economist blames wall street for collapse
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 May 2010 06:18:32 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 10 May 2010 22:35:11 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 10 May 2010 21:15:48 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

O
That explains it, you snoozed through the time when they were making
your job a dead end and now you are lashing out at everyone else.

guess you right wingers havent noticed the fact the middle class
hasnt had a raise in 10 years.

you blow it off as unimportant. your view is that only the rich should
have money. screw the middle class

and i notice you call the rich 'everyone else'. in your world they're
the only important folks. working people can go hang

Well you have nothing to worry about now. Obama will fix it all and
you will start getting COLAs right along with the Social Security
folks. Oops Obama stopped the COLAs

he stopped the COLAS because the COLA was not going up...

guess you missed that part. in fact mileage reimbursement for
corporate expense accounts dropped from 58 cents to 50 cents this
year...same reason


BTW I hope you are ready for the sticker shock you will have when your
open season starts on your health insurance.

ROFLMAO!!

health insurance costs under the free market were increasing at double
digit rates! guess you right wingers missed that part!

You ain't seen nothing yet. They just added a lot of extra liability
to the insurance plans and did nothing to restrict the price they will
charge for it.


This is just fear-based rationale. There's no "lot of extra liability" to
insurance plans.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Tue, 11 May 2010 14:58:03 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2010 06:18:32 -0400, bpuharic wrote:



guess you missed that part. in fact mileage reimbursement for
corporate expense accounts dropped from 58 cents to 50 cents this
year...same reason


BTW I hope you are ready for the sticker shock you will have when your
open season starts on your health insurance.

ROFLMAO!!

health insurance costs under the free market were increasing at double
digit rates! guess you right wingers missed that part!

You ain't seen nothing yet. They just added a lot of extra liability
to the insurance plans and did nothing to restrict the price they will
charge for it.

by liability

right wingers mean 'human beings'.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On 5/9/2010 7:48 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 09 May 2010 19:12:47 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 17:23:14 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 16:26:14 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 15:38:18 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 May 2010 14:43:23 -0400, wrote:

uh, no. the market had dropped a few hundred points over the previous
week as the scope of the greek problem became news. a drop of 1
trillion in 1 day had zip to do with greece.


What the hell are you talking about?

you havent been following the market for the last week or 2 have you?
it's been dropping as the greek situation became news...it's BEEN news
for several weeks


The down spike you are talking about lasted about 15 minutes.
There was a correction but that was not a trillion dollars.


and saying absolutely NOTHING about bush...nothing. not a peep.

now, why is that?


I say plenty about bush and the stupid war. That was his fault. The
CDO problem was caused by legislation that happened before he took
office. You seem to ignore that.

uh...no. in fact i quite squarely blame it on the right winger phil
gramm and his enron VP wife who engineered a bill to exclude the SEC
from regulating derivatives


Bush, Gramm, Clinton, I guess they are all the same guy in your mind




I think a lot of the drop was to tell Congress, that Wall Street
controls the money. Do not pass any bills breaking up to big to fail
companies. There are so many controls on the trading software, Wall
Street has a bigger budget than NASA, that to say some fumble finger
pressed a B instead of an M just does not fly. Especially when Wall
Streeters were in front of Congress at the time.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 May 2010 15:16:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You ain't seen nothing yet. They just added a lot of extra liability
to the insurance plans and did nothing to restrict the price they will
charge for it.


This is just fear-based rationale. There's no "lot of extra liability" to
insurance plans.



Huh? They just told insurance companies they have to pick up anyone
with a preexisting condition, they can't limit coverage amounts and
they have to carry "kids" until they are 26. That is a lot of extra
liability. The insurance companies have already said they will pick
up the kids, but there will be an extra premium for doing it. We don't
know how much the preexisting condition and unlimited coverage
increase will be. It is a fairly simple process for the underwriters
to project the extra cost and apply that to the current premium.


That's also a lot of new customers and a lot of premiums. I guarantee you
that the ins. companies are not hurting. There's an "extra" premium for
everything. The bill that passed is a first step. More needs to be done.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Tue, 11 May 2010 21:34:35 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2010 21:01:58 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

health insurance costs under the free market were increasing at double
digit rates! guess you right wingers missed that part!

You ain't seen nothing yet. They just added a lot of extra liability
to the insurance plans and did nothing to restrict the price they will
charge for it.

by liability

right wingers mean 'human beings'.


Liability is the ability to pay to treat those human beings. You seem,
to believe health care is free.

death is free. is that what you're advocating? we spend a **** load
of money subsidizing wall street, large agriculture,etc

your preference is to pay for this by letting the weak, the ill, the
unemployed die?

yeah. that sounds right wing

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 May 2010 22:57:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Huh? They just told insurance companies they have to pick up anyone
with a preexisting condition, they can't limit coverage amounts and
they have to carry "kids" until they are 26. That is a lot of extra
liability. The insurance companies have already said they will pick
up the kids, but there will be an extra premium for doing it. We don't
know how much the preexisting condition and unlimited coverage
increase will be. It is a fairly simple process for the underwriters
to project the extra cost and apply that to the current premium.


That's also a lot of new customers and a lot of premiums. I guarantee you
that the ins. companies are not hurting. There's an "extra" premium for
everything. The bill that passed is a first step. More needs to be done.


There may not be as many new customers as the government predicts.
When you tell the 20 somethings that they can buy a $6,000 a year
insurance policy or pay a fine of a few hundred bucks, they will pay
the fine. Even OMB agrees with that.

Nobody ever said anyone in the medical establishment will be hurting.
This bill guarantees everyone from the doctors, hospitals and drug
companies to the insurance companies will be making a lot of money.
it will be the patients who will be hurting since there were no cost
controls in this bill.


Very similar arguments were made by Republicans when Social Security and
Medicare came into being. It's just not true.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 May 2010 06:13:43 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2010 21:34:35 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 11 May 2010 21:01:58 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

health insurance costs under the free market were increasing at double
digit rates! guess you right wingers missed that part!

You ain't seen nothing yet. They just added a lot of extra liability
to the insurance plans and did nothing to restrict the price they will
charge for it.

by liability

right wingers mean 'human beings'.


Liability is the ability to pay to treat those human beings. You seem,
to believe health care is free.

death is free. is that what you're advocating? we spend a **** load
of money subsidizing wall street, large agriculture,etc

your preference is to pay for this by letting the weak, the ill, the
unemployed die?


This bill has dumped those people on Medicaid so it will show up in
your state taxes or the money will have to be taken away from other
state programs (roads, cops, firemen and schools). Again you think
there is a free lunch out there somewhere.
I suggest you take a long hard look at Greece. They thought there was
a free lunch too. Our deficit problem is really only a few points
better than theirs (9% of GDP vs 13%)



Our economy is nothing like Greece.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Sun, 09 May 2010 15:12:48 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 09/05/2010 1:38 PM, wrote:

It was far more than a simple computer glitch. Greece and the possible
crash of the Euro was a lot more troubling than one trader typing
billion when he meant million. Most of that was recovered by the end
of trading.

You have that right. It sure as hell was no glitch. Only in
liberal-debt monger liberal minds was it a glitch. They can dream on.
A trillion dollar move occured.

i love it. greece was in the news for weeks. but then, miraculously,
in 15 minutes, the planets aligned and BOOM!! a trillion dollars
evaporated!

any more proof needed that the right wing is tin foil hat material?


The market ran out of buyers and had too many sellers. That simple. No
one trusts our own governmetns debt-corruption currency and banking
mismanagement. And that includes the USA.

really? wonder why, then, the dollar has increased in value against
the euro

oh. i guess rush forgot to tell them what to think


Between Greece and pathetic US numbers for unemployment and debt
spending, the market paniced. Big deal. Buying opporunities. ;)

pathetic unemployment? you mean because 260,000 jobs were created last
month?

oh..i forgot. you're right wing. when people get jobs you weep.

economist blames wall street for collapse
 

On Wed, 12 May 2010 12:22:10 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 12 May 2010 06:13:43 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


death is free. is that what you're advocating? we spend a **** load
of money subsidizing wall street, large agriculture,etc

your preference is to pay for this by letting the weak, the ill, the
unemployed die?


This bill has dumped those people on Medicaid so it will show up in
your state taxes or the money will have to be taken away from other
state programs (roads, cops, firemen and schools). Again you think
there is a free lunch out there somewhere.

and you think death the the best option. typical right winger.

I suggest you take a long hard look at Greece. They thought there was
a free lunch too. Our deficit problem is really only a few points
better than theirs (9% of GDP vs 13%)

i suggest you take a look at the euro vs the dollar. guess which is
stronger?

OT economist blames wall street for collapse
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 May 2010 11:53:57 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 11 May 2010 22:57:03 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Huh? They just told insurance companies they have to pick up anyone
with a preexisting condition, they can't limit coverage amounts and
they have to carry "kids" until they are 26. That is a lot of extra
liability. The insurance companies have already said they will pick
up the kids, but there will be an extra premium for doing it. We don't
know how much the preexisting condition and unlimited coverage
increase will be. It is a fairly simple process for the underwriters
to project the extra cost and apply that to the current premium.


That's also a lot of new customers and a lot of premiums. I guarantee
you
that the ins. companies are not hurting. There's an "extra" premium for
everything. The bill that passed is a first step. More needs to be done.


There may not be as many new customers as the government predicts.
When you tell the 20 somethings that they can buy a $6,000 a year
insurance policy or pay a fine of a few hundred bucks, they will pay
the fine. Even OMB agrees with that.

Nobody ever said anyone in the medical establishment will be hurting.
This bill guarantees everyone from the doctors, hospitals and drug
companies to the insurance companies will be making a lot of money.
it will be the patients who will be hurting since there were no cost
controls in this bill.


Very similar arguments were made by Republicans when Social Security and
Medicare came into being. It's just not true.


Medicare ended up costing several times the original CBO projection at
the 10 year mark.


So? Are you saying that it shouldn't have been done or undone now? If so,
there are lots of people would take exception.