wrote:

The U.S. government should accept the fact that the market goes up and down and people either do well or lose their shirt. The government shouldn't bail out people who do have made poor choices like in the sub-prime mortgage stuff, lenders and borrowers alike.
This stimulus thing just spends more money the governement doesn't have. It sends it to everyone who makes under a certain amount of money whether they need it or not, have paid taxes or not.

It seems like a vote-buying scheme in an election year. I certainly can use it but think it is goofy. The economic cycle will continue. The government adjusts interest rates and does other tinkering already, sending checks to people is not the way to do it. But then many folks in the U.S. prefer the continued move toward socialism where more and more citizens will depend on the government as much as possible.

You make a few points...

"The U.S. government should accept the fact that the market goes up and down and people either do well or lose their shirt. The government shouldn't bail out people who do have made poor choices like in the sub-prime mortgage stuff, lenders and borrowers alike."

The government has had a growing stake in the economy for a long time. It's a mammoth part of the GDP (right now in the 35% range.) Certainly the government sees itself as a dominant part of the economic machine and, in the interest of its own preservation, makes adjustments to stimulate the economy.

You can see from the chart that the government has made investments in the economy at certain times (especially during the World War II era) for various reasons.

There's really not much different with this than when we create tax incentives to encourage investment in certain sectors or regions. Since the government doesn't really have a stated right to a specific percentage of one's income, a person can do any number of manipulations to lower or increase their tax burdon.

The question isn't whether the government should do these bail outs - some of them are necessary. Most economists would agree with the logic behind helping the airline industry, Bear Stearns, Amtrak, etc. The funny thing is how "pragmatic" "conservatives" get when asked for solutions for working people (health care reform, Katrina bail out, mortgage bail out, economic stimulus.)

"This stimulus thing just spends more money the governement doesn't have. It sends it to everyone who makes under a certain amount of money whether they need it or not, have paid taxes or not.

It seems like a vote-buying scheme in an election year. I certainly can use it but think it is goofy. The economic cycle will continue. The government adjusts interest rates and does other tinkering already, sending checks to people is not the way to do it."

The point of the stimulus seems primarily to get consumers into a spending mode. Apparently it is hoped that people will pour the money right back into the economy (and into the pockets of large corporations.) So, rather than saying it's a stimulus to the consumer, it's really a stimulus to big business - just like the above mentioned big business bail outs.

Since I'm a fiscal conservative, I agree that the government shouldn't spend more than it takes in. America, as a whole, is probably in so much debt at this point it may be beyond saving through government intervention. We actually may be virtually bankrupt as a nation - unable to produce enough goods and services to service the debt we've incurred.

In the past, we would often have something to show for the debt we've incurred. But right now, much of the debt has paid for 9/11, Katrina, Iraq and inflated values to homes and internet stocks. We have nothing to show for any of these things.

So, while agree with you in principle that this is not the best strategy for a recession, the government has already mortgaged much of the value you, I and our children have yet to offer or earn in this economy. So **** it.

"But then many folks in the U.S. prefer the continued move toward socialism where more and more citizens will depend on the government as much as possible."

The aspects of socialism many Americans are attracted to aren't the "welfare state" policies of getting paid for no work. Most Americans are appalled when they find that huge farm conglomerates are paid not to produce. Most Americans were happy when Clinton and the Republican congress passed welfare reform, pulling many off the roles of non-workers.

But when big business continues to work hand-in-hand with the current administration to increase profitability at the expense of the quality of life for the middle and lower class, people start to question who actually benefitted from the "booming" economy of the last decade.

One area where "socialism" may just be a solution:

Health Care - its obvious that our current system isn't efficient or especially better than those in western countries with national healthcare. Here's a link to a Frontline episode that has in depth interviews and analysis of our system vs. several other countries:

Frontline

The most startling fact here is that the US spends a much higher percentage on health care than any of these countries yet many are uninsured, many go bankrupt because of insurance, and many are dropped or not accepted because of pre-existing conditions.

Here's a quote from some guy:

+ Read his full interview

How would you assess the U.S. health care system?

The U.S. has a system [that] does have a poor cost-benefit ratio. I mean, 40 million people lack insurance; another 30 [million] or so are underinsured. The people who are insured do have to worry whether they are able to pay the bills. People become bankrupt because they cannot pay the medical bills, and there are vast differences in the quality of care depending on how much you are prepared and able to pay. I think the system is not working well.

squidhammer · Rising

PippiLongstocking wrote:

Mine's getting converted to gold.

Then it's going into a box.

In November of 2012, I will use it to buy bottled (or canned) water and food supplies, as well as weapons.

That way, when the End of Days comes on December 21st, 2012, I'll be set for awhile (if I haven't been cooked by the fallout or otherwise blown up).

I had the same mentality when Y2K was going to shut down all the chips. I had guns and water and was waiting for the **** to hit the fan.

artcinco · Mob Ruler

squidhammer wrote:

The government has had a growing stake in the economy for a long time. It's a mammoth part of the GDP (right now in the 35% range.) Certainly the government sees itself as a dominant part of the economic machine and, in the interest of its own preservation, makes adjustments to stimulate the economy.

The question isn't whether the government should do these bail outs - some of them are necessary. Most economists would agree with the logic behind helping the airline industry, Bear Stearns, Amtrak, etc. The funny thing is how "pragmatic" "conservatives" get when asked for solutions for working people (health care reform, Katrina bail out, mortgage bail out, economic stimulus.)

Your points are correct. The government is a large part of it. It attempts to steer the economy and does the bail out thing when it feels not doing it would be worse. Many times the government has caused the problems it then has to bail out.

squidhammer wrote:

The point of the stimulus seems primarily to get consumers into a spending mode. Apparently it is hoped that people will pour the money right back into the economy (and into the pockets of large corporations.) So, rather than saying it's a stimulus to the consumer, it's really a stimulus to big business - just like the above mentioned big business bail outs. Since I'm a fiscal conservative, I agree that the government shouldn't spend more than it takes in. America, as a whole, is probably in so much debt at this point it may be beyond saving through government intervention. We actually may be virtually bankrupt as a nation - unable to produce enough goods and services to service the debt we've incurred.

In the past, we would often have something to show for the debt we've incurred. But right now, much of the debt has paid for 9/11, Katrina, Iraq and inflated values to homes and internet stocks. We have nothing to show for any of these things.

The act of me going out and spending the stimulus on a new Sony HDTV and PS3 will mainly benefit SONY, a Japanese corporation. As to us having debt and not much to show for it in the cases you mention, sometimes stuff happens and you have to pay to fix it. 9-11 and Katrina fit that while Iraq was a gamble that the Bush folks decided to take. Internet stocks and the housing bubble for the most part are not getting bailouts at the bottom. This debt thing is the biggest threat to the country though. But then again our creditors can't afford for us to go under. Who would buy all the Chinese products?

squidhammer wrote:

"But then many folks in the U.S. prefer the continued move toward socialism where more and more citizens will depend on the government as much as possible."

The aspects of socialism many Americans are attracted to aren't the "welfare state" policies of getting paid for no work. Most Americans are appalled when they find that huge farm conglomerates are paid not to produce. Most Americans were happy when Clinton and the Republican congress passed welfare reform, pulling many off the roles of non-workers.

But when big business continues to work hand-in-hand with the current administration to increase profitability at the expense of the quality of life for the middle and lower class, people start to question who actually benefitted from the "booming" economy of the last decade.

One area where "socialism" may just be a solution:

Health Care - its obvious that our current system isn't efficient or especially better than those in western countries with national healthcare. Here's a link to a Frontline episode that has in depth interviews and analysis of our system vs. several other countries:

Frontline

The most startling fact here is that the US spends a much higher percentage on health care than any of these countries yet many are uninsured, many go bankrupt because of insurance, and many are dropped or not accepted because of pre-existing conditions.

My main concerns is the shift away from the free market and people doing for themselves to a government mandated solution where incentives for people to be industrious are removed.

You stated some facts about healthcare in America. I am curious if any studies have been done to compare the way healthcare works in this country vs. the way the public education system does. America supposedly spends more on education that anywhere else and gets less than stellar results.

squidhammer · Rising

artcinco wrote:

My main concerns is the shift away from the free market and people doing for themselves to a government mandated solution where incentives for people to be industrious are removed.

You stated some facts about healthcare in America. I am curious if any studies have been done to compare the way healthcare works in this country vs. the way the public education system does. America supposedly spends more on education that anywhere else and gets less than stellar results.

It's very possible our inflated pricing and predatory practices are a result of national healthcare in other advanced markets. Drug companies are restricted from charging high prices in Canada, Britain, Japan, etc. so they "justify their high R&D costs" by overcharging us to compensate. We're victims of the free market rather than beneficiaries.

Other countries pay much less, per person, than we do here despite the fact that we don't even insure everyone. So, for those 40 million, our system is much, much worse than these other countries.

I prefer a system much like our own Medicare. Good, comprehensive basic service, administered by private doctors and hospitals, that can be upgraded with supplemental private insurance or service contracts.

It is conceivable there is so much waste in our current system we could get by spending the same amount, per capita, and still insure the millions who have no insurance now.

I would say there really isn't a "free market" in America. The process is extremely cumbersome. There is little protection for common people who become ill. In our system, the weakest are penalized simply for becoming ill. They have to spend money, time and resources overseeing their healthcare because of the ala-carte' billing systems that make it necessary to scrutinize an 8 page bill for a visit to the clinic or doctor. The saddest thing I've witnessed is someone who is very ill who spends much of their time negotiating with HMOs and hospitals rather than trying to get well.

Nationalized healthcare would have another hidden benefit. It would give a HUGE break to corporations by relieving them of the burden of overseeing health care. How does it make more sense for a car company, mortgage company or clothing retailer to be the administrator of healthcare for every employee of the company? Is it that much of a reach to think that their time is better served actually doing business?

This, in turn, would probably increase employment. Companies would be less likely to freeze hiring for fear of having to incur the cost of providing benefits.

Another huge benefit would be to small business. The playing field would be further leveled for small companies (who have a hard time competing with big business) who no longer have to lose employees because of health care and benefit packages offered by the large corporations.

As far as healthcare vs. education - you can do a study yourself. It all comes down to population. Education in America is, for the most part, well administered by competent teachers. The main problem with education in America isn't the teachers or administration. It's the population of students. Across the board, student accomplishment can be tied to levels of crime and poverty in the community the school serves.

Usually the reason a private school has better results than a public school is that parents care enough to spend money on the education. The minute the government starts doleing out vouchers is the minute the quality of private schooling will drop. Private schools and magnet schools have the luxury of controlling their population, and having control over your population is a key to having good test scores and graduation ratios.

Applying that analogy to health care will yield some interesting conclusions. We know that America isn't known for proactive and preventative health care. In the crime and poverty ridden communities, you will see much more spent on health care than in more affluent communities. I would predict the hospitals and clinics in these areas will be pretty chaotic places - much like the substandard schools in these areas are. But it probably won't be much different than it is now. And it will probably be less expensive because the poor won't use "emergency room health insurance" as their primary caregiver.

The doctors and nurses will remain the same - therefore the care will probably stay pretty steady. So, just like in educational systems, those who can afford to pay and are willing to do so will probably administer their own health care in a more concientious way (through upgrades and supplements) than those who simply take what is given to them.

But, by eliminating the existing system that is responsible for millions of uninsured citizens, bankruptcies and undue stress that comes with dealing with complicated bills and procedures, the population as a whole will benefit from better mental and physical health.

artcinco · Mob Ruler

It's clear you have given the healthcare issue much more thought than I have. I would not be against some type of welfare healthcare program for folks who can't afford otherwise but would not want to be forced to participate in a government run system. I do not want to see the government dictating how the entire system should be run, with people put on waiting lists and laws against going outside the system.

I think Obama or Hillary would be more inclined to deliver a more retrictive system than McCain but who knows. Hillary said on O'Reilly that she just wants to open up the governement employees healtcare system to all Americans who want it. She also said if you are happy with your current arrangements then you can keep it. That may be the way to do it.

Should be an interesting fight in Congress either way.

squidhammer · Rising

Smacks and manly thumps!