Really, Massachusetts?

[greyhead]

If you don't want the government to run a National Healthcare who do you want to run it?

I vote to have the Insurance Companies run the Healthcare System. Where the good old capitalist system is at it's best. Case in point. Ronald Williams CEO of Aetna total compensation for 2008 was $24,300,112 or $93,461.97 a day provided he worked 40 hrs a week for 52 weeks or 11,682.74 a Hour.

I sure he must be a hard worker and most likely worked many more hours than that and he probably deserves a raise. Last year his salary only increased $1,254,278. That's only a 5.4% raise. These guys need help and we are here to provide them that.

And the Guys over at Big Pharma need help also. The highest paid CEO over there only made $33,400,000 in 2007. These guys know how to make the system work & I'm behind them 110%.

I think they can make the whole thing work, because they have our best interests at heart.

[bs69]

I vote to have the Insurance Companies run the Healthcare System. Where the good old capitalist system is at it's best. Case in point. Ronald Williams CEO of Aetna total compensation for 2008 was $24,300,112 or $93,461.97 a day provided he worked 40 hrs a week for 52 weeks or 11,682.74 a Hour.

I sure he must be a hard worker and most likely worked many more hours than that and he probably deserves a raise. Last year his salary only increased $1,254,278. That's only a 5.4% raise. These guys need help and we are here to provide them that.

And the Guys over at Big Pharma need help also. The highest paid CEO over there only made $33,400,000 in 2007. These guys know how to make the system work & I'm behind them 110%.

I think they can make the whole thing work, because they have our best interests at heart.

That's a lot of money. That's almost as much as the highest paid baseball players and entertainers. Is anybody going to complain about the large sum of money Conan is receiving even though he failed in his job?

[bs69]

again, this is not new nor is it unique to capitalism nor to the west nor to democracy.

it is unique to animals with intellect and opposable thumbs.

just like all other organisms, human societies are born, grow old and die. their deaths usually are recorded in history as some kind of wonderful victorious revolution by the survivors.

characteristics associated wtih dying societies include, first and foremost, intractable public debt.

think about it.

Yep. Just check the Romans. You can only distract the populace with "bread and circuses" for so long.

[Guest jazz-man]

Great tongue-in-cheek post Greyhead! But seriously, if not the government, who should run healthcare? Maybe he idea of Crown Corporations like in British Commonwealth countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-owned_corporation

[Rusty the Scoob]

That's a lot of money. That's almost as much as the highest paid baseball players and entertainers. Is anybody going to complain about the large sum of money Conan is receiving even though he failed in his job?

Conan is a good example of why I don't have a big problem with huge money for entertainers.

He has brought millions and millions of measurable advertising dollars to NBC over the 15 or so years that he's been working for them as a talk show host. It's an insane amount of money but it represents a measurable and quantifiable profit for NBC, which is in turn good for NBC's stockholders, of which I may or may not be one of them*.

*I have a well-diversified 401k and some mututal funds, and like most people I have not looked deeply enough into them to know each and every stock that they contain. I could own a piece of Exxon itself for all I know.

I do agree with what's stated above that societies have a lifespan. I'd like to think that the US society can find a way to last longer than 250-300 years though. Being self-aware as a society should only help.

[Jack Jones]

You must be talking about The Peoples Republic of China, correct?

No, I'm talking about right here in the good ol' US of A. Unfettered capitolism (much like the kind the GOP push for) puts profits above people and the environment. This is the nature of capitolism. The free market has its uses but it clearly has inherent problems as well.

Regulation is essential and corporations should not have voting rights or the ability to sway our elections based on the depth of their bank accounts. This is our country, or at least it was at one time. This Supreme Court decision has undermined the very essence of our democracy.

I don't know what the answer is but I expect there will be revolution again. Maybe then we can get it right.

Until then I expect more of the same; Politicians (of both parties!) bought and paid for, profits above people and the environment, the military industrial complex influncing our foreign policy and the religious right influencing who gets elected and who doesn't.

Wow, this thread has taken many twists and turns. Maybe the political forum should come back?

[NJJohn]

No, I'm talking about right here in the good ol' US of A. Unfettered capitolism (much like the kind the GOP push for) puts profits above people and the environment. This is the nature of capitolism. The free market has its uses but it clearly has inherent problems as well.

Regulation is essential and corporations should not have voting rights or the ability to sway our elections based on the depth of their bank accounts. This is our country, or at least it was at one time. This Supreme Court decision has undermined the very essence of our democracy.

I don't know what the answer is but I expect there will be revolution again. Maybe then we can get it right.

Until then I expect more of the same; Politicians (of both parties!) bought and paid for, profits above people and the environment, the military industrial complex influncing our foreign policy and the religious right influencing who gets elected and who doesn't.

Wow, this thread has taken many twists and turns. Maybe the political forum should come back?

Regulation and cheep labor is the reason all our manufacturing jobs are now in Mexico, China, India and Indonesia. What about those people? Have you ever bought a $5 tee shirt at Wal Mart? You probably supported a company which exploits its workers, polutes the land and pockets lots of money. The American textile industry no longer exists due to regulation. When was the last time you saw a Made in USA tag in an article of clothing? I did find some sock made in Wisconson. Regulation is the reason why we have not buitl a refinery in this country even though newer technology has increased the effiency and have made the process cleaner.

[Jack Jones]

Regulation and cheep labor is the reason all our manufacturing jobs are now in Mexico, China, India and Indonesia. What about those people? Have you ever bought a $5 tee shirt at Wal Mart? You probably supported a company which exploits its workers, polutes the land and pockets lots of money. The American textile industry no longer exists due to regulation. When was the last time you saw a Made in USA tag in an article of clothing? I did find some sock made in Wisconson. Regulation is the reason why we have not buitl a refinery in this country even though newer technology has increased the effiency and have made the process cleaner.

Actually, this is somewhat true but you also emphasise my point exactly. Look at the pollution and human rights violations of the countries you mentioned!

Regulation is essential BECAUSE companies exist to make profits. When things like people's rights and environmental concerns get in the way of those profits it is regulation that is intended to thwart these companies from commiting those offenses.

There are a number of reasons why we have lost manufacturing jobs here and even if we didn't regulate we would still not be able to compete with a workforce (China, India etc) that pays its workers a few dollars a day.

Please put your (self professed) scientific and investigative powers of reason to bear and you may come to conclusions contrary to the talking points of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck.

In my opinion we are not doing nearly enough to protect the environment. We need to rethink EVERYTHING about how our society is structured. We need to have a different attitude about what we need, when we need it and where it comes from. We need to think about why so many in the world are pissed off at us and consider what we can do about it.

The old way of thinking and the society we've built is destructive to our existence.

[greyhead]

Regulation and cheep labor is the reason all our manufacturing jobs are now in Mexico, China, India and Indonesia. What about those people? Have you ever bought a $5 tee shirt at Wal Mart? You probably supported a company which exploits its workers, polutes the land and pockets lots of money. The American textile industry no longer exists due to regulation. When was the last time you saw a Made in USA tag in an article of clothing? I did find some sock made in Wisconson. Regulation is the reason why we have not buitl a refinery in this country even though newer technology has increased the effiency and have made the process cleaner.

These jobs were out sourced for one reason. MORE DOLLARS FOR THE CORPORATIONS!!! Your job may be next.

The regulations that you are talking about are for the safety of the workers and this planet we live on. But WTF Who needs them. The Dollar is more important.

[BigDad]

I vote to have the Insurance Companies run the Healthcare System. Where the good old capitalist system is at it's best. Case in point. Ronald Williams CEO of Aetna total compensation for 2008 was $24,300,112 or $93,461.97 a day provided he worked 40 hrs a week for 52 weeks or 11,682.74 a Hour.

I sure he must be a hard worker and most likely worked many more hours than that and he probably deserves a raise. Last year his salary only increased $1,254,278. That's only a 5.4% raise. These guys need help and we are here to provide them that.

And the Guys over at Big Pharma need help also. The highest paid CEO over there only made $33,400,000 in 2007. These guys know how to make the system work & I'm behind them 110%.

I think they can make the whole thing work, because they have our best interests at heart.

Your envy is showing...

[bs69]

These jobs were out sourced for one reason. MORE DOLLARS FOR THE CORPORATIONS!!! Your job may be next.

The regulations that you are talking about are for the safety of the workers and this planet we live on. But WTF Who needs them. The Dollar is more important.

The problem is we can't regulate what other countries do. If a corporation can lower it's costs by acquiring it's resources in another country it is going to do it because their competition surely will. It is a matter of survival. We have made a decision as a country that we have moved on from most manufacturing jobs. We have decided the jobs are not worth the threat to the environment and our workers. It is nobody's fault, it is just the evolution of things.

[You Are Here]

Wow, this thread has taken many twists and turns. Maybe the political forum should come back?

Heavens No!!

[jfolks]

Regulation and cheep labor is the reason all our manufacturing jobs are now in Mexico, China, India and Indonesia. What about those people? Have you ever bought a $5 tee shirt at Wal Mart? You probably supported a company which exploits its workers, polutes the land and pockets lots of money. The American textile industry no longer exists due to regulation. When was the last time you saw a Made in USA tag in an article of clothing? I did find some sock made in Wisconson. Regulation is the reason why we have not buitl a refinery in this country even though newer technology has increased the effiency and have made the process cleaner.

uhh, proper regulation could prohibit outsourcing manufacturing to the 3rd world (which btw, is a really fucked up situation.. sweat shops still exist!)

and we have tons of refineries btw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries#United_States)

Actually, this is somewhat true but you also emphasise my point exactly. Look at the pollution and human rights violations of the countries you mentioned!

Regulation is essential BECAUSE companies exist to make profits. When things like people's rights and environmental concerns get in the way of those profits it is regulation that is intended to thwart these companies from commiting those offenses.

There are a number of reasons why we have lost manufacturing jobs here and even if we didn't regulate we would still not be able to compete with a workforce (China, India etc) that pays its workers a few dollars a day.

Please put your (self professed) scientific and investigative powers of reason to bear and you may come to conclusions contrary to the talking points of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck.

In my opinion we are not doing nearly enough to protect the environment. We need to rethink EVERYTHING about how our society is structured. We need to have a different attitude about what we need, when we need it and where it comes from. We need to think about why so many in the world are pissed off at us and consider what we can do about it.

The old way of thinking and the society we've built is destructive to our existence.

i really like the way you think! the preservation of the environment is our #1 concern.. and thats why im devoting my life to saving it! (im getting a phd in environmental sociology)

[70s Hound]

We have decided the jobs are not worth the threat to the environment and our workers. It is nobody's fault, it is just the evolution of things.

That's really a gross over-simplification.

Environmental laws that deal with pollution seek, in large part, to internalize externalities. In other words, a paper mill in the 1950 would dump its effluent in the river. Downstream users would bear the consequences. The mill would gain the advantages because part of the cost of producing the paper would be passed on to those downstream users, even though they were not buying the product. The Clean Water Act changed that. It required the mill to deal with the pollution. So the mill installed controls then passed the costs on to the consumers of the epaper. That better reflects the true costs of the product. Externalities were internalized. Does this cost jobs? Perhaps, if for example, China can sell cheaper paper by not controlling pollution. But, unpolluted natural resources have a myriad of positive economic impacts.

Point being, the total economic equation here is far more complex than just saying regulation costs jobs which means regulation is bad for the economy.

[Rusty the Scoob]

Even the majority of the staunchest conservatives now agree that DEregulation of the mortgage and banking industries are one of the main causes if not the sole main cause of our current financial crisis. They increased short term profits at the expense of long-term stability.

[BigDad]

Even the majority of the staunchest conservatives now agree that DEregulation of the mortgage and banking industries are one of the main causes if not the sole main cause of our current financial crisis. They increased short term profits at the expense of long-term stability.

<SOAPBOX>

And all this time I thought it was our government mandating that the banks give mortgages to underqualified buyers who couldn't make the payments. Thanks for clearing that up.

Let's face it, whenever the government gets involved in regulating something, the law of unintended consequences kicks in bigtime, as those bozos have never been forced to plan ahead. In fact, the only long-term issue people seem to be able to grasp is the mythical global warming and its potential effect on future generations.

</SOAPBOX>

[bs69]

That's really a gross over-simplification.

Environmental laws that deal with pollution seek, in large part, to internalize externalities. In other words, a paper mill in the 1950 would dump its effluent in the river. Downstream users would bear the consequences. The mill would gain the advantages because part of the cost of producing the paper would be passed on to those downstream users, even though they were not buying the product. The Clean Water Act changed that. It required the mill to deal with the pollution. So the mill installed controls then passed the costs on to the consumers of the epaper. That better reflects the true costs of the product. Externalities were internalized. Does this cost jobs? Perhaps, if for example, China can sell cheaper paper by not controlling pollution. But, unpolluted natural resources have a myriad of positive economic impacts.

Point being, the total economic equation here is far more complex than just saying regulation costs jobs which means regulation is bad for the economy.

That wasn't really the point I was trying to make. My point was that we have been evolving from a manufacturing economy to more of a service economy. The jobs aren't exactly being lost, they are changing.

[Jack Jones]

<SOAPBOX>

And all this time I thought it was our government mandating that the banks give mortgages to underqualified buyers who couldn't make the payments. Thanks for clearing that up.

Let's face it, whenever the government gets involved in regulating something, the law of unintended consequences kicks in bigtime, as those bozos have never been forced to plan ahead. In fact, the only long-term issue people seem to be able to grasp is the mythical global warming and its potential effect on future generations.

</SOAPBOX>

The mythical global warming effect???????

I'm pretty sure that hundreds of scientists can't be wrong. I am afraid that ignoring the problem or attempting to undermine it is not going to be productive in solving our problems. This kind of thinking will ultimately hasten our demise. Are you opposed to a healthy environment? This is something I can't quite understand. Are you suggesting we squander our resources without regard for the future? Is some magic fairy going to come and wave a magic wand making our environment healthy again? We should carry on as if there is no problem?????

I agree, there are consequences, sometimes unforseen that are encountered with every action (just like physics) however, barring some other entity creating and enforcing regulation then we must seek the government to do this regulating. This is kind of the point of government anyway.

I am at a loss to think of who better to regulate than the government. Are you suggesting that these profit seeking companies will choose to lose money for the benifit of the environment? Bear in mind that their goal is to make as much money for their shareholders as possible. I will grant you that from time to time a company with a conscience does come into existance but largely these are anomolies.

This being said, I am aware that corruption exists and feel that if the system was being run with the correct checks and balances (remember that concept?) then corruption would be ferreted out as it should be.

Bottom line is that the environment should be of primary importance.

uhh, proper regulation could prohibit outsourcing manufacturing to the 3rd world (which btw, is a really fucked up situation.. sweat shops still exist!)

and we have tons of refineries btw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries#United_States)

i really like the way you think! the preservation of the environment is our #1 concern.. and thats why im devoting my life to saving it! (im getting a phd in environmental sociology)

Right on! You are the future!

[Teacher Matt]

Mother Earth has been through much... very much... even before humans...

I think she will be fine in the long run... even when our time is up on this planet... because some day it will..

you want to save the environment... start with China... they burn coal and then more coal... and then more coal...

[Guest jazz-man]

The 'mythical' global warming effect? The argument to the science was created by corporations who live to make more money. The science is there for all to see but corporations ( and their tools like Fox) spread the message that the science is wrong. They are the people praising the emperor's new clothes. The scientists (and rational people who can think for themselves) say "the emperor is naked". Corporations are like having a lion in your yard for security. Sure they'll keep bad people away from your house but if you're not careful they'll eat you! That's why there has to be regulations. And that's why corporations cry the blues of "too many regulations are killing me". And they move their jobes offshore where there are fewer environmental laws and the labor is cheap. And they blame it all on "too many regulations". Who's running this country? Corporations are winning the battle.

Oh Lord, Matt. Are you serious? If your neighbor's yard is a mess you should make sure yours is clean before making others clean up theirs. Quite frankly I am shocked at your attitude re: the environment. There is no dispute that we've messed up this planet seriously. Too many people and too much polution. What are we gonna do when there are no more fish to catch? When water becomes more expensive than gas? When you have to wear a mask when you go outside. Wave your wand and wish that the planet will heal itself? That's simply unbelievable.

The coal industry keeps touting "clean coal". There's no such thing. Like "lite heroin". China burns a buttload of coal but so does the US. We have to get off this dirty stuff. Increase the insulation in homes, move forward aggressively with "clean, renewable" forms of energy, and conservation.

[Teacher Matt]

Did you watch Mad Max last night or something ?... maybe Waterworld and made it a double feature

[bs69]

Did you watch Mad Max last night or something ?... maybe Waterworld and made it a double feature

Mad Max is so much better than Waterworld

[bs69]

The mythical global warming effect???????

I'm pretty sure that hundreds of scientists can't be wrong. I am afraid that ignoring the problem or attempting to undermine it is not going to be productive in solving our problems. This kind of thinking will ultimately hasten our demise. Are you opposed to a healthy environment? This is something I can't quite understand. Are you suggesting we squander our resources without regard for the future? Is some magic fairy going to come and wave a magic wand making our environment healthy again? We should carry on as if there is no problem?????

I agree, there are consequences, sometimes unforseen that are encountered with every action (just like physics) however, barring some other entity creating and enforcing regulation then we must seek the government to do this regulating. This is kind of the point of government anyway.

I am at a loss to think of who better to regulate than the government. Are you suggesting that these profit seeking companies will choose to lose money for the benifit of the environment? Bear in mind that their goal is to make as much money for their shareholders as possible. I will grant you that from time to time a company with a conscience does come into existance but largely these are anomolies.

This being said, I am aware that corruption exists and feel that if the system was being run with the correct checks and balances (remember that concept?) then corruption would be ferreted out as it should be.

Bottom line is that the environment should be of primary importance.

Right on! You are the future!

Global warming is real and there is no way we are going to stop it. Take care of the planet and don't buy property in low lying coastal areas.

[Rusty the Scoob]

<SOAPBOX>

And all this time I thought it was our government mandating that the banks give mortgages to underqualified buyers who couldn't make the payments. Thanks for clearing that up.

</SOAPBOX>

If you think that, you are dead wrong. Completely 180* from the truth.

The majority of foreclosures are not on government-sponsored low-income FHA loans, which have discounted fixed rates - instead they are in subprime ARM loans that greedy lenders were able to write thanks to de-regulation.

In a nutshell, we (and I say "we" because I worked for a subprime lender at the time) would call up people who had owned their houses long enough to have a lot of equity built up, as well as low credit scores and a lot of credit card debt. We'd offer to pay off their debt and lower their monthly payment, and we could deliver on this seemingly win-win scenario thanks to their strong equity position and the low introductory rates that we could offer due to industry deregulation and extremely low interest rates at the Federal level.

What we tried hard not to tell them were two details: that the low rate was only good for three years before it would likely skyrocket, and that we were taking a huge percentage for ourselves - often 6-8%.

So we were sinking them in the long term and pocketing a quick $10-20k at closing. The new borrower would rarely notice because we'd simply roll our fees into the new principal balance, actually increasing their total debt, all while appearing to save them financially in the short term.

[Guest jazz-man]

Well I have to say that your post about the planet healing itself is just about the most foolish thing I've ever read on this site. You honestly can't be serious.

I have to pay Fox their due. They really know how to make shit up and convince people (who obviously don't think for themselves or question much of what they hear) to think whatever Fox wants them to. They are the masters of lies, hatred and fear. I challenge any sane and independantly thinking person to watch more than 5 minutes of Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck. They deal in hatred and lies without shame. When confronted with the truth Sean just mutters "no, no" and changes the subject. Glenn Beck is just a nutty guy who makes himself cry to gain sympathy for him or his point of view. Bill O'Reilly has mellowed and seems to book attractive women onto his show to gaze at them and dream of them in a shower with him and his loofah (per the sexual harrassment suit against Bill). His lying is kindly, gentler. When confronted with the truth he yells and gets PO'd and cuts the microphone of whomever pisses him off. If not for the Simpson's there'd be no reason to turn on Fox, they are a travesty.