If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Click Orlando)   The death of the middle class continues, as the average income of middle-class families has decreased 40% compared to twenty years ago   (clickorlando.com) divider line 491
    More: Sick, consumer finance, account balances, middle class, families  
•       •       •

10683 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jun 2012 at 2:22 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



491 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-12 09:53:28 AM  

Thunderpipes: Rich pay more taxes now than they ever had.



Citation needed
 
2012-06-12 09:54:52 AM  

Molavian: Nothing. It's providing for the lazy I have an issue with.



Another idiot who bought into the welfare mother myth started by Reagan

The lazy are provided for, the richest 1%
 
2012-06-12 09:55:14 AM  

Mr. Right: The banks don't take risks when the government will underwrite it.


The collapse of various financial institutions seems to indicate otherwise.

Philip Francis Queeg: The number of Ford employees was insignificant as a portion of the total market.


It wasn't about the sales numbers but rather made for nice PR.
 
2012-06-12 09:57:33 AM  

Mr. Right: That's where you're wrong. I have a Health Savings Account


I wasn't speaking of you specifically. I'm speaking of you, Americans.

I'm Canadian.
 
2012-06-12 09:58:27 AM  

LasersHurt: ecl: Wow the right wing shills are out in full derp today.

From now until after the election. Brace yourselves.


No shiat... And if Obama wins reelection these morons are going to be besides themselves with rage.

This is the time of the election cycle where I stop paying attention to daily election caterwauling (I know who I'm voting for at this point). Luckily, living in MA, I don't exposed to a lot of the partisan nonsense unless I actively seek it out.
 
2012-06-12 10:00:59 AM  

intelligent comment below: Molavian: Nothing. It's providing for the lazy I have an issue with.

Another idiot who bought into the welfare mother myth started by Reagan

The lazy are provided for, the richest 1%


No, it's just that when I worked for Rent-A-Center I saw first hand what happens when people are given free money.

Sad.
 
2012-06-12 10:01:13 AM  

intelligent comment below: Thunderpipes: Rich pay more taxes now than they ever had.


Citation needed


He could type it again in all caps if you like...
 
2012-06-12 10:02:44 AM  

keylock71: LasersHurt: ecl: Wow the right wing shills are out in full derp today.

From now until after the election. Brace yourselves.

No shiat... And if Obama wins reelection these morons are going to be besides themselves with rage.

This is the time of the election cycle where I stop paying attention to daily election caterwauling (I know who I'm voting for at this point). Luckily, living in MA, I don't exposed to a lot of the partisan nonsense unless I actively seek it out.


I'm really curious to see if there are any for-real shiat-fan interactions after his re-election. There are some idiots promising riots, gun battles, you name it. Most of them are blowing hot air, but what if some aren't? Hilarity!
 
2012-06-12 10:03:40 AM  

Fissile: BTW, crazy Henry was also one of the first American industrialists to employ large numbers of black workers, and pay them the same wages as his white workers. His black employees would have taken a bullet for him. He didn't do this because he was a believer in racial equality, he understood that a stable black middle class was good for business, and Detroit once had a stable black middle class.


Of course that wasn't balanced by an interest by Ford in serving that Black middle class with his products. Cadillac earned long term brand loyalty in the African American community by being one of the few mainstream "luxury" brands of any type that actively marketed to them in the 30s and 40s.
 
2012-06-12 10:04:58 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Philip Francis Queeg: The number of Ford employees was insignificant as a portion of the total market.

It wasn't about the sales numbers but rather made for nice PR.


And good PR is not exactly a great criteria to use in judging business leaders.
 
2012-06-12 10:12:13 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Broktun: The United States subsidizes prescription drug costs for the rest of the world.

No it doesn't. There are drugs that aren't even sold in the US that are available dirt cheap everywhere. Also American drug companies do a lovely job of spending more on marketing than R&D. Mind you this is something they can only do in the US. Also plenty of drugs are developed overseas and all the US drug companies have to do is the clinical trials, which for a drug expected to be in wide use is not exactly a major financial problem. Also the FDA has allowed companies to cut corners by using data from drug trials not conducted in the US. Which brings up all sorts of potential problems.


I disagree.

Trust me, as a pharmacist, I am no fan of brand name drug companies, and the "new FDA".

Right or wrong, drug companies are in business to make as much money as possible. They can not sell a drug for $50 a month in a country where the monthly income is $25, so the sell it for $1 The total profit for both prescriptions is $50, so the company ends up earning $.50 more. The question is, would the drug company sell that drug, in that country only to earn $.50 if they couldn't sell it in the US for $50?
 
2012-06-12 10:12:40 AM  

WhyteRaven74: neaorin: US Farmers are already heavily subsidized just to keep them competitive with the global market.

Actually in some cases those subsidies are to keep the stuff from getting too cheap. Turns out having a huge farms producing tons of one crop and having no ability to produce anything else isn't particularly wise. Also for various food stuffs, we're among the world's largest exporters and in some cases the largest exporter. We wouldn't be exporting thousands of tons of soybeans if the rest of the world couldn't afford it.


That's not the reason people are buying food from the US.

The thing with cash crops is... outside places like the Sahara desert it's quite easy to be grown locally. People around the world have been eating their own food for many centuries. But nowadays if you can flood the local market with cheap (subsidized) imported stuff, you are going to drive the local farmers out of business. And then the locals have no choice but to keep buying from you, because they still have to eat.

I live in Eastern Europe and food made in France or Spain is generally cheaper to buy here than local food, because we can't compete with the subsidies that French and Spanish farmers get. We have the soil and the weather; and the technology isn't really all that advanced, and our labor costs are even smaller than those in Germany - but it doesn't matter when the French taxpayer shoulders some of the cost of our food. By the way, Spanish farmers largely use workers from Eastern Europe to pick their crops.

That's also the reason why Africans have been crying for the West to stop the food "aid" for many years now. But the West would rather their farmers stay in business, even if they have to throw public money their way to make it happen. Agriculture would generally follow in the footsteps of manufacturing if they didn't.
 
2012-06-12 10:13:31 AM  

Mr. Right: Ishkur: According to the The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission

liverleef: From the FCIC report

You both quote a report that came out of a commission that was designed to cover the government's not inconsiderable ass on the fiscal crisis. You may note all the times that the report acknowledges participation but exonerates any GSE from leading. It also accepts a small amount of blame but claims that everybody else was worse. Here's the thing you both need to understand. The government and the Fed are the big swinging dicks in our economy. Bankers great and small must play by their rules. Yes, there are greedy bankers. Yes, there are lousy bankers. There are even a few good bankers but the ratio is about the same as honest lawyers. But regardless of their activities, they all fall under the rules and regulations of Congress and must adhere to the policies of the Fed. If those rules are bad, it is Congress to blame, not the banker. If those policies cause risky behavior, it's not the fault of the bank, anymore than it is the fault of the dog if I put a steak on the floor and he eats it.

Bankers do have a lot of influence on politicians. It's called campaign cash and it flows to them all. Too big to fail means that the politicians writing the bailout depend too heavily on the campaign cash from those "poor, beleaguered bankers"

The underlying problem is that we now treat cash as a commodity in and of itself instead of it representing the relative value of "real" commodities.


Twice now I've cited facts and statistics which invalidate your arguments. You simply claim that said facts don't count and then go back to trying to validate your ideology without using any facts. Keep being a libertarian. It fits you perfectly.
 
2012-06-12 10:17:48 AM  

Ishkur: The lower classes never achieve any of their aims, if they had any. They're too disorganized, uneducated and stupid to truly seize power in the Marxian tradition.


They did it once, but it ended up as Haiti.
 
2012-06-12 10:27:29 AM  
um, this is a capitalistic society, there is absolutely no reason for them to change anything to make it better for us. It goes against capitalism to help the employees make more money. You pay them the least amount they will accept. Not one penny more.
 
2012-06-12 10:27:50 AM  
Crank these bad boys up to high and all of our problems go away.

cointrader.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-06-12 10:30:28 AM  

Kali-Yuga: The way to decrease poverty and welfare dependence is by education and job training of the poor, not paying them to sit at home and pop out babies so their monthly check gets bigger.


Ha, like your bootstrappy pals would even support paying for that. Job creation by, and for, the job creators only!
 
2012-06-12 10:33:17 AM  

dericwater: It's interesting to note that those who are vociferously anti-communist are doing everything they can to destroy the middle-class, which will put the US into a feudal system, which will lead to a very bloody communistic uprising when the peasant class has enough of the oppression. Russia went through that where the aristocracy were taken over by the Bolsheviks. China went through that where the local feudal lords were taken out by the communist groups led by Mao. French aristocracy also went through that, but the outcome wasn't exactly communism (since it occurred roughly soon after the creation of the US of A, the revolution in France mirrored the origins of the US, and that pre-dated communism by about 150 years).

I'm quite surprised that these 1%'ers really think they can outwit history.


The Paris Commune is where we got the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

But the same will happen here. If people are forced to the extremes by police violence--old women being gassed by police at OWS comes to mind--then people will be slaughtered or disappeared. Every time things escalate on one side, it will escalate on the other side until the police, prosecutors, corrupt officials and the super rich get their way. And nothing will change.
 
2012-06-12 10:35:45 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Fissile: BTW, crazy Henry was also one of the first American industrialists to employ large numbers of black workers, and pay them the same wages as his white workers. His black employees would have taken a bullet for him. He didn't do this because he was a believer in racial equality, he understood that a stable black middle class was good for business, and Detroit once had a stable black middle class.

Of course that wasn't balanced by an interest by Ford in serving that Black middle class with his products. Cadillac earned long term brand loyalty in the African American community by being one of the few mainstream "luxury" brands of any type that actively marketed to them in the 30s and 40s.


================

GM fanboi, I'm guessing.

Go back and re-read your history. Prior to Depression 1.0, blacks, Jews, Italians and other "undesirables" were prohibited from entering Cadillac showrooms. When the Depression rolled around, the 1% abandoned Cadillac....which were largely hand built at the time...out of pants shiating fear of being targeted by the starving masses. GM responded by switching Cadillac to mass production, lowering the prices and marketing them to the very people they shut out of their showrooms only a few years before.
 
2012-06-12 10:36:27 AM  

neaorin: US Farmers are already heavily subsidized just to keep them competitive with the global market. Thank goodness your government still manages to convince places like Haiti to "liberalize" their food prices.


How much of an effect do you think the Haitian market has on US farm production and sales?
 
2012-06-12 10:38:40 AM  

Deathfrogg: untaken_name:

How is having an asset that YOU VOLUNTARILY PUT UP AS SECURITY FOR A LOAN (because that's what a mortgage is) repossessed for nonpayment of that loan the same as paying property tax, idiot?


Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it?
Either that, or you're just lying some more.
I'm betting on the latter.


8/10

If he takes the bait again you get a full on 10/10.
 
2012-06-12 10:39:37 AM  

Fissile: Debeo Summa Credo:
In other words, DERP. The reason Roosevelt was able to get things done more quickly was because a) things were much much much worse in the 1930s than they are now and b) the social safety net is much much much more robust and generous than it was heading into the great depression.

=========================

That's correct, there wasn't much of a social safety net then. And what are your 1% masters agitating for now? Elimination of social security, elimination of medicare, elimination of public education, elimination of food stamps, etc....complete elimination of the social safety net. No social safety net, but they have yet to create a single job. Eventually even the dimmest of the Tea-Tards will get it, and finally put their guns to a good use for a change.


Ah, good. More derp. If we actually eliminate social security, public education, and food stamps, I'll be right there with you.

But the idiot neo-communists, including the poster I was responding to, of fark aren't musing about revolution if the social safety net is completely eliminated, they seem to think the status quo is unacceptable and the only way to get things done is if the rich are in fear of their lives, like they supposedly were during the great depression.

My point is that today's poor have it much better than those in 1932, because the economy isn't nearly as bad as it was then, and the social safety net is much better. That is why people aren't clamoring for change as they were then, because things are much better.
 
2012-06-12 10:41:36 AM  
I'm not sure if it's worth worrying about a class that does not seem to care about itself. A class that actually seems to actively want to destroy itself.

Maybe it's just best to wait for it to go to hell and exploit the hell out of the farkers. They did ask for it after all.
 
2012-06-12 10:41:46 AM  

Ebbelwoi: FWIW I support universal healthcare in the US if and only if we can get a level of performance similar to Northen European countries.


That will never happen. Americans don't exist in a Northern European society.
 
2012-06-12 10:42:07 AM  

Fissile: Philip Francis Queeg: Fissile: BTW, crazy Henry was also one of the first American industrialists to employ large numbers of black workers, and pay them the same wages as his white workers. His black employees would have taken a bullet for him. He didn't do this because he was a believer in racial equality, he understood that a stable black middle class was good for business, and Detroit once had a stable black middle class.

Of course that wasn't balanced by an interest by Ford in serving that Black middle class with his products. Cadillac earned long term brand loyalty in the African American community by being one of the few mainstream "luxury" brands of any type that actively marketed to them in the 30s and 40s.

================

GM fanboi, I'm guessing.

Go back and re-read your history. Prior to Depression 1.0, blacks, Jews, Italians and other "undesirables" were prohibited from entering Cadillac showrooms. When the Depression rolled around, the 1% abandoned Cadillac....which were largely hand built at the time...out of pants shiating fear of being targeted by the starving masses. GM responded by switching Cadillac to mass production, lowering the prices and marketing them to the very people they shut out of their showrooms only a few years before.


Fanboi? Hardly. I've never owned a GM vehicle. The historical record is what it is. Tardy though they may have been, Cadillac was the first luxury brand to actively market to the black community.
 
2012-06-12 10:45:30 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Fissile: Debeo Summa Credo:
In other words, DERP. The reason Roosevelt was able to get things done more quickly was because a) things were much much much worse in the 1930s than they are now and b) the social safety net is much much much more robust and generous than it was heading into the great depression.

=========================

That's correct, there wasn't much of a social safety net then. And what are your 1% masters agitating for now? Elimination of social security, elimination of medicare, elimination of public education, elimination of food stamps, etc....complete elimination of the social safety net. No social safety net, but they have yet to create a single job. Eventually even the dimmest of the Tea-Tards will get it, and finally put their guns to a good use for a change.

Ah, good. More derp. If we actually eliminate social security, public education, and food stamps, I'll be right there with you.

But the idiot neo-communists, including the poster I was responding to, of fark aren't musing about revolution if the social safety net is completely eliminated, they seem to think the status quo is unacceptable and the only way to get things done is if the rich are in fear of their lives, like they supposedly were during the great depression.

My point is that today's poor have it much better than those in 1932, because the economy isn't nearly as bad as it was then, and the social safety net is much better. That is why people aren't clamoring for change as they were then, because things are much better.


You are aware of the proposed Romney/Ryan budget and its cuts to the safety net that Romney himself called "dramatic", aren't you? Does opposing that budget make a person a "neo-communist"?
 
2012-06-12 10:45:53 AM  
I heard this on the radio in the morning: "net worth drops 40% in only three years!!!!"

I'm thinking, "what on Earth could have done that in the last three years?" when someone finally points out that the three years in question were 2007-2010. Ohhhhh, okay.

Truly, this was a troll-tastic report. I guess they had to present it this way in order to fairly divide blame among "both sides."
 
2012-06-12 10:46:56 AM  
Trickle-down economics doesn't work, and that fact was referenced in William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech from 1896. So it's been debunked for more than a couple decades. Doesn't stop certain groups from continuing to pretend it'll work "if we just give it more time!"
 
2012-06-12 10:48:14 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Mr. Right: If everyone has a full coverage policy, no one ever gets to keep the difference; thus there is no incentive to manage one's health care expenditures and there is no opportunity for anyone to build wealth, other than the insurance company.

And for those who don't make enough to set money aside, screw them. Brilliant! How about we actually require the insurance companies to do their jobs? Like no more telling people where to go, refusing to pay legit claims, burying people in paperwork etc. In the day and age a health insurance company should be a few offices, a few server racks and that's it. The overhead should be almost nothing.


Here's the point that you and most others keep missing. The total cost of my policy, even if I pay the whole deductible in a year, is roughly equivalent to the premium only for a full coverage policy. If I get sick and meet the whole deductible, I am out of pocket roughly the same amount as the premium cost only if I have a "normal" full coverage policy. If I am healthy and don't spend the whole deductible, I get to keep the difference. The loser there is the insurance company. If someone doesn't make enough to save for the deductible, they don't make enough to have insurance now so they'd be no worse off.

I would argue that employers should not be allowed to provide health insurance coverage but that they should be required to give whatever money they would spend on that to the employee. Same as the employer match on FICA, that is money that the employee has earned. He had to be productive enough to generate that much income for the employer. Rather than allow the employer or the government to decide how to spend it, it should be given to the employee who should then decide how it is spent. An Amish friend of mine firmly believes that a company sponsored pension plan is immoral. The employee needs to work hard enough that the company has the money to put into the plan but after that it's a gamble. The employer gambles that you'll die before he needs to pay the pension, thus he gets to keep it; the employee gambles that he will live long enough to get it all back and then some. He quotes a verse in the Bible "the laborer is worthy of his hire." It 's not a concept unique to the Bible as it shows up in several ancient civilizations. But the concept is the same: whatever the employee earns should be given to him. To lay claim to any chunk of his earnings under the notion that you know better how spend it than he does is paternalism or thievery. Even withholding taxes really claim that employees are basically dishonest and untrustworthy and wouldn't pay their taxes if left to their own devices. Beyond that, however, is the implied notion that your work is not your own - the government gets to lay claim to it before you do. I believe in paying taxes and, having been self-employed for most of my working life, I am all too familiar with sitting down and paying my quarterly estimated taxes. My mortgage has never escrowed my property taxes - I am well-acquainted with the discipline of setting aside the proper amount and then writing the check twice a year. But my government treats me with suspicion because I do that. My chances of getting audited are far greater than a "regular employee." If you have a job and get a W-2, your government doesn't trust you - they grab their chunk first. If you have a little more taken out than you need, they even have you fooled into believing that you are getting a refund - in other words, they are giving you some of their money - when in reality you have been robbed by the government and, having been caught red-handed (by filing the necessary paperwork) they are returning some small portion of what they stole from you.

My original point in this thread is that the middle class is disappearing because of well-intended government programs more than any evil inflicted by the 1%. And I stand by that. Health insurance is just another example - low wage employees spend a much larger percentage of their productivity on insurance and/or FICA than the rich. The poor thus have more of their options taken away than the rich. The bigger and more comprehensive the government program, the fewer options the poor and middle class will have. The rich aren't affected. Paternalism may feel like a safety net but there's a difference between landing in a safety net and being carried around in (and restricted to) a trap net.
 
2012-06-12 10:51:13 AM  

busy chillin': It goes against capitalism to help the employees make more money.


notsureifserious.jpg
 
2012-06-12 10:52:37 AM  
So...net worth is 40% less because home values are no longer ridiculously inflated?

...I'm okay with this.
 
2012-06-12 10:55:35 AM  

Mr. Right: low wage employees spend a much larger percentage of their productivity on insurance and/or FICA than the rich


So make the insurance cheap for the poor employees. Which we could do tomorrow. Easily.
 
2012-06-12 10:56:49 AM  
WhyteRaven74

busy chillin': It goes against capitalism to help the employees make more money.

notsureifserious.jpg


I'm sort of serious. I'm super jaded these days and just see no reason for things to change. Why would a company start paying more money to its employees? Out of the kindness of their hearts? yeah right.

To me, it seems capitalism is to make as money as possible. Paying people more money is not going to help you make more money. I am not an economist, so I could be wrong. Am I wrong?
 
2012-06-12 10:58:11 AM  
I know it's already been pointed out, but net worth, not income, dumbmitter. Two different things.

Economics and English are hard.
 
2012-06-12 11:02:32 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Debeo Summa Credo: Fissile: Debeo Summa Credo:
In other words, DERP. The reason Roosevelt was able to get things done more quickly was because a) things were much much much worse in the 1930s than they are now and b) the social safety net is much much much more robust and generous than it was heading into the great depression.

=========================

That's correct, there wasn't much of a social safety net then. And what are your 1% masters agitating for now? Elimination of social security, elimination of medicare, elimination of public education, elimination of food stamps, etc....complete elimination of the social safety net. No social safety net, but they have yet to create a single job. Eventually even the dimmest of the Tea-Tards will get it, and finally put their guns to a good use for a change.

Ah, good. More derp. If we actually eliminate social security, public education, and food stamps, I'll be right there with you.

But the idiot neo-communists, including the poster I was responding to, of fark aren't musing about revolution if the social safety net is completely eliminated, they seem to think the status quo is unacceptable and the only way to get things done is if the rich are in fear of their lives, like they supposedly were during the great depression.

My point is that today's poor have it much better than those in 1932, because the economy isn't nearly as bad as it was then, and the social safety net is much better. That is why people aren't clamoring for change as they were then, because things are much better.

You are aware of the proposed Romney/Ryan budget and its cuts to the safety net that Romney himself called "dramatic", aren't you? Does opposing that budget make a person a "neo-communist"?


You have to go back to the posts i was responding to in order to understand the context of my posts.

Opposing a budget does not make one a neo-communist, FWTW.
 
2012-06-12 11:04:53 AM  

Ishkur: Mr. Right: That's where you're wrong. I have a Health Savings Account

I wasn't speaking of you specifically. I'm speaking of you, Americans.

I'm Canadian.


Which doesn't change my point. By having my health savings account, I have the opportunity to build wealth, if I am careful with my health and have a healthy dollop of good luck. With universal care, everyone puts in but nobody gets any benefit unless they take it out in the form of health care. The chronically ill benefit but everyone else is ultimately penalized. No one wins, they just all lose equally.

We have been trained to feel guilty if we win and someone else loses. I offer for your consideration, however, the notion that, by forcing everyone to contribute a substantial amount of their productivity to health insurance with out the option of self-determination, you are also taking away a lot of folks' ability to be charitable. If I have good health and my HSA is fully funded with a couple years' deductible in it, I have a certain amount of discretionary income with which one of my options it benevolence. This comes to mind because of a donation I just made to a family that suffered a catastrophe. I was able to do that, in spite of reduced income because of the economy, precisely because I have enjoyed several years of not meeting my deductible and having the discipline of laying by as much as possible. Had I been paying for the full coverage premiums, that money would have been gone and the amount I could contribute would have been much less. I'll probably not ever be able to save the world on what I can put away, but I made a difference for that family that their insurance isn't covering. Plenty of their friends have good jobs. They also have great insurance. They also didn't have enough laying around to make the kind of contribution I did, meager though it was, because their premiums represent money gone, whether they need any health care or not.
 
2012-06-12 11:10:00 AM  

Kali-Yuga: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 448x314]
Society can no longer live under the 1%, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society."

Isn't it funny how you can take the communist manifesto, and replace the words bourgeoisie and proletariat with 99% and 1% and it looks exactly like the complaints the occupiers are making?


Very few argue that the complaints and commentary on the current situation in Marx wasn't spot on, it was his conclusions and remedies that were farked up.

But it's still fun to call people commies because it sells whatever shiat you are slinging for you.
 
2012-06-12 11:11:19 AM  

Mr. Right: Ishkur: Mr. Right: That's where you're wrong. I have a Health Savings Account

I wasn't speaking of you specifically. I'm speaking of you, Americans.

I'm Canadian.

Which doesn't change my point. By having my health savings account, I have the opportunity to build wealth, if I am careful with my health and have a healthy dollop of good luck. With universal care, everyone puts in but nobody gets any benefit unless they take it out in the form of health care. The chronically ill benefit but everyone else is ultimately penalized. No one wins, they just all lose equally.

We have been trained to feel guilty if we win and someone else loses. I offer for your consideration, however, the notion that, by forcing everyone to contribute a substantial amount of their productivity to health insurance with out the option of self-determination, you are also taking away a lot of folks' ability to be charitable. If I have good health and my HSA is fully funded with a couple years' deductible in it, I have a certain amount of discretionary income with which one of my options it benevolence. This comes to mind because of a donation I just made to a family that suffered a catastrophe. I was able to do that, in spite of reduced income because of the economy, precisely because I have enjoyed several years of not meeting my deductible and having the discipline of laying by as much as possible. Had I been paying for the full coverage premiums, that money would have been gone and the amount I could contribute would have been much less. I'll probably not ever be able to save the world on what I can put away, but I made a difference for that family that their insurance isn't covering. Plenty of their friends have good jobs. They also have great insurance. They also didn't have enough laying around to make the kind of contribution I did, meager though it was, because their premiums represent money gone, whether they need any health care or not.


Let me sum up...

If I don't ever get really sick, I can buy lots of hookers and blow...

But If I do get really sick, I will lose everything, be a burden on society and be very happy when I finally die in a roadside ditch or in some pesthole they send poor old people to die in.

Good thinkin' there Tex.
 
2012-06-12 11:13:12 AM  
income and net worth is not the same submitard.
 
2012-06-12 11:13:46 AM  

Mr. Right: Ishkur: Mr. Right: That's where you're wrong. I have a Health Savings Account

I wasn't speaking of you specifically. I'm speaking of you, Americans.

I'm Canadian.

Which doesn't change my point. By having my health savings account, I have the opportunity to build wealth, if I am careful with my health and have a healthy dollop of good luck. With universal care, everyone puts in but nobody gets any benefit unless they take it out in the form of health care. The chronically ill benefit but everyone else is ultimately penalized. No one wins, they just all lose equally.

We have been trained to feel guilty if we win and someone else loses. I offer for your consideration, however, the notion that, by forcing everyone to contribute a substantial amount of their productivity to health insurance with out the option of self-determination, you are also taking away a lot of folks' ability to be charitable. If I have good health and my HSA is fully funded with a couple years' deductible in it, I have a certain amount of discretionary income with which one of my options it benevolence. This comes to mind because of a donation I just made to a family that suffered a catastrophe. I was able to do that, in spite of reduced income because of the economy, precisely because I have enjoyed several years of not meeting my deductible and having the discipline of laying by as much as possible. Had I been paying for the full coverage premiums, that money would have been gone and the amount I could contribute would have been much less. I'll probably not ever be able to save the world on what I can put away, but I made a difference for that family that their insurance isn't covering. Plenty of their friends have good jobs. They also have great insurance. They also didn't have enough laying around to make the kind of contribution I did, meager though it was, because their premiums represent money gone, whether they need any health care or not.


So if you and your family encounter major health problems and you wipe out all that wealth you have accumulated in your HSA, shall we leave you at the curb to die without remorse if you are no longer able to pay for the care you need. Will you sit there congratulating the "winners" as they walk by scoffing at pathetic losers like you? Will you tell your children that their suffering is deserved and just as a result of your "loss"?
 
2012-06-12 11:18:53 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Mr. Right: low wage employees spend a much larger percentage of their productivity on insurance and/or FICA than the rich

So make the insurance cheap for the poor employees. Which we could do tomorrow. Easily.


We could substantially reduce health care costs but there is a danger that if we subsidize health costs (whether through cheap insurance or giving them discriminatory pricing) that whoever is paying the bill treats them as supplicants rather than customers.
 
2012-06-12 11:23:47 AM  

hitlersbrain: Let me sum up...


Philip Francis Queeg: So if you and your family encounter major health problems and you wipe out all that wealth you have accumulated in your HSA, shall we leave you at the curb to die without remorse if you are no longer able to pay for the care you need.


You guys really don't have any reading comprehension, do you? If I have a major health problem, the insurance kicks in and pays for everything. I have run over my deductible twice. After that, everything was paid, including prescriptions. No co pays, no further deductible, no percentage. It's insurance against the kind of catastrophe you keep wishing on me.

If you can't understand the concepts, just sit in the corner and be quiet. You might learn something. Then again, one cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear.
 
2012-06-12 11:24:41 AM  

busy chillin': . Paying people more money is not going to help you make more money.


Short term, perhaps not. Long term? It will. In order to grow a company long term the economy has to grow, how much the economy can grow depends on how much money people have to spend. The more money more people have the more the economy can grow and the more a company can grow.

Mr. Right: but nobody gets any benefit unless they take it out in the form of health care.


With things like regular check up which catch all sorts of conditions early on when they are easy to manage and much cheaper to manage. They go and get prompt care for injuries and infections before they get worse or in the case of injuries cause loss of function or cause other injuries. But who would ever go to the doctor just because they want to make sure their health is as good as they think it is right?
 
2012-06-12 11:28:54 AM  

Mr. Right: hitlersbrain: Let me sum up...

Philip Francis Queeg: So if you and your family encounter major health problems and you wipe out all that wealth you have accumulated in your HSA, shall we leave you at the curb to die without remorse if you are no longer able to pay for the care you need.

You guys really don't have any reading comprehension, do you? If I have a major health problem, the insurance kicks in and pays for everything. I have run over my deductible twice. After that, everything was paid, including prescriptions. No co pays, no further deductible, no percentage. It's insurance against the kind of catastrophe you keep wishing on me.

If you can't understand the concepts, just sit in the corner and be quiet. You might learn something. Then again, one cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear.


Dear gullible smuck we know can't afford a top notch lawyer for very long..

Your coverage has run out. We won't pay for anything anymore.

See our website for popular ditches and pestholes to die in.

Thank you for your money,
GoFarkYourSelfAndDieHugeInsuranceCompany.
 
2012-06-12 11:31:06 AM  

Mr. Right: hitlersbrain: Let me sum up...

Philip Francis Queeg: So if you and your family encounter major health problems and you wipe out all that wealth you have accumulated in your HSA, shall we leave you at the curb to die without remorse if you are no longer able to pay for the care you need.

You guys really don't have any reading comprehension, do you? If I have a major health problem, the insurance kicks in and pays for everything. I have run over my deductible twice. After that, everything was paid, including prescriptions. No co pays, no further deductible, no percentage. It's insurance against the kind of catastrophe you keep wishing on me.

If you can't understand the concepts, just sit in the corner and be quiet. You might learn something. Then again, one cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear.


What is your annual deductible? What percentage of the median income is that deductible? What happens if you are unable to meet your annual deductible?
 
2012-06-12 11:33:18 AM  

Mr. Right: hitlersbrain: Let me sum up...

Philip Francis Queeg: So if you and your family encounter major health problems and you wipe out all that wealth you have accumulated in your HSA, shall we leave you at the curb to die without remorse if you are no longer able to pay for the care you need.

You guys really don't have any reading comprehension, do you? If I have a major health problem, the insurance kicks in and pays for everything. I have run over my deductible twice. After that, everything was paid, including prescriptions. No co pays, no further deductible, no percentage. It's insurance against the kind of catastrophe you keep wishing on me.

If you can't understand the concepts, just sit in the corner and be quiet. You might learn something. Then again, one cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear.


Rob Roy can
 
2012-06-12 11:34:46 AM  
Had a chance to get a sub-prime mortgage and move into a house for the first time in my life, back in 2007. Laughed my ass off at the pushy real estate agent who said she could "make it happen" with some hand-waving and creative accounting.

/more people should've maybe laughed it off
 
2012-06-12 11:39:31 AM  

Mr. Right: derp redacted


tl;dr

Vote Republican though, right?
 
2012-06-12 11:42:06 AM  

archichris:

For instance if you dont intend to have children, or have a low income, you would be foolish to buy a house. You can still choose to buy one, but you will be doing it for the bragging rights.

The benefits of renting are huge compared to the bragging rights of buying.




Huh?

I'll just pretend you didn't say cheaper because it would cost me more to rent a 2300 sf house than it does buying it where I live. I agree that home ownership should not be veiwed as an investment, but there are planty of valid reasons a person would rather own than rent, even a single person with no kids, like myself:

-Pretty hard to find a rental with a garage so that my car, motorcycle, 4 boats and workshop don't all have to be outside (where they'd deteriorate quickly and cost me $$ to replace)
-I can have a dog
-I can have a garden
-I can dig horshoe pits or put anything else I want to in my yard
-No one can kick me out just 'cause they wanna
-No neighbors in the next room to annoy or be annoyed by
-I can do anything I want to the house without permission from somebody
-When I sell it, at least I get 1/3 of my money back, go see if your landlord will do that for ya.
-No landlord barging into my house
-No waiting on someone else eto fix a problem with a leaky pipe or something
-In 25 more years I don't have to pay anymore, so I can retire without that overhead; OR sell, take the money, buy a smaller house and have some extra money to pad retirement
-If dirty hippies move in next door I can still move, but now I can rent to them and actually make some money
....plenty other of pro's IMO

All this stuff can easily be found when buying a home (I did), but you are luckily to get ONE of these in a rental. But if you are comfortable with another person dictating your life in exchange for fewer resposibilities (lawn care, house upkeep etc), then maybe it is for you.

I personally like to live my own life without answering to somebody else.

Oh wait I guess I am bragging......bragging about my excess of personal freedoms.
 
2012-06-12 11:45:53 AM  
The 5 year chart for the Baltic dry Index. This is the sum total of goods transshipped across the oceans.

If the shipping industry goes to shiat, the US is farked. Totally. Thats food, clothing, building materials, machine tools, metals, computer parts, television sets, radios and toxic Wal-Mart kiddy toys. Thats everything our economy is based on. As long as the CEOs of the largest companies in the country continue to sell off American assets to the Chinese or whoever, with the blessings of the Free-Market, Randroid trickle-down fanatics in the Government, our economy will never recover to what it was in the early 1960's.

The GOP is their primary enablers, and the primary reason why American manufacturers are being heavily subsidized by the taxpayers to send their plants overseas.

"Trickle down" is just propaganda they tell the libertarian rubes so that they can piss down Americans backs, and convince them it's just raining.
 
Displayed 50 of 491 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report