If you make a bad loan, the Feds will bail you out

March 26th, 2010

If you viagra buy pharmacy 0, shop 6966492.story”>take a bad loan, viagra the Feds will bail you out.

The only people who don’t get bailed out are the ones who didn’t do anything stupid.

They get to be the ones who do all the bailing…which is pretty stupid when you come to think about it.

Entry Filed under: Observations

26 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Roland Melnick  |  March 28th, 2010 at 8:10 am

    It makes perfect sense to those who believe:

    “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

  • 2. Debunked  |  March 28th, 2010 at 8:17 am

    Which is still better than unbridled capitalism’s creed:

    “From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.”

  • 3. Roland Melnick  |  March 28th, 2010 at 8:51 am

    So I buy a new car because I’m gullible? Or a new computer? Jeans? Groceries? Home improvement supplies?

    And those who sell them are all greedy? I don’t know that we’ve had an unbridled system of capitalism in over 100 years.

    (Actually, people who buy brand new cars probably are a bit gullible…too much dealer mark up followed by depreciation the minute you drive off the lot.)

  • 4. Debunked  |  March 28th, 2010 at 9:07 am

    Depends on the car you get. Did you spend $30k for a new eight-person SUV for your four or five person family, or did you spend $12k on a one to two year old sedan that sits four or five people comfortably?

    And did you also get a new iPod with that computer? Did you spend an extra $1500 on a 30″ monitor? Did you already buy that new $5000 plasma TV?

    Jeans, groceries, and home improvement supplies fall under the “Food, clothing and shelter” category. Unless, of course, you’re buying $300 pairs of jeans or eating out at McDonald’s every night.

    You can take anything to extremes. The point is, currently American capitalism feeds off the middle class to line the pockets of a relatively very small number of super-wealthy.

  • 5. Roland Melnick  |  March 28th, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    Comes with a free society, Debunked. What difference does it make that someone gets rich running a business? In a true capitalist system, the amount of wealth is not finite, but in order to grow that wealth…people have to actually produce a good or service people want. Taking away all of Bill Gates’ money isn’t going to improve your lot in life.

    You walk into a car dealership, Gap, Apple Store or McDonald’s no one is holding a gun to your head. Only the government has the power to compel people to buy things…like health insurance.

  • 6. Debunked  |  March 28th, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    Wrong. Resources are finite, thus the amount of wealth is finite.

    And last I checked, you aren’t compelled to buy health insurance. You just get fined on your taxes if you don’t.

  • 7. Roland Melnick  |  March 28th, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    “Resources are finite, thus the amount of wealth is finite.”

    Resources and wealth are two different things. A 1=1 view of the two is extremely simplistic. But let’s pretend you’re right…it still doesn’t explain how taking away someone else’s wealth makes your life any better. Still doesn’t explain why someone who doesn’t produce jack deserves the same as those who do.

    “And last I checked, you aren’t compelled to buy health insurance. You just get fined on your taxes if you don’t.”

    Seriously? Did you read that before hitting the “submit” button? You don’t buy insurance, the govt. fines you. You don’t pay your fine, you go to jail. You refuse to go to jail, armed agents will scoop you up and take you there.

    If you don’t see that as the government compelling you to do something, you don’t know what the word “compel” means.

  • 8. Debunked  |  March 28th, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    I never said you don’t have to pay the fine. I merely said you don’t have to purchase health insurance. Just because speed limits exist doesn’t mean you’re compelled to obey them. The point that you are obviously not getting is that the choice of the word “compelled” is overly dramatic. You’re not compelled. It’s merely in your best interests to do so.

    Regarding your other comment: “Resources and wealth are two different things.” My statement was in direct response to your comment: “In a true capitalist system, the amount of wealth is not finite, but in order to grow that wealth…people have to actually produce a good or service people want.”

    You stated that you have to produce a good or provide a service to grow wealth. Producing a good requires material resources. Providing a service requires resources in the way of people. Both require resources which are not infinite. Nothing I said equated resources to wealth.

    And all that aside, I never said that those who produce jack deserve the same as those who do. I never said I thought everybody should be paid the exact same, regardless of their contribution. But there is nothing good about a vastly disparate wealth gap between the elite and the middle class – especially widening, as it has been for the past 30 years. The middle class is already barely better than the extremely poor when placed on a relative monetary scale illustrating the amounts of wealth people control. And as it widens, the middle class is merely pushed further and further toward poverty.

  • 9. Roland Melnick  |  March 28th, 2010 at 5:19 pm

    Debunked…who is effected the most financially by forcing people to buy something and fining if they don’t?

    I don’t care if you characterize it as a dramatic term or not. The govt is telling you “pay us or pay the health insurance company.” Either way it’s money out of your pocket. No private company has the power to do that. You can call it “friendly advice from your Uncle Barry and Aunt Nancy” if you like…I stand by my words. You’ve lost a little bit more of your freedom and don’t even know it.

    It’s one more step toward Obama’s Holy Grail…single payer.

  • 10. Debunked  |  March 28th, 2010 at 5:55 pm

    I already have health coverage, so I haven’t lost any freedom. And $30million+ individuals have gained the ability to get health insurance. So they have gained freedom, not lost it.

    Prior to the bill, you were unable to get health insurance if you had a pre-existing condition. Please explain to me how we can eliminate the notion of denying insurance based on pre-existing conditions without ensuring universal health coverage? Would you have prefer the bill did nothing other than make it illegal for insurance companies to deny insurance to individuals?

    Further, I assume by your statement “who is effected the most financially by forcing people to buy something and fining if they don’t?” you are either conveniently forgetting or unaware that if an individual is unable to purchase health care because it would be unaffordable, then they are not penalized for not having health insurance.

  • 11. neomom  |  March 28th, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    “Depends on the car you get. Did you spend $30k for a new eight-person SUV for your four or five person family, or did you spend $12k on a one to two year old sedan that sits four or five people comfortably?”

    What’s it to you?

    Why does anyone think they can decide what someone else can or cannot purchase with their own money?

    That, right there folks, is leftist/statist “reasoning” to take away individual liberties – I’m sure under the meme of what is “good” for us.

  • 12. Roland Melnick  |  March 28th, 2010 at 9:24 pm

    Making assumptions, then building an argument which you then attribute to me is called “building a straw man.” You put words in my mouth just so you can refute them. You don’t need to do that, especially since your assumption is incorrect. Just answer my question.

  • 13. Debunked  |  March 28th, 2010 at 10:02 pm

    What’s it to you?

    Why does anyone think they can decide what someone else can or cannot purchase with their own money?


    It doesn’t affect me at all, nor am I deciding what someone else can or can not purchase. The whole point of that conversation between Roland and me goes back to the original statement I made “from each according to their gullibility, to each according to their greed.

    I don’t care what you do or do not with your money. But it doesn’t stop me from thinking that people who make $50k a year and go out and buy a brand new Ford Expedition for $40k for their four person family $40k are idiots.

    You don’t need to do that, especially since your assumption is incorrect. Just answer my question.

    If you aren’t referring to people who can’t afford health care, then I have no idea who you are talking about. I wasn’t building a straw man argument. You asked who would be most financially burdened by being required to by healthcare. My answer to that was the people who can not afford health care due to monetary constraints. I then went ahead and pointed out, based on that answer, that the current bill already has provisions for those situations already, making that question/answer moot. If that was not the sect of people you were referring to, then by all means – enlighten me. But I did answer your question and counter it with a reason that answer is invalid if you were not aware of that provision within the bill.

    But you conveniently side-stepped my question as well. Namely, how do we ensure people can get health-care if they do want it (by ending denial based on pre-existing conditions) *without* mandating insurance coverage?

  • 14. Debunked  |  March 29th, 2010 at 9:17 am

    “Why does anyone think they can decide what someone else can or cannot purchase with their own money?”
    “It doesn’t affect me at all…”

    Actually, scratch that. The economy is so intertwined and webbed, that anything anybody does affects everybody else.

    Every time somebody decides to buy that gas-guzzling SUV they don’t need as opposed to a smaller vehicle, that’s that much more demand put on the oil market, thus increasing the price of gas I have to pay for, thus limiting my freedom in how much I can drive or how far I can drive on my next cross-country vacation.

    Every time somebody decides to go to Wal-mart rather than a higher quality local store or smaller chain, that’s one more small business that closes down, thus limiting my freedom in where to buy my products.

    Every time somebody decides to eat at McDonald’s their entire life, eroding and decaying their body until they end up in intensive care, that’s another dollar added to the cost that I pay for my health care, thus limiting my freedom in other products I can purchase.

    And every time somebody decides to buy in to the propaganda and fear of terrorists, that’s another dollar of my taxes that get spent to kill others under the guise of peace, illustrating a lack of freedom in deciding what my own tax dollars go toward.

    And I’m still waiting for the proposal that will solve the problem of pre-existing conditions without requiring people have health coverage.

  • 15. Elliot  |  March 29th, 2010 at 11:27 am

    Thanks for keeping it civil in this thread, folks. I appreciate it!

  • 16. John Foust  |  March 29th, 2010 at 11:33 am

    As Mr. Pelican Pants would say, “I like ham!”

  • 17. neomom  |  March 29th, 2010 at 5:33 pm

    So Debunked….

    Do you think that taking away people’s free will and giving it to central government comand and control will make anything better for you? That you’ll feel better if my elderly parents have to try to climb in and out of a Corolla instead of their mini-van that they can easily? That it would all just be better if we outlaw Ronald McDonald (like they are trying to do)? Really?

    Read “Land of the Green Plums” by Herta Mueller,

    Or look up prohibition and the war on drugs.

    Eliminating freedom doesn’t make life better or more affordable. It creates tyranny.

  • 18. Debunked  |  March 29th, 2010 at 5:48 pm

    Show me again where I said to outlaw fast food (which, since you missed it – my saving “McDonald’s” was meant to be taken as a reference to fast food in general)? My statement was that those who eat fast food excessively cause problems for everybody else. But way to ignore every single point I made in the above post.

    Speaking of prohibition… Does that mean that you’re also for the complete legalization of marijuana among other narcotic substances? If so, then we’re agreed there, so I don’t know why you would even bring that up.

    The only thing I have supported in this thread that you or Roland have insinuated is a reduction in your freedoms is mandatory health coverage.

    And I ask yet again, since I have not yet gotten an answer to this question: What is your proposed solution which will make it illegal for insurance companies to deny health coverage to individuals without making it mandatory to have health insurance?

    Because allowing a person to purchase health coverage is extending freedom, not limiting it.

  • 19. John Foust  |  March 29th, 2010 at 5:59 pm

    I’m feeling oppressed by the municipal water system. Some days, the roads. What can I do, Neo? Who should I vote for who will take those things away from me? If they go away, I think my taxes will go down A LOT, and that’s what’s most important to me, as I need a bigger TV and HBO.

  • 20. neomom  |  March 29th, 2010 at 7:17 pm

    I would support the legalization of drugs as long as we stop enabling the addicts and abusers of said drugs by calling it an “illness” and then having them become wards of the state because they no longer can take care of themselves and their families. Until we let them take full responsibility for their addictions and the problems they cause and we can literally step over them as they lay face down in the street – then nope, I don’t support it.

    Pardon my mistaking your rant against people eating at McDonald’s because it makes your premium higher for you wanting to ban fast food. You haven’t really had an issue with having a government you agree with tell people what they can or cannot do or drive before…

    And a mandate is not “allowing” someone to purchase coverage – it is making them do it. You want real insurance reform? Then stop using it for every frickin’ sniffle. Insurance should be for catastrophic and serious chronic care – not for ear infections. I don’t believe there should be a blanket ban on pre-existing conditions. If the government wants to be useful, then they could provide a catastrophic “back-stop”.

    Listen, I think the system needs some reform. But ObamaCare will make costs higher and, despite all the claims of unicorn skittles, will be very intrusive into medical decisions and the Comparative Effectiveness Board (modeled after the NICE board in the UK) will ultimately be the arbiter of what treatments, tests, drugs and protocols will be allowed.

    So – I’m against that.

    Foust – are you drunk or simply just an incoherent ass? Nevermind, I already know that answer.

  • 21. Debunked  |  March 29th, 2010 at 7:45 pm

    First of all, calling it “ObamaCare” is already incorrect. The bill is largely based on the Massachusetts program which Romney signed into law which in itself was based on the Republican health care legislation from the early 1990s when Clinton tried to get health care reform passed.

    Second, what facts are you basing your statement that it will make costs higher? The only non-partisan organization I have seen numbers from show it reducing costs over the next two decades – the CBO. And their previous estimates for the cost of medical care in the past have tended to overestimate spending and underestimate savings.

    Finally, why exactly are you against eliminating denial based on pre-existing conditions? I frankly find it appalling that anybody would support denying people who can afford health care coverage the ability to purchase it. What about situations where babies are born with conditions? They are then unable to get health care coverage for their entire life. And yes, there are examples of babies being denied health care coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Are you saying you support that?

    People with health care may go to the doctor more often, but the side effect of that is you tend to catch problems earlier thus costing less money in the long run. It’s one of the staples in preventative care versus treatment. If people have access to care immediately, then maybe they won’t need the half million dollar triple transplant surgery ten years later.

  • 22. neomom  |  March 29th, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    You answered your own question. Its based on RomneyCare.

    Take a look at the effects in MA. While more people are covered by insurance, it hasn’t reduced costs – on the contrary, rates in MA have skyrocketed and now they have the highest rates in the country.

    The assumptions were that by mandating the purchase of insurance, the state funded and subsidized costs would fall by spreading out the risk pool, when in fact, the state is paying more than they were before. There has been no reduction in the bad behaviors of using the emergency room as a primary care doc. They have had to cut back on reimbursements and hospitals – especially those that service primarily poor patients are closing in on bankruptcy. Their State Treasurer just issued a report indicating that a huge part of their state budget deficit is directly attributable to RomneyCare.

    They are also finding massive fraud where people “game” the system and don’t buy the insurance until they need it. Regardless of the mandate.

    ObamaCare is RomneyCare on steriods. But it never has been about lowering the costs, improving access and quality of care.. It has always been about further concentration of power and control to a centralized government.

  • 23. Debunked  |  March 30th, 2010 at 12:15 am

    First, Massachusetts’ health care plan hasn’t even been in place for four years. The cost savings estimates from the CBO on the federal plan are measured over a couple of decades. Also, the federal plan is based on it. It isn’t a direct copy.

    But is the plan going to significantly reduce costs? No. And nobody has said that. Today, it is estimated to reduce the deficit by a bit over $1 trillion over the next twenty years. That amounts to a reduction of $50 billion a year, heavily weighted toward the second decade. If that is accurate, then it is a good start. But it is by no means perfect. The public option or Grayson’s buy-in Medicare plan would be a good method of controlling health insurance costs, but both of those seem to be quite protested by conservatives as well. It really seems like the conservative school of thought is that they want nothing. We’ll continue paying twice as much per person as other countries with higher rated health care coverage, because… of fiscal responsibility? How exactly does that make sense?

    But yes, it is about moving toward a centralized health care system. And seeing as every other civilized country in the world provides just that and spends half as much as we do per person, it seems like that is quite a good direction to be headed.

    Further, all this talk about restricting freedoms is, quite frankly, ridiculous. By living in a civilized society, you are already choosing to give up certain freedoms for certain benefits. Contrary to popular belief, Democrats don’t have the monopoly on “limiting freedoms.” Last I checked, Conservatives are protesting gay marriage and women’s choice on abortion. Both of those are freedoms being restricted as well.

    People who really want unlimited freedom, need to find a deserted island or some spot in the middle of the jungle to live out the rest of their lives in seclusion. To want to garner the benefits of living amongst a society without contributing toward making that society a better place for everybody is, quite frankly, a selfish attitude.

  • 24. Elliot  |  March 30th, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Civilization and government are supposed to make us MORE free, not less, Debunked.

    In a world without government, the strong prey upon the weak so the weak are never free to own property or enjoy the fruits of their own labor.

    Conversely, in a world with too much government the same is true with the government playing the role of the stong.

    It’s only in the situation where government exists primarily to act as a physical protector and a fair referee of the market (while having it’s own powers severely limited by instituionalized checks and balances), that people can actually enjoy the freedom to own property and create wealth without fearing that either the strong or the government will confiscate it.

    Also, I understand why you characterize the abortion issue the way you do, but I think you should recognize that most pro-life advocates don’t consider abortion a freedom issue at all. They look at it as a conflict of rights between two individuals where the right of the child to live supersedes the right of the woman not to be pregnant.

  • 25. Debunked  |  March 30th, 2010 at 9:10 am

    Ah, but in the world without government the strong have the freedom to prey upon the weak. In the world with government, the strong no longer have that freedom.

    Is that not a freedom lost to create societal benefits? The very thing being argued against?

  • 26. John Foust  |  March 30th, 2010 at 10:29 am

    I thought the role of government was to have a big, strong military so we could start wars in any country we desired to rearrange, impoverish, and overlook collateral damage. After all, it was their fault they decided to live next-door to a suspected terrrrrrist house.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.