It's the Guns, Stupid

Aunte Dote wrote:

<quoted text>
WHY INDEED!
Are you ready?
Here's the REAL answer: Because any government which is able to mint/print its own money has the ability to BOTH determine its value, AND determine the QUANTITY of that currency (specie) in circulation.
Why ... WHY —GOD DAMN IT— WHY would ANY valid government OF THE PEOPLE need to appeal to an outside source for funds which they (the government) have the ability to produce?
Get back on that, okay?

This true. It was done Successfully in Australia. This bank is the single largest factor to why Australia has only a net public debt of 6%of GDP as apposed to 70% for other advanced nations.
A state bank also keeps other banks honest.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/esc...

huh

GoGo bar wrote:

<quoted text>
This true. It was done Successfully in Australia. This bank is the single largest factor to why Australia has only a net public debt of 6%of GDP as apposed to 70% for other advanced nations.
A state bank also keeps other banks honest.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/esc...

QUESTION: WHY would there be ANY need for whatever bank, IF the STATE bank provided all the 'services' of a bank otherwise?

Aunte Dote wrote:

<quoted text>
QUESTION: WHY would there be ANY need for whatever bank, IF the STATE bank provided all the 'services' of a bank otherwise?

The drawback of a communist banking system is that you need an iron or bamboo curtain to stop cash and capital outflows and a fixed currency rate. If investors can make more money offshore then they will.
If you allow private banks, even if their capital is domestic, then the private banks which are run to maximise profits suck up all the savings by offering better interest rates. People are greedy and eventually the private banks win. Freedom of choice etc..
But I believe it is a viable model if the population are "patriotic" enough and will subsidise their Govt. with cheap loans with less interest for their savings.

GoGo bar wrote:

<quoted text>
The drawback of a communist banking system is that you need an iron or bamboo curtain to stop cash and capital outflows and a fixed currency rate. If investors can make more money offshore then they will.
If you allow private banks, even if their capital is domestic, then the private banks which are run to maximise profits suck up all the savings by offering better interest rates. People are greedy and eventually the private banks win. Freedom of choice etc..
But I believe it is a viable model if the population are "patriotic" enough and will subsidise their Govt. with cheap loans with less interest for their savings.

BULLSHIT!!!
What the HELL is that SHIT about 'an iron or bamboo curtain'?
Money flows like water, you freaking idiot!
And if NO SUCH THING as 'private banks' are allowed, then WHERE IS YOUR system?

Aunte Dote wrote:

<quoted text>
BULLSHIT!!!
What the HELL is that SHIT about 'an iron or bamboo curtain'?
Money flows like water, you freaking idiot!
And if NO SUCH THING as 'private banks' are allowed, then WHERE IS YOUR system?

THERE IS NO LIQUIDITY problem! The money is sitting in the banks with nobody borrowing it. IT IS A BALANCE SHEET RECESSION.
IF BOTH THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND GOVT SECTOR DELEVERAGE AT THE SAME TIME THERE WILL BE A DEPRESSION!
The UK's new Govts austerity program is now failing. Today they announced a monetary stimulis package. This will fail also. Fiscal is the only answer.

GoGo bar wrote:

<quoted text>
THERE IS NO LIQUIDITY problem! The money is sitting in the banks with nobody borrowing it. IT IS A BALANCE SHEET RECESSION.
IF BOTH THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND GOVT SECTOR DELEVERAGE AT THE SAME TIME THERE WILL BE A DEPRESSION!
The UK's new Govts austerity program is now failing. Today they announced a monetary stimulis package. This will fail also. Fiscal is the only answer.

FCUK 'liquidity!'
You proclaim a 'problem' created by the CONNIVING BASTARDS to whom YOU are indebted, you sleazy BITCH!
If ALL government, themselves, created money, and controlled that money, then YOUR entire train of thought would be COMPLETELY invalid, you FCKING WEALTH FREAK!

Aunte Dote wrote:

<quoted text>
FCUK 'liquidity!'
You proclaim a 'problem' created by the CONNIVING BASTARDS to whom YOU are indebted, you sleazy BITCH!
If ALL government, themselves, created money, and controlled that money, then YOUR entire train of thought would be COMPLETELY invalid, you FCKING WEALTH FREAK!

He who controls the debt(money) controls the people. Do you really want the Govt. to have total control of the people?

The "problem" was created by a greedy middle class who's economic ambitions exceeded their capabilities.

Your big answer about printing money is from 1912. Nothing new. It has been done and is superceded. Now the central banks just mop up the toilet overflow of the publicly elected Govts that come and go at the whim of the hoi poloi.

And you must remember that the accumulated wealth of successful generation of bankers is THEIR money and not yours.

Aunte Dote wrote:

<quoted text>
FCUK 'liquidity!'
You proclaim a 'problem' created by the CONNIVING BASTARDS to whom YOU are indebted, you sleazy BITCH!
If ALL government, themselves, created money, and controlled that money, then YOUR entire train of thought would be COMPLETELY invalid, you FCKING WEALTH FREAK!

Well a State controlled banking system is basically communist.
But you could have a Mittbank
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9...

But Obahmabank is more catchy.

Aunte Dote wrote:

<quoted text>
YOU are so full of S H I T that you STINK! If the U.S. wasn't taking care of the sick, then PLEASE DO BE EXPLAINING how it the illegal aliens are able to get treatment at emergency rooms in ALL hospitals?

WOW...I see you don't look at the broad scope of illness, and being "sick"!
YES..we can ALL (even illegals) be seen in an emergency room!
BUT...what about us good legal Americans with CHRONIC conditions, that need continual treatment?
Cancer patients, chemo, dialysis, surgeries, etc......THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT TAKEN CARE OF IN THE US...unless insured, and since MILLIONS of Americans are NOT insured, and were DENIED insurance for those very people with thoase exact conditions (until Obama changed that!)

There is a difference between emergency treatment, and loing term chronic treatment!
Try to keep up!

Law wrote:

<quoted text>We do take care of our sick. Quit lying.

Then you must thank Obama , for making changes, but we still are not there yet, and we do NOT take care of our sick in this country!!
Isee you don't look at the broad scope of illness, and being "sick"!
YES..we can ALL (even illegals) be seen in an emergency room!
BUT...what about us good legal Americans with CHRONIC conditions, that need continual treatment?
Cancer patients, chemo, dialysis, surgeries, etc......THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT TAKEN CARE OF IN THE US...unless insured, and since MILLIONS of Americans are NOT insured.

The great USA was built on the backs of those poor slaves and although the politicians call it a "free" country the "slave" mentality still exist among the upper class. They don't care a dam for the homeless, the single mothers, the seasonal workers and the unemployed. Most or those poor people are not poor by choice. The upper class can afford insurance to pay their medical bills and their hospitalization cost and they don't care a Flick for the needy. Whereas, Canada and Canadians took those poor slaves in and cared for them and fed them(remember the underground railroad?) We Canadians are proud of our heritage and we dint forget why we came to be here. Just like your Americans, our forefathers came to this land to escape percussion in their mother country. Americans are a selfish people who soon forgot their heritage. Canadians, on the other h

"The LA Forum, has been transformed – for eight days only – into a vast field hospital. In America, the offer of free healthcare is so rare, that news of the magical medical kingdom spread rapidly and long lines of prospective patients snaked around the venue for the chance of getting everyday treatments that many British people take for granted.

In the first two days, more than 1,500 men, women and children received free treatments worth $503,000. Thirty dentists pulled 471 teeth; 320 people were given standard issue spectacles; 80 had mammograms; dozens more had acupuncture, or saw kidney specialists. By the time the makeshift medical centre leaves town on Tuesday, staff expect to have dispensed $2m worth of treatments to 10,000 patients.

The gritty district of Inglewood lies just a few miles from the palm-lined streets of Beverly Hills and the bright lights of Hollywood, but is a world away. And the residents who had flocked for the free medical care, courtesy of mobile charity Remote Area Medical, bore testament to the human cost of the healthcare mess that President Obama is attempting to fix.

Christine Smith arrived at 3am in the hope of seeing a dentist for the first time since she turned 18. That was almost eight years ago. Her need is obvious and pressing: 17 of her teeth are rotten; some have large visible holes in them. She is living in constant pain and has been unable to eat solid food for several years.

"I had a gastric bypass in 2002, but it went wrong, and stomach acid began rotting my teeth. I've had several jobs since, but none with medical insurance, so I've not been able to see a dentist to get it fixed," she told The Independent. "I've not been able to chew food for as long as I can remember. I've been living on soup, and noodles, and blending meals in a food mixer. I'm in constant pain. Normally, it would cost $5,000 to fix it. So if I have to wait a week to get treated for free, I'll do it. This will change my life."

Along the hall, Liz Cruise was one of scores of people waiting for a free eye exam. She works for a major supermarket chain but can't afford the $200 a month that would be deducted from her salary for insurance. "It's a simple choice: pay my rent, or pay my healthcare. What am I supposed to do?" she asked. "I'm one of the working poor: people who do work but can't afford healthcare and are ineligible for any free healthcare or assistance. I can't remember the last time I saw a doctor."

Try keeping up!

Snow Bunny_ wrote:

<quoted text>WOW...I see you don't look at the broad scope of illness, and being "sick"!
YES..we can ALL (even illegals) be seen in an emergency room!
BUT...what about us good legal Americans with CHRONIC conditions, that need continual treatment?
Cancer patients, chemo, dialysis, surgeries, etc......THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT TAKEN CARE OF IN THE US...unless insured, and since MILLIONS of Americans are NOT insured, and were DENIED insurance for those very people with thoase exact conditions (until Obama changed that!)
There is a difference between emergency treatment, and loing term chronic treatment!
Try to keep up!

You need to look at the cancer survivor rate in countries with socialized medicine, and compare that to the cancer survivor rate here in the US. Let the group know what you find out.

Armed Veteran wrote:

<quoted text>
You need to look at the cancer survivor rate in countries with socialized medicine, and compare that to the cancer survivor rate here in the US. Let the group know what you find out.

Or you could look at the death rates from cancer. The countries with healthcare look pretty good.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea_fro...

Armed Veteran wrote:

<quoted text>
You need to look at the cancer survivor rate in countries with socialized medicine, and compare that to the cancer survivor rate here in the US. Let the group know what you find out.

OMG, I'm so glad you asked, because here is what I found out:

Deaths due to Preventable Causes: USA Dead Last
As reported: The ability of the United States to minimize deaths due to PREVENTABLE causes is at rock bottom / dead last. Perhaps more importantly are the days, weeks and months of unnecessary pain and suffering prior to our unnecessary deaths.
September 2011 update: An additional review of the data was reported on September 23, 2011. Sixteen countries were studied. The United States was reported as still on the bottom of the list, whereas the top three were reported as France, Australia and Italy. The estimate of unnecessary deaths in the United States was 84,300, which would be every 6 minutes.

OUCH!!!
and:

The caner survivor in the US (bull) extremely misleading. In the U.S. there are a lot of praises about surviving cancer. The other countries prevent the cancer from occurring in the first place.

MOSTLY:
From the Organization’s who claims the cancer survivor rates own website:
"The NCPA’s goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector.”
That is to say, they have an agenda that leads one to question the objectivity of their “fact sheet.” Has anyone actually read the entire survey that was published or are readers depending on NCPA’s interpretation of it?
Do we have any statistics concerning the frequency and severity of various cancers in European countries and Canada, vs. the US? To what do they attribute the difference in survival rates? Correlation is not cause-and-effect.

...and to note that it makes no mention in its findings of any correlation of cancer survival with national health care systems. That, apparently, was NCPA’s bit of “spin.”

You made my point for me:)
Thanks buttercup!

GoGo bar wrote:

<quoted text>
Or you could look at the death rates from cancer. The countries with healthcare look pretty good.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea_fro...

Absolutely...thank you!

Only ONE article claims the US cancer survivor rate bullcrap.....it was deemed a misleading study, and does not mention in its findings of any correlation of cancer survival with national health care systems. That, apparently, was NCPA’s bit of “spin.”

The information in the article is extremely misleading.
The other countries prevent the cancer from occurring in the first place.

US ranks dead last in preventable death!

Snow Bunny_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Absolutely...thank you!
Only ONE article claims the US cancer survivor rate bullcrap.....it was deemed a misleading study, and does not mention in its findings of any correlation of cancer survival with national health care systems. That, apparently, was NCPA’s bit of “spin.”
The information in the article is extremely misleading.
The other countries prevent the cancer from occurring in the first place.
US ranks dead last in preventable death!

Countries with healthcare have all discovered that it is not only more effective medically, but spend less of their GDP. The 5% saving of GDP is a HUGE amount.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tot_exp...

Aquarius-WY wrote:

<quoted text>
Well of course not. That's what idiots do ... hide from facts as they may differ from your "core beliefs".

The links are just videos of Rush and Glenn stating the original crap that you are all repeating.

You are just virus spreaders.

GoGo bar wrote:

<quoted text>
Well a State controlled banking system is basically communist.
But you could have a Mittbank
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9...
But Obahmabank is more catchy.

You have a state controlled military..

So you have a communist military......?

You should privatize it..

Cancer patients live longer in the US so that they can be in care longer and rack up more money for cancer hospitals and clinics.

The longer they live, the bigger the medical bill. That's capitalist medicine: make as much money as you can.
The patient is only a vehicle for profit.

t clms wrote:

Cancer patients live longer in the US so that they can be in care longer and rack up more money for cancer hospitals and clinics.
The longer they live, the bigger the medical bill. That's capitalist medicine: make as much money as you can.
The patient is only a vehicle for profit.

"t clms"
We get it. You are all for death panels to make the decision om who lives and who dies.
Peace
KMA