Health Care Debate - Birmingham, AL

Discuss the national Health Care debate in Birmingham, AL.

Do you support President Obama's health care policy?

Birmingham opposes
Oppose
 
22
Support
 
10

Vote now in Birmingham:

TV MAN

United States

#47 Dec 29, 2010
ConfusedByRhetoric wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, the only stick is that the people who don't pay now, won't pay later. So, what is your plan now genius? I am sure you're aware of who does and doesn't pay taxes in this nation? So, let's do the math, 45% of the people don't pay any tax and would have access to benefits, so who pays their portion? Let me answer that, me, since I work and pay taxes. So, to keep the plan solvent, which it will never achieve solvency, my taxes must go up or the plan (government) goes broke. So, once again, how are we supposed to pay for this massive entitlement program?
I suppose that is absurd and my life is lost?
Don't call me a genius, you tell me. You're the one complaining. This is how I'm currently handling it. I have a Blue Cross policy with a 10,000 dollar deductable for low premiums. It pays 100% after the first 10,000. When my out of pocket costs are incurred I negotiate based on insurance discounts. After that I request an EOB for a detailed cost analysis. I question their billing based on customary and reasonable costs. I give them two options, one lump some, or small payments for ever. They always take the negotiated amount. So there's no reason to pay high premiums on low deductables. That's my solution, what's your's MR BIG SHOT.

“Nothing Is Free In This World”

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#48 Dec 30, 2010
TV MAN wrote:
<quoted text>Don't call me a genius, you tell me. You're the one complaining. This is how I'm currently handling it. I have a Blue Cross policy with a 10,000 dollar deductable for low premiums. It pays 100% after the first 10,000. When my out of pocket costs are incurred I negotiate based on insurance discounts. After that I request an EOB for a detailed cost analysis. I question their billing based on customary and reasonable costs. I give them two options, one lump some, or small payments for ever. They always take the negotiated amount. So there's no reason to pay high premiums on low deductables. That's my solution, what's your's MR BIG SHOT.
I am not complaining about how you pay for your insurance. It appears to me that you have a high deductible policy which saves you money. You have the right to that choice and myself, I like HSA's, which, essentially are the same thing. High deductible, self insurance. The only problem with self insurance is the fact that you must have $10,000.00 to pay your deductible, which most people aren't that diligent or it's not that important for them to save such a nest egg.

I am debating Obama Care and how the government wants me, to pay for everyone's insurance. Pretty cut and dried, so don't make comments about me getting a life and being absurd, when you're apparently wanting to debate your insurance plan and not Obama Care, which inevitably raises taxes, adds millions to the health care rolls, without any additional contributions, thus resulting in me paying more money for less benefits.

So, back to my original post, Nationalized Health Care seems like a great thing, however; I can't see how the program will be solvent, unless my taxes increase? People that don't work and people that don't pay taxes today, will not all of the sudden decide its time to get a job and start paying taxes just because Obama Care was enacted, however; they will have coverage under the plan.

All that being said, I agree with what you're doing, health insurance shouldn't be used for the common cold, it should be a back - stop for catastrophes, therefore; people that want cheaper insurance, should self insure. When people self insure, they have skin in the game, which usually leads to a marketplace that is fair and competitive, with educated consumers, which makes a lot more sense to me, than Obama Care. I agree with opening up states, thus allowing Portability Of Insurance Coverage and HSA Subsidies (Individual / Company), which allow people wanting to insure themselves and their family more flexibility, instead of just doling out handouts to everyone standing in line, because it's moral.

So, I don't really see, where we disagree? It appears to me that you're happy with your insurance plan and you seem to understand how to get affordable insurance with coverage that is acceptable to you? So, maybe I am confused, do you support Obama Care or do you champion the Private Sector?
TV MAN

United States

#49 Dec 30, 2010
ConfusedByRhetoric wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not complaining about how you pay for your insurance. It appears to me that you have a high deductible policy which saves you money. You have the right to that choice and myself, I like HSA's, which, essentially are the same thing. High deductible, self insurance. The only problem with self insurance is the fact that you must have $10,000.00 to pay your deductible, which most people aren't that diligent or it's not that important for them to save such a nest egg.
I am debating Obama Care and how the government wants me, to pay for everyone's insurance. Pretty cut and dried, so don't make comments about me getting a life and being absurd, when you're apparently wanting to debate your insurance plan and not Obama Care, which inevitably raises taxes, adds millions to the health care rolls, without any additional contributions, thus resulting in me paying more money for less benefits.
So, back to my original post, Nationalized Health Care seems like a great thing, however; I can't see how the program will be solvent, unless my taxes increase? People that don't work and people that don't pay taxes today, will not all of the sudden decide its time to get a job and start paying taxes just because Obama Care was enacted, however; they will have coverage under the plan.
All that being said, I agree with what you're doing, health insurance shouldn't be used for the common cold, it should be a back - stop for catastrophes, therefore; people that want cheaper insurance, should self insure. When people self insure, they have skin in the game, which usually leads to a marketplace that is fair and competitive, with educated consumers, which makes a lot more sense to me, than Obama Care. I agree with opening up states, thus allowing Portability Of Insurance Coverage and HSA Subsidies (Individual / Company), which allow people wanting to insure themselves and their family more flexibility, instead of just doling out handouts to everyone standing in line, because it's moral.
So, I don't really see, where we disagree? It appears to me that you're happy with your insurance plan and you seem to understand how to get affordable insurance with coverage that is acceptable to you? So, maybe I am confused, do you support Obama Care or do you champion the Private Sector?
I support the private sector. Yet, I don't support profit first, patients second. A free market can't function with rules that require service without payment. That's not considered Capitalism. Republicans and Democrats need to change the rules if they want a true free market. However that's not likly. Why? Do you want to allow people to die based on not having enough money. Of course not. We need a balance, and that's why everyone needs to pay something.

“Nothing Is Free In This World”

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#50 Dec 30, 2010
TV MAN wrote:
<quoted text>I support the private sector. Yet, I don't support profit first, patients second. A free market can't function with rules that require service without payment. That's not considered Capitalism. Republicans and Democrats need to change the rules if they want a true free market. However that's not likly. Why? Do you want to allow people to die based on not having enough money. Of course not. We need a balance, and that's why everyone needs to pay something.
I agree with you on all fronts, it is compelling to me how, if I support capatilism and free markets, I am somehow heartless and have no compassion, when engaged in this debate. Albeit, any business, must make money to be solvent, I am sure you don't think that's a crime, since we all work for profit in some fashion or another? However; the costs can be controlled by displacement of responsibility. Since I have been an adult, I thought you had low deductibles, because it saved you money, well we both know that is false. So, the only way to control the costs of health insurance is to quit being reliant on an insurance company to pay our bill for the common cold and pull it out of our own bank account, thus lowering our premium, through self insurance.

I agree fully, that people should pay their way and a sector that allows people to take advantage of a service for free, will ultimately punish consumers that pay. That is why I am a champion of the HSA, since you have a high deductible and you are forced as a consumer to keep the industry or service in check, just like a mechanic or power company. How many people do you know, that never look at their insurance statements, if they had an HSA or High Deductible Plan, they would scrutinize the bill, similar to your phone or cable bill.

You ask an interesting question about us doing something. We're really in a limbo, since government health care is a dog with fleas, that I don't want in my house. It's essentially welfare, just as unemployment is nothing but a welfare program now. However; any legislation and / or reform will ultimately lead to free entitlements, so I don't know if the current system where we have a 10%- 12% hike added to our health insurance premiums to cover the indigent, isn't better than the 30% tax we will be looking at in 2014, once Obama Care is fully functional?

The only real thing that we can do right now is continue to save money and have high deductible policies, which might offset the cost of healthcare on an 70 - 30 split?
TV MAN

United States

#51 Dec 30, 2010
ConfusedByRhetoric wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you on all fronts, it is compelling to me how, if I support capatilism and free markets, I am somehow heartless and have no compassion, when engaged in this debate. Albeit, any business, must make money to be solvent, I am sure you don't think that's a crime, since we all work for profit in some fashion or another? However; the costs can be controlled by displacement of responsibility. Since I have been an adult, I thought you had low deductibles, because it saved you money, well we both know that is false. So, the only way to control the costs of health insurance is to quit being reliant on an insurance company to pay our bill for the common cold and pull it out of our own bank account, thus lowering our premium, through self insurance.
I agree fully, that people should pay their way and a sector that allows people to take advantage of a service for free, will ultimately punish consumers that pay. That is why I am a champion of the HSA, since you have a high deductible and you are forced as a consumer to keep the industry or service in check, just like a mechanic or power company. How many people do you know, that never look at their insurance statements, if they had an HSA or High Deductible Plan, they would scrutinize the bill, similar to your phone or cable bill.
You ask an interesting question about us doing something. We're really in a limbo, since government health care is a dog with fleas, that I don't want in my house. It's essentially welfare, just as unemployment is nothing but a welfare program now. However; any legislation and / or reform will ultimately lead to free entitlements, so I don't know if the current system where we have a 10%- 12% hike added to our health insurance premiums to cover the indigent, isn't better than the 30% tax we will be looking at in 2014, once Obama Care is fully functional?
The only real thing that we can do right now is continue to save money and have high deductible policies, which might offset the cost of healthcare on an 70 - 30 split?
Where have you been? I've been posting on topixs for two years and your the first person that fully understands the insurance game. If any other major industry had functioned as badly as the American disease management industry has, people would have stopped spending their money on it. Yet, this industry has a tremendous advantage over virtually every other business in the country. Most of its costs, for most people, don't come directly out of pocket. Instead, they are covered by insurance. The outrageousness of medical costs is often obscured by the illusion that they consist mostly of consumers co-pays, which are often so low as to make services and products seem almost free. People also tend to think health insurance is an unavoidable fact of life that we have long been paying dearly for.

“Nothing Is Free In This World”

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#52 Dec 31, 2010
TV MAN wrote:
<quoted text>Where have you been? I've been posting on topixs for two years and your the first person that fully understands the insurance game. If any other major industry had functioned as badly as the American disease management industry has, people would have stopped spending their money on it. Yet, this industry has a tremendous advantage over virtually every other business in the country. Most of its costs, for most people, don't come directly out of pocket. Instead, they are covered by insurance. The outrageousness of medical costs is often obscured by the illusion that they consist mostly of consumers co-pays, which are often so low as to make services and products seem almost free. People also tend to think health insurance is an unavoidable fact of life that we have long been paying dearly for.
Yes, interestingly enough, insurance is the only industry that I know about, where you're guaranteed a profit, regardless of how bad you manage the business.

Another thing that interests me is the fact that most people don't understand insurance brokerage and the re-insurance market. Essentially, all claims, whether it be automobile, health insurance or business liability, comes from the same pool of money. So, when times are bad, re - insurance rates go up across the board, which trickles through the system, resulting in you and I paying more for the same service. That's why our insurance increased after Hurricane Katrina, even my insurance on a house in Oklahoma saw a 7% increase Post - Katrina.

I agree, health insurance is very affordable, should people take personal responsibility for their life and finances. However; that would be considered immature now days, eh?

Another compelling fact for me, is the notion that surgeries and medical diagnostics are cheap. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but innovation costs money. Additionally, I don't want a surgeon that makes $30.00 / hour hacking and cutting on me, I prefer a heavily compensated surgeon that wants to be in the room performing a surgery. So, I really don't see those costs going down anytime soon. I suppose the only real solution is to hedge against rising costs, with high deductibles?
TV MAN

United States

#53 Dec 31, 2010
ConfusedByRhetoric wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, interestingly enough, insurance is the only industry that I know about, where you're guaranteed a profit, regardless of how bad you manage the business.
Another thing that interests me is the fact that most people don't understand insurance brokerage and the re-insurance market. Essentially, all claims, whether it be automobile, health insurance or business liability, comes from the same pool of money. So, when times are bad, re - insurance rates go up across the board, which trickles through the system, resulting in you and I paying more for the same service. That's why our insurance increased after Hurricane Katrina, even my insurance on a house in Oklahoma saw a 7% increase Post - Katrina.
I agree, health insurance is very affordable, should people take personal responsibility for their life and finances. However; that would be considered immature now days, eh?
Another compelling fact for me, is the notion that surgeries and medical diagnostics are cheap. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but innovation costs money. Additionally, I don't want a surgeon that makes $30.00 / hour hacking and cutting on me, I prefer a heavily compensated surgeon that wants to be in the room performing a surgery. So, I really don't see those costs going down anytime soon. I suppose the only real solution is to hedge against rising costs, with high deductibles?
You're smart for comprehending reality. Many Americans live in the wrong reality, and buy into hopes and dreams. Most entreprenuers have come to realize "hopes and dreams" without a plan are destined to lose. Thus U.S. taxpayers not only pay for these programs through their tax dollars, they also pay for them through the hidden tax of inflation, which devalues the dollar. That is why saving your money is a losing proposition. Rather, you should do what the rich do and actually profit from inflation. The rich profit from inflation by using their money to purchase assets that not only provide cash flow but also benefit from inflation. Taxes, interest, and inflation make most people poorer. For rich people taxes, interest, and inflation can actually make them richer.
Obama

Denver, CO

#54 Jan 4, 2011
TV MAN wrote:
<quoted text>You're smart for comprehending reality. Many Americans live in the wrong reality, and buy into hopes and dreams. Most entreprenuers have come to realize "hopes and dreams" without a plan are destined to lose. Thus U.S. taxpayers not only pay for these programs through their tax dollars, they also pay for them through the hidden tax of inflation, which devalues the dollar. That is why saving your money is a losing proposition. Rather, you should do what the rich do and actually profit from inflation. The rich profit from inflation by using their money to purchase assets that not only provide cash flow but also benefit from inflation. Taxes, interest, and inflation make most people poorer. For rich people taxes, interest, and inflation can actually make them richer.
I'm gald you could admit it, living in the wrong reality, that means you. Thanks tv for admitting that.
yomama

Oakhurst, NJ

#55 Jan 4, 2011
Obama wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm gald you could admit it, living in the wrong reality, that means you. Thanks tv for admitting that.
Yo mama's so nasty she joined the four horseman: war, death, famine, disease and Yo momma
Obama

Denver, CO

#56 Jan 4, 2011
yomama wrote:
<quoted text>
Yo mama's so nasty she joined the four horseman: war, death, famine, disease and Yo momma
in a nut shell, you are just plain stupid. you must get all this lame sh!t from tv
TV MAN

United States

#57 Jan 4, 2011
Obama wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm gald you could admit it, living in the wrong reality, that means you. Thanks tv for admitting that.
It's obvious your reality is the wrong reality, based on how negative and unhappy you are. Go back to your bunker while the rich get richer. Maybe one day you'll listen.

“Nothing Is Free In This World”

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#58 Jan 5, 2011
Obama wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm gald you could admit it, living in the wrong reality, that means you. Thanks tv for admitting that.
Since your comments strike me as intelligent and full of wisdom, what is your vision? What part of the conversation did you not understand? Please point out the obvious, other than you are incapable of an intelligent debate?

Judging from your name, you probably believe that everyone is "ENTITLED" to Health Care Coverage, Section 8, Welfare, Social Security, you know the Social Safety Net?

However; the "ENTITLED" never seem compelled to "PAY" for the services from which they continue to take from and wonder, why in the hell a tax paying Conservative wouldn't agree with footing your bill..........

So, what is the right reality, Mr. Obama, me paying your bills and you bitching, that I am not paying enough?
TV MAN

United States

#59 Jan 6, 2011
The conservatives are being proven wrong, time and time again.

American tax payers ownership of GM, "which conservatives were against", is working. Surprise Surprise. Taxpayers ownership of General Motors was halved on Wednesday, and billions of dollars in bailout money returned to the federal government, as a result of the nations largest initial stock offering ever. Stupid conservatives and their ignorant IQ on economic strategies, could have stopped the success of GM, and the jobs it saved. Saving GM saved more than 1.1 million jobs in 2009 and 314,000 jobs this year, the highest figure yet reported. Based on a study from Center for Automotive Research. I'm not surprised, it's common sense, something conservatives don't have.

“Nothing Is Free In This World”

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#60 Jan 8, 2011
TV MAN wrote:
The conservatives are being proven wrong, time and time again.
American tax payers ownership of GM, "which conservatives were against", is working. Surprise Surprise. Taxpayers ownership of General Motors was halved on Wednesday, and billions of dollars in bailout money returned to the federal government, as a result of the nations largest initial stock offering ever. Stupid conservatives and their ignorant IQ on economic strategies, could have stopped the success of GM, and the jobs it saved. Saving GM saved more than 1.1 million jobs in 2009 and 314,000 jobs this year, the highest figure yet reported. Based on a study from Center for Automotive Research. I'm not surprised, it's common sense, something conservatives don't have.
So you don't see government bailouts of any corporation, within any sector of business as reckless? If you don't, how does that process allow a free market to work correctly?

Essentially, it is government meddling and manipulation that has gold pegged at $1400.00 / ounce and DJIA at 11,500, which usually doesn't happen, once typically hedges the other? Most econonmists will give you broad projections for 2011, such as DJIA will rest somewhere between 7,000 - 14,000 and gold will correct at $800.00 -$3000.00 / ounce hell; I can do that good, however; most people are trying to predict an artificial market, plagued by government meddling.

While you may agree that bailouts were good for General Motors, what about the other $690 billion? I wouldn't call the bailout(s) of 1998 an economic success by any means, within any economic realm, unless you received bailout funds directly?

While I support saving jobs, who is going to save my job / company, should my firm / myself manage funds incorrectly or for Wall Street and GM, down right reckless management of money? Additionally, what dictates, who and what sector are the recipients of bailout money, other than polictical ideology and good old political back - slapping and corporate favorites? It's interesting how many people worked within Obama's cabinet and the links they had to bailout recipients on Wall Street.

Now we have Quantitative Easing 2, which will be followed by QE - 3 and QE - 4, which is going to be a disaster, since inflation, hyperinflation, stagflation and deflation all sit right around the corner from the money printing presses. Should the government have allowed the free market to work as it would for you and I, should our business model fail, we wouldn't be trying to justify over $1.5 trillion dollars of fiscal stimulus. Now, I am not saying it would have been painless, however; it is going to be painful, regardless of where all this broken, economic policy ends up?

Common sense, Conservative or not, tells me inflation is already here and the American Dollar is being debased as we speak. When you're paying $5.00 for milk that is processed in Sylacauga, well, I guess we can print some more money, so, milk can be $7.00 or $8.00 gallon? Everything around you is increasing exponentially, except wages, so keep telling yourself this is a Conservative mistake, when Congress has been ruled for 2 years by liberals. It is a government / policy mistake to meddle with the markets, since average Americans lose confidence in the markets as do foreign investors, when governments meddle within markets.

So, when you're paying $5.00 or $7.00 / gallon for gas, chalk that one up to your buddy Obama, for his moratorium in the Gulf. How much sense does that make?

It's manipulation of the markets, plain and simple, which benefits nobody but the recipients themselves and the over - reaching government being mixed up in private matters, to which they have no business.

So, I can say we definitely disagree on this topic.

“Nothing Is Free In This World”

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#61 Jan 9, 2011
ConfusedByRhetoric wrote:
<quoted text>
While you may agree that bailouts were good for General Motors, what about the other $690 billion? I wouldn't call the bailout(s) of 1998 an economic success by any means, within any economic realm, unless you received bailout funds directly?
Sorry, 2008 Bailout, not 1998, before the typo please come from the wood - work.
TV MAN

United States

#62 Jan 9, 2011
ConfusedByRhetor ic
"Liberalism Is Foolish":

Don't get me wrong, I understand your argument. It's a very good argument. However, as you may know rules of such evidence is inadmissible, there are many exceptions. As I mentioned earlier for every rule there is at least one exception. The problem with the Fed is the people who run it and conflicts of interest that have developed over the past thirty years. Proposals to disband the Fed are disproportionate. There are 195 countries in the world, and every one of them has some form of central bank. Are the citizens of those countries proposing legislation to rid them of their central bank? No. Why? Because it's understood that the alternatives to a central bank are even worse. Without a central bank to supply cash during financial market emergencies, a nation depends on the biggest private bankers in town. That's how we used to do it, with less than ideal results. As for price stability, if the institution responsible for managing the money supply is not at least marginally politically independent from the legislature, you can guess what happens. One of the missions of the fed is to regulate the financial system so that risks do not accumulate that pose a systemic threat to its broader commercial banking constituency. That's what happen to the 690 billion you're speaking of. GM, AIG and others were considered a systemic threat. We may never know if that's true, yet why take the chance.
TV MAN

United States

#63 Jan 9, 2011
ConfusedByRhetor ic
"Liberalism Is Foolish":

You speak of inflation. All inflation is not bad. We need some inflation for higher interest rates to reward those that invest and save. The net increase in foreign purchases of U.S. Treasury securities for the period August 2008 to August 2009 is 281 billion, approximately 20 percent of the total issuance. The balance, the other 80 percent, was purchased by domestic entities. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence about who in the United states is buying up all of these short-term Treasury bills other than U.S. households, such as commercial banks and the Fed itself, but no one really knows who all of the purchasers are and who ultimately holds what. Nothing is cheap, and the bonds backed by the world's largest military and political power have historically been a good bet, all other considerations aside. It is safe to say printing money with high unemployment and a increasing population is not as prone to inflation.

“Nothing Is Free In This World”

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

#64 Jan 9, 2011
TV MAN wrote:
ConfusedByRhetor ic
"Liberalism Is Foolish":
You speak of inflation. All inflation is not bad. We need some inflation for higher interest rates to reward those that invest and save. The net increase in foreign purchases of U.S. Treasury securities for the period August 2008 to August 2009 is 281 billion, approximately 20 percent of the total issuance. The balance, the other 80 percent, was purchased by domestic entities. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence about who in the United states is buying up all of these short-term Treasury bills other than U.S. households, such as commercial banks and the Fed itself, but no one really knows who all of the purchasers are and who ultimately holds what. Nothing is cheap, and the bonds backed by the world's largest military and political power have historically been a good bet, all other considerations aside. It is safe to say printing money with high unemployment and a increasing population is not as prone to inflation.
I disagree, but hey, this is America. I personally have a problem with the let's spend our country into oblivion approach. I suppose State Governments are next on the bailout list, since nobody is buying municipal bonds in California to cover debt? Where does it all end, that's the main problem?

It's pretty simple, quit spending money. Why is that so hard for Liberal or Conservative politicians? Additionally, this picture might look a little different if the government would let the markets operate freely and start shrinking the ever - growing Social Safety Net(s). You notice, I didn't say end them, but somebody is going to have to trim them, reform them, whatever; word you want to use?

Well, at some point you can't fund your military because your currency isn't worth a damn thing. I personally believe our economy is too robust for all the doomsday scenarios, however; you never know, theory and reality are usually just a day or two away? Politically, we are starting to look ridiculous, when Obama goes to a G8 Summit and demands that other countries, manipulate their markets and currency to prop up our market and currency.

You know, Japan tried Quantitative Easing and saw little to no growth for a decade, interesting, eh?

So, to sum it up, our government has exponentially more money going out, than it has coming in and can't pay it's bills unless the debt ceiling is raised. That is interesting, since my money says it gets raised and they, like drunken sailors, keep spending until, we're doing the same thing next year? So, you think that is a good policy, wished it worked at my house?
TV MAN

United States

#65 Jan 9, 2011
ConfusedByRhetor ic
"Liberalism Is Foolish"

I hear what your saying, yet no one knows exactly how having the Treasury hold the bulk of credit risk will be expressed. No central bank has ever had a balance sheet that looks like the Fed's, with nearly half its assets in unmarketable securities, when at the same time the country ran a budget in excess of 10 percent of GDP. If any other nation did the same, they'd already be paying double digit interest rates on sovereign debt for the privilege. On the one hand we're using currency depreciation to increase inflation expections. On the other we're flooding the markets with liquidity to hold down interest rates. We cannot keep doing both forever. Something's got to give. Yet U.S. Treasury bonds are considered default risk-free. From 1999 until early 2001 Argentine government bonds traded at a premium to U.S. Treasury bonds. At the time, Argentina's bondholders must have believed that there was less unflation risk in Argentina than in the United States. They thought the Argentine government was more determined to manage the economy to produce low inflation and maintain the currency peg. Worst case, The IMF had their back. They were wrong on all counts. The U. S. stock market had crashed and caused an economic crisis, and the IMF abandoned Argentina. The worry today is that China is America's IMF, and may be forced to abandon the United States if an economic crisis occurs in China. I think the United States will return to it's roots, as the world's leading creative inventor, saver, and investor, and use the rapidly approaching energy emergency as a political forcing function to unleash the entrepreneuial engine of growth to develop the transportation, energy, and communications infrastucture we need to ensure the nation's future competitiveness. I think it will be done through PPP's, Public, Private, Partnerships. Similiar to GM with free market mangement. Only in area's where private market can't raise the money.
TV MAN

United States

#66 Jan 9, 2011
ConfusedByRhetor ic
"Liberalism Is Foolish"

Stop spending money:

TV MAN's opinion. Remove the government subsidies of unproductive industries and use the tax revenue generated to finance investment in the new economy. Enforce existing financial regulations so finance once again serves the productive economy instead of rules it. Deploy private capital with government participation in public-private partnerships to major projects to improve public transportation, upgrade the electricity grid, and build out nuclear power plants to reduce dependence on fossil fuels of all kinds. Open venture capital investment to a wider range of investors to increase the pool of capital available to finance companies that build for the new economy.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Birmingham Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 21 hr FOX knews 19,466
The Media Should Rail Against Sharpton Thu Culture Auditor 1
Buddhism in the Bible Belt: A growing interest ... Nov 18 Hello 12
Is Jim Crow alive and well in Tibet?: guest opi... Nov 14 Friend of all 4
look whats living in birmingham. Shonda Fultz, Nov 13 lol 1
Voter Fraud is an Accident Waiting to Happen Nov 9 Culture Auditor 1
Christie Raines/Christie Crenshaw Nov 8 EIIa 1

Related Media

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]