Quote:
The simplest answer is that printing new money out of thin air props up the transaction based industries for a short time. Flooding the market with new dollars enables commerce to boom until inflation sets in, consumer confidence plummets and the whole system collapses. If you hit the point of saturation then you get hyper-inflation like we've seen in Zimbabwe under Mugabe. The more the government does to "help" the worse the eventual outcome will be.
Historically speaking, the events in France that led to the reign of Napoleon are the textbook case of how fiat currency can destroy an economy. Here's a link to a free PDF that recounts the events. Page 59 has a nice table that shows the inflationary effect of the time in American currency. That a bushel of wheat went from 40 cents to 45 dollars in just 5 years should terrify us all for what's about to happen in this economy.
https://mises.org/books/inflationinfrance.pdf
This looks and feels familiar too:
<div>"For this general distress arising from the development
and collapse of "fiat" money in France, there was, indeed,
one exception. In Paris and a few of the other great cities,
men like Tallien, of the heartless, debauched, luxurious,
speculator, contractor and stock-gambler class, had risen
above the ruins of the multitudes of smaller fortunes. Tallien,
one of the worst demagogue "reformers," and a certain
number of men like him, had been skillful enough to
become millionaires, while their dupes, who had clamored
for issues of paper money, had become paupers."
</div>
"Quantitative Easing" has been the great weapon of choice to create the illusion of an economy on the rebound.
You're absolutely right about hyper inflation. At some point, all the money the Fed has pumped into the system has to be taken back out. When that happens, you'll see a complete meltdown as inflation takes off. It's a scary scenario, but it's happened throughout history, and it's going to happen again.
Quote:It was never a republican plan. Using Mitt Romney as some sort of benchmark that can be used to make it sound like republicans came up with ObamaCare ignores the fact that it was a heavily democratic state house in Massachusetts that passed the law, and a RINO republican in the governor's office to sign it into law. What ObamaCare has become is a FAR cry from what Romney put together in MA.
FYI, there are just as many uninsured Americans AFTER ObamaCare as there were before. This was never about providing quality, affordable healthcare to the masses, and if you believe otherwise, step away from the KoolAid.
Obamacare is an absolute train wreck....
and as he said.....
HE won.
Quote:"Quantitative Easing" has been the great weapon of choice to create the illusion of an economy on the rebound.
You're absolutely right about hyper inflation. At some point, all the money the Fed has pumped into the system has to be taken back out. When that happens, you'll see a complete meltdown as inflation takes off. It's a scary scenario, but it's happened throughout history, and it's going to happen again.
Not only that....
But I think the low interest rates are also a problem because it seems that in an attempt to jump start the economy in recent recessions, one of their "answers" is usually to drop rates to spur business/ commerce...well, the rates are so low right now and we never increased them so were in a spot now where we don't even have the option to drop rates should another recession/ depression hit.
Quote:Obamacare is an absolute train wreck....
and as he said.....
HE won.
Do you have health insurance?
Quote:Do you have health insurance?
I do, and I had it before ObamaCare. However, starting next year, if I want insurance, I have to rely on the government to provide it to me because my employer, like millions of others, are going to push us off into exchanges next year when the employer mandate kicks in. Obama didn't provide me with insurance. I have been paying more than $15k a year for my benefits for a while now for me and my family. My plan is considered a "Cadillac plan" by dear ruler, and as such, I'll have to pay a penalty for wanting to have better insurance for me and my family. As a result, my employer has already made the decision that it'll be less of a headache for them to push employees into exchanges.
Quote:Not only that....
But I think the low interest rates are also a problem because it seems that in an attempt to jump start the economy in recent recessions, one of their "answers" is usually to drop rates to spur business/ commerce...well, the rates are so low right now and we never increased them so were in a spot now where we don't even have the option to drop rates should another recession/ depression hit.
Low interest rates were in part intended to spur banks into loaning out more money. Unfortunately, as the banks were bailed out with trillions in taxpayer dollars, they weren't loaning that money back out to consumers to put that money back into the system.
Quote:Low interest rates were in part intended to spur banks into loaning out more money. Unfortunately, as the banks were bailed out with trillions in taxpayer dollars, they weren't loaning that money back out to consumers to put that money back into the system.
thats correct.....but my point still stands....with the rates having never gone back up, we won't even have the option to lower rates to help during the next recession, since theres nowhere left to lower them to.
Quote:I do, and I had it before ObamaCare. However, starting next year, if I want insurance, I have to rely on the government to provide it to me because my employer, like millions of others, are going to push us off into exchanges next year when the employer mandate kicks in. Obama didn't provide me with insurance. I have been paying more than $15k a year for my benefits for a while now for me and my family. My plan is considered a "Cadillac plan" by dear ruler, and as such, I'll have to pay a penalty for wanting to have better insurance for me and my family. As a result, my employer has already made the decision that it'll be less of a headache for them to push employees into exchanges.
what are these "exchanges"?
Here is the national debt by Treasury Direct from 2000 to 2012: Now the fiscal year ends 9/30 so it's necessary to realize the presidents take office in January but little changes the first 9 months anyway. But for comparison, you can see under President Bush the National debt went from $5.6 trillion to $11.9 trillion, for an increase of 112%.
The National Debt today is $17.5 trillion. Under Obama's watch the National Debt has gone up 47% in his 6 years. Now, a large part of the increase was the stimulus package to stop the economic free fall, which Bush also agreed with by bailing out Citicorp, Shearson Lehman, AIG, General Motors among others. Both presidents recognized that the governments ability to pump money into the economy was a better option than to let companies fail which would put more people into unemployment lines which the government would have paid in benefits anyway.
Also make note, the Presidents can't do anything Congress doesn't agree to anyway. The President, being the chief of the executive branch, can initiate executive branch decisions, but cannot appropriate funds without Congressional approval.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repor...histo5.htm
Regards.......................the Chiefjag
"My wife had Cancer within the first few years of our marriage. She beat it, but we lost our coverage as a result. She was without coverage for six years because of her history. She would get sick and not tell me, because the costs of just seeing a doctor were often more than a young couple could handle.
She also worried constantly that her cancer would return and bankrupt us - to the point where she considered divorcing so as not to drag me down if she were to go down. Because of Obamacare, she now has health coverage again and we're healthy.
We didn't vote for Obama. We're your standard issued caucasian Republicans. However after Cancer, a handicapped child, etc., our political opinions have really changed."
Interesting anecdote I read today^^
Quote:"My wife had Cancer within the first few years of our marriage. She beat it, but we lost our coverage as a result. She was without coverage for six years because of her history. She would get sick and not tell me, because the costs of just seeing a doctor were often more than a young couple could handle.
She also worried constantly that her cancer would return and bankrupt us - to the point where she considered divorcing so as not to drag me down if she were to go down. Because of Obamacare, she now has health coverage again and we're healthy.
We didn't vote for Obama. We're your standard issued caucasian Republicans. However after Cancer, a handicapped child, etc., our political opinions have really changed."
Interesting anecdote I read today^^
what was the source of the reading?....
who knows if thats even a true story??
It sounds like something the democrats would use as a plant on an ACA ad/ or article.
Yes, thats how cynical I've gotten in regards to how low I think the dem's would stoop.
Quote:"My wife had Cancer within the first few years of our marriage. She beat it, but we lost our coverage as a result. She was without coverage for six years because of her history. She would get sick and not tell me, because the costs of just seeing a doctor were often more than a young couple could handle.
She also worried constantly that her cancer would return and bankrupt us - to the point where she considered divorcing so as not to drag me down if she were to go down. Because of Obamacare, she now has health coverage again and we're healthy.
We didn't vote for Obama. We're your standard issued caucasian Republicans. However after Cancer, a handicapped child, etc., our political opinions have really changed."
Interesting anecdote I read today^^
Can you source that by any chance? I'm not questioning your integrity, but that story sounds like it came right out of the propaganda department.
My personal experience (in healthcare btw) is that most people coming in with plans from the ACA mechanisms are paying more for their premiums, more in out of pocket, and have much narrower provider networks.
Edit: Which squares with my observation that the ACA is more about making the insurance companies more profitable rather than providing financing for health care services.
Quote:Can you source that by any chance? I'm not questioning your integrity, but that story sounds like it came right out of the propaganda department.
great minds think alike :thumbsup:
Quote:Funny thing is, in 2008, people rated Bush as the worst of all time. I think we're in for a long line of "worst of all time" because a) we're so polarized, and b)after 6 years, people are always tired of whoever the President is.
You're probably right. It makes a lot of sense, to me.
Quote:I swear.. I remember reading something about Rand Paul tied to white supremacist groups before.
It wouldn't surprise me if you've heard something like that.
It seems that most politicians, no matter what side of the aisle they're on, are said to be tied to something radical.
Obama was tied to Bill Ayers and Rev Wright. Bush had affiliation rumors,, many senators/congressmen have affiliation rumors,, and so on.
They all seem jacked up.
Quote:You're probably right. It makes a lot of sense, to me.
It's the tyranny of the present. The Good Old Days were better and things have never been as bad as they are right now. Combine that with the continued elevation of the Office of the President to cult like followings and you have the perfect recipe for disaster.
Quote:http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2...9mIatm9Kc0
There is plenty of stories out there if you don't want to believe mine.^^
<p class="">
Richard Kirsch is senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and senior adviser to USAction, which advocates for universal health care. He is the author of Fighting for Our Health: The Epic Battle to Make Health Care a Right in the United States
.
Clearly that's an unbiased source there.
Quote:Do you have health insurance?
I don't and haven't for six years, guess what I don't want Government providing it for me either. Like many things in life what I can't afford I go without. It's really a simple concept, if I get sick and it's an emergency I make payments until I've paid for my medical bills, as a matter of fact I just paid off the last of a $8,000 bill this year from about 5 years ago.
It's ridiculous that people have the concept you simply can't live without health insurance. Sure it's a great thing to have but when did it become a necessity of life?
When did making sure I have insurance become the role of government?
Quote:I don't and haven't for six years, guess what I don't want Government providing it for me either. Like many things in life what I can't afford I go without. It's really a simple concept, if I get sick and it's an emergency I make payments until I've paid for my medical bills, as a matter of fact I just paid off the last of a $8,000 bill this year from about 5 years ago.
It's ridiculous that people have the concept you simply can't live without health insurance. Sure it's a great thing to have but when did it become a necessity of life?
When did making sure I have insurance become the role of government?
When government subsidization priced most consumers out of the market, just like with college tuition.