PDA

View Full Version : Who pays for Wall St?



Qtec
02-19-2010, 09:28 AM
Those with the least influence in Washington.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">February 19, 2010
States Consider Medicaid Cuts as Use Grows
By KEVIN SACK and ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — Facing relentless fiscal pressure and exploding demand for government health care, virtually every state is making or considering substantial cuts in Medicaid, even as Democrats push to add 15 million people to the rolls.

Because they are temporarily barred from reducing eligibility, <u>states have been left to cut “optional benefits,” like dental and vision care, </u>and reduce payments to doctors and other health care providers.

In some states, governors are trying to avoid the deepest cuts by pushing for increases in tobacco taxes or new levies on hospitals and doctors, but many of those proposals are running into election-year trouble in conservative legislatures.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>In Nevada, which faces an $881 million budget gap, <u>Gov. Jim Gibbons, a Republican, proposed this month to end Medicaid coverage of adult day care, eyeglasses, hearing aids and dentures, and, for a savings of $829,304, to reduce the number of diapers provided monthly to incontinent adults (to 186 from 300)</u>.</span>

“We are down to the ugly list of options,” the state’s director of health and human services, Mike Willden, told a legislative committee last week. </div></div> link (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/us/politics/19medicaid.html?hpw=&pagewanted=print)

Geez..... Gibbons (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/jim_gibbons/index.html?inline=nyt-per)


What next, double amputees will have to do with just the one artificial leg?

Q

eg8r
02-19-2010, 09:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What next, double amputees will have to do with just the one artificial leg?</div></div>LOL, when the Dems are in control fear mongering is OK?

eg8r

Qtec
02-20-2010, 10:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What next, double amputees will have to do with just the one artificial leg?</div></div>LOL, when the Dems are in control fear mongering is OK?

eg8r </div></div>

That was a joke.

Once again you show your true colours.
As ALWAYS, you reply to a post by,
1. Completely ignoring the subject of the thread.
2. Blaming Clinton or the Democrats.

Would you like to sit in a wet diaper? What if you had worked all your life and fought for your country and now this Rep snake is telling you that YOU have to make sacrifices [ sit in piss] because they need to cut costs.
The Wall St wizards [ con-men/ponzi crooks] who brought the country to the edge of collapse are now making record profits but those harmed by Wall St have to suffer.


Meanwhile the same guy is probably all for an increase in military spending to protect him.

My point is that when the rich FK up, its the poor who pay.

Is funny tho, there were problems/concerns with the banks etc for years running up to 2009 but it was only after Obama was certain to become POTUS that Bush dropped the bomb. Suddenly it became an emergency.




Q

eg8r
02-20-2010, 01:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Once again you show your true colours.
As ALWAYS, you reply to a post by,
1. Completely ignoring the subject of the thread.
2. Blaming Clinton or the Democrats.
</div></div>LOL, if there was any blame it was at you, you idiot (sorry honda but this fool pulls it out of me every time)! It is the libs on this board that like to blame the righties for fear mongering. Then like an idiot, that is exactly what you try to do in your comment at the end. If you don't want me to comment on your stupid comments then you should just quote what you want to quote and keep your mouth shut.

eg8r

pooltchr
02-20-2010, 07:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[ YOU have to make sacrifices [ sit in piss] because they need to cut costs.
Q


</div></div>

I wonder how many diapers could be bought with Nancy Pelosi's fresh cut flower budget.....



Just wondering....



Steve

wolfdancer
02-21-2010, 03:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What next, double amputees will have to do with just the one artificial leg? </div></div>
How much can we save on that?
Nevada has no personal income tax, and has always relied on gaming revenue taxes, and a good portion of that from California. As the Indian Casinos opened in Ca, and other states legalized gambling, Nv has suffered financially. Downtown Reno is dotted with closed stores, and many Casinos have gone under. There still is some Gold and Silver being mined, and since Nv has no "floor tax" warehousing is a big industry in the state.
My last trip to LV, wandering through the "Luxury" Casinos like the Mirage and Bellagio....I didn't see "any" customers in their arcade stores, and few of the craps, and blackjack tables had any real play on them.

Wolf J Flywheel
02-23-2010, 10:10 AM
Thanks for exposing that state ran health care inevitably results in rationing. You seem to be a good conservative voice and this forum needs more of them.

cushioncrawler
02-23-2010, 04:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wolf J Flywheel</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for exposing that state ran health care inevitably results in rationing. You seem to be a good conservative voice and this forum needs more of them.</div></div>I think that a state like nevada etc iznt allowed to hav a deficit -- eg in Ozz all states must sort of balance their budgets sort of.
But a country (another type of state) duzzenhavta balance its budget.
So, some states (sort of inevitably) havtahav rationing -- and some dont.
madMac.

Deeman3
02-23-2010, 04:49 PM
Alabama must balance it's budget or teachers, law enforcement, basically every stste employee except politicians are subject to being laid off.

JohnnyD
02-23-2010, 05:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What next, double amputees will have to do with just the one artificial leg?</div></div>LOL, when the Dems are in control fear mongering is OK?

eg8r </div></div>

That was a joke.

Once again you show your true colours.
As ALWAYS, you reply to a post by,
1. Completely ignoring the subject of the thread.
2. Blaming Clinton or the Democrats.

Would you like to sit in a wet diaper? What if you had worked all your life and fought for your country and now this Rep snake is telling you that YOU have to make sacrifices [ sit in piss] because they need to cut costs.
The Wall St wizards [ con-men/ponzi crooks] who brought the country to the edge of collapse are now making record profits but those harmed by Wall St have to suffer.


Meanwhile the same guy is probably all for an increase in military spending to protect him.

My point is that when the rich FK up, its the poor who pay.

Is funny tho, there were problems/concerns with the banks etc for years running up to 2009 but it was only after Obama was certain to become POTUS that Bush dropped the bomb. Suddenly it became an emergency. Excellent i say excellent post.Why can't other people have common sense and realize this.




Q


</div></div>

cushioncrawler
02-24-2010, 11:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Alabama must balance it's budget or teachers, law enforcement, basically every stste employee except politicians are subject to being laid off.</div></div>Yes -- but that iz the law. If it twernt for that law alabamy would be in exaktly the same boat az the fed gov -- ie they can hav az big a deficit az they like.
Here for the fed'gov and state'govs i am talking about an internal deficit -- an external deficit (ie with other countrys) iznt so straight'forward.
Basically, there iz only one limitation for any fed'gov -- the internal deficit iz limited by the ability to spend it.
Basically, there iz only one limitation for the ability to spend it -- the limitation of resources.
Basically, there iz only one limiting resource -- employment.
Basically, there iz only one limitation for employment -- full employment.
Basically, many workers are happy to work payed overtime -- or to hav more than one job.
So, aktually, there iz near'nuff no limitation for employment.
Giv me an F -- Giv me an E -- Giv me a Dee.
GGGGGGOOOOOOOOOOO FFFFFEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDDDD GGGGOOOOOOOO.
madMac.

sack316
02-24-2010, 11:48 PM
Mac, I'm not sure even employment is a limiting resource as long as there's a printing press and some ink around! Or at least we don't seem to think so, anyway...

Sack (kinda enjoys the odd occurrence where he and Mac are semi- in agreement)

cushioncrawler
02-25-2010, 12:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mac, I'm not sure even employment is a limiting resource as long as there's a printing press and some ink around! Or at least we don't seem to think so, anyway... Sack (kinda enjoys the odd occurrence where he and Mac are semi- in agreement)</div></div>Full employment shood be the aim -- the deficit duznt matter.
But of course in fakt if i were king -- there would be few people working -- ie workers would produce enuff to retire early if they wanted.
If i were king -- full employment would mean that anyone who wanted a job or a better job or a different job would hav a good chance of getting it.
If i were king -- employers would be chasing employees.
If i were king -- at a job interview the applicant would be asking most of the questions -- ie the employer would in effekt be the applicant.

I only the once ever heard anyone say that -- ie that full employment shood be the No1 aim -- it woz a usofa economix professor viziting Ozz -- i heard it on the radio -- i didnt get hiz name -- smartest thing i ever heard -- gave me some hope -- but this woz many years ago -- i guess that he died -- and that he woz the last of the mohicans.
madMac.

sack316
02-25-2010, 02:25 AM
of course "full employment" is a relative term. You and I see the term as it literally is, where everyone who wants to work is working at a capacity that they desire. Unfortunately, the reality of 'full employment' is actually a state's 'ideal' employment... where (depending on the economy) unemployment is usually between 2% and 7%.

I'm not sure what professor you heard, but it may have been Joseph Stiglitz... he is big on a true full employment (0%). And he is still living as far as I know.

But take some pride my Australian friend, y'all were the first free society to make full employment governmental policy! At least until the 70's anyway.

Of course, a true 0% unemployment would hasten, if not halt, technological advancements, stifle creative thinking and 'big dreams', and make shopping around the holidays pretty difficult with nobody looking for a job to fill the extra needed manpower. In most cases, an acceptable rate (again, depending on the economy) of unemployment is actually a good thing.


Sack

editing to add that 0% cyclical unemployment would be ideal

cushioncrawler
02-25-2010, 05:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">of course "full employment" is a relative term. You and I see the term as it literally is, where everyone who wants to work is working at a capacity that they desire. Unfortunately, the reality of 'full employment' is actually a state's 'ideal' employment... where (depending on the economy) unemployment is usually between 2% and 7%. I'm not sure what professor you heard, but it may have been Joseph Stiglitz... he is big on a true full employment (0%). And he is still living as far as I know.
But take some pride my Australian friend, y'all were the first free society to make full employment governmental policy! At least until the 70's anyway.
Of course, a true 0% unemployment would hasten, if not halt, technological advancements, stifle creative thinking and 'big dreams', and make shopping around the holidays pretty difficult with nobody looking for a job to fill the extra needed manpower. In most cases, an acceptable rate (again, depending on the economy) of unemployment is actually a good thing. Sack editing to add that 0% cyclical unemployment would be ideal</div></div>Thanx for the stiglitz angle -- i will follow it up.
True -- full employment -- and hi standards of living -- would dampen invention -- but not much.
But what u aktually really deskribed 100% korrektly woz the effekt of religions.

Filling needed jobs would be eezy -- it simply needz real competition -- ie real wages. But in my kingdom there wouldnt be any holidays -- everyone would holiday anytime they wanted, sort of.

The high unemployment suppozedly needed in krappynomix systems iz i suppoze to keep inflation low. Keeping inflation low iznt important. Anyhow, in my kingdom there would be zero inflation -- and zero unions -- and zero union leaders.
madMac.