Barack Obama will win the nomination!

[will641]

there are people in this world that live in hospitals. that is to say, every time they get a head ace they go the doctor. there will be e.r.'s longer than a line at a metalica concert.

[JL]

there are people in this world that live in hospitals. that is to say, every time they get a head ace they go the doctor. there will be e.r.'s longer than a line at a metalica concert.

lol is that the type of lies they feed you down there?

[wufwugy]

damn. as long as u keep your avatar tho ill still probably like u.

i think i should bring back the avatar of the naked guy clenching his ass cheeks.

[DJJunkPauds]

there are people in this world that live in hospitals. that is to say, every time they get a head ace they go the doctor. there will be e.r.'s longer than a line at a metalica concert.

Err, we have free health care over here in England, and we don't have "e.r.'s longer than a line at a metalica concert". It's not super health care, and it has it's flaws. You can't, for example, have cosmetic surgery for free, and wait times for non-urgent procedures are long (depending on what you call long, a couple of weeks or more), but if you don't like it you can just use private hospitals anyway, so it doesn't make a whole lot of difference. And besides, all of it's failures are resultant of poor management, and underinvestment, not a flaw in the concept it self.

To claim the principle is unworkable is ridiculous seeing as it has been working for over 50 years.

Although, maybe there's something in the American mindset that makes it unworkable. I remember when they had to evacuate Houston because of a possible storm, and they had this problem that people were running out of fuel and couldn't get out. I said to an American friend "Why don't they just give those people free Petrol? It's an emergency!" and he said "It's America. If they gave away free gas, there'd be more people driving in to Houston than out of it."

Maybe it isn't workable over there until the words "All you can eat" are no longer seen as a contractual obligation.

[2_Thumbs_Up]

there are people in this world that live in hospitals. that is to say, every time they get a head ace they go the doctor. there will be e.r.'s longer than a line at a metalica concert.

lol is that the type of lies they feed you down there?

It's the truth. I live in the socialist heaven of sweden and I can see the problems roll out before my eyes. You have to wait for months to get health care sometimes. The only reason we have managed to keep the show going for so long is because we have been able to continuosly raise taxes to keep up with the increasing costs. But now we have the highest taxes in the world and the health care is still getting worse.

[Lukie]

there are people in this world that live in hospitals. that is to say, every time they get a head ace they go the doctor. there will be e.r.'s longer than a line at a metalica concert.

lol is that the type of lies they feed you down there?

It's the truth. I live in the socialist heaven of sweden and I can see the problems roll out before my eyes. You have to wait for months to get health care sometimes. The only reason we have managed to keep the show going for so long is because we have been able to continuosly raise taxes to keep up with the increasing costs. But now we have the highest taxes in the world and the health care is still getting worse.

quite honestly, this is what I'm afraid of. I've heard of all kinds of horror stories in canada. More taxes, bad healthcare, long waits-- these are all real problems. I've also read many times that if you were not satisfied with the healthcare in Canada, you couldn't get private healthcare *at all* in, even if you paid for it completely out of pocket! Why?????? FWIW, I'm not sure if this is still the case.

I guess I don't see why it's so hard to get a job with benefits or buy it privately. I pay less than $100 month and I have more than enough coverage.

[euphoricism]

there are people in this world that live in hospitals. that is to say, every time they get a head ace they go the doctor. there will be e.r.'s longer than a line at a metalica concert.

lol is that the type of lies they feed you down there?

It's the truth. I live in the socialist heaven of sweden and I can see the problems roll out before my eyes. You have to wait for months to get health care sometimes. The only reason we have managed to keep the show going for so long is because we have been able to continuosly raise taxes to keep up with the increasing costs. But now we have the highest taxes in the world and the health care is still getting worse.

Winner winner chicken dinner. Add in our 12+ million illegal immigrants who will get health care without paying for it. And then add the millions more illegal immigrants who will come solely FOR our free healthcare.

Its a fucking disaster waiting to happen.

[SaulPaul]

^ quite easy not to give it to illegal immigrants no? (maybe for the exception of ER stuff)

i would say were not flooded with illegal immigrants who come for our healthcare, but ive read the daily mail

[will641]

edit: not going to discuss politics anymore (hopefully)

you'll be back. they always come back... .

[jackvance]

I realize the tone of my comment was pretty bad. Looking at it, it did sound up-tight. The point I wanted to make is that most people don't realize that they actually benefit from others being rich.

Economy is NOT a zero-sum game. One's richness is not someone else's poorness. In capitalism, during the process of getting rich you also enrichen others. I hate when people just look at society and say "he's rich he should pay more." The thing is, in most cases he has already given way more to society than most people. That should be rewarded, not punished.

Also, the only way to get such an uneven distrubution of wealth such as in france prior to the revolution, is through taxation.

[euphoricism]

^ quite easy not to give it to illegal immigrants no? (maybe for the exception of ER stuff)

i would say were not flooded with illegal immigrants who come for our healthcare, but ive read the daily mail

Except theyve already made it clear they will give it to illegals.

[DJJunkPauds]

I realize the tone of my comment was pretty bad. Looking at it, it did sound up-tight. The point I wanted to make is that most people don't realize that they actually benefit from others being rich.

Economy is NOT a zero-sum game. One's richness is not someone else's poorness. In capitalism, during the process of getting rich you also enrichen others. I hate when people just look at society and say "he's rich he should pay more." The thing is, in most cases he has already given way more to society than most people. That should be rewarded, not punished.

Also, the only way to get such an uneven distrubution of wealth such as in france prior to the revolution, is through taxation.

So you see capitalism as the only antithesis to feudalism?

[JL]

I guess I don't see why it's so hard to get a job with benefits or buy it privately. I pay less than $100 month and I have more than enough coverage.

I wanna ask if you have seen the movie Sicko, but I am afraid of all the right wingers jumping all over me yelling "THAT'S LEFT WING CONSPIRACY THEORY CRAP" or something along those lines...

[Jack Sawyer]

If Kerry wasn't a dumbass he would have won 4 years ago. Obama won't drop the ball, but the vast majority of our country is poor, religiously fanatical, racist trash. For example, a dude near my work has a truck with the plate "GOP NRA". Hopefully there aren't too many people scared of the dauwkie's.

I'm an NRA member. I wouldn't consider myself poor, religiously fanatical, or racist trash. I don't see what you're getting at honestly.

I wouldn't consider myself a republican either. I'm a liberterian. Democrats have some good ideas, but also have some really awful and crushing ones to go with them. I think a lot of people agree with me. I'll probably be voting for Ron Paul, maybe McCain. Definitely not the other 2.

Its funny.

You mention the Democrats, and your opinion about their ideas, but you never mentioned the Republicans (their direct competitors, if you wish) and your opinion about their ideas for comparison. As stated, it seems as if you will simply vote for any Republican "because".

I think a lot of people agree with me.

Agree with you about what? That the Democrats have good ideas, but also have some really awful and crushing ones to go with them, and that because of that you should vote for any Republican really, without equally considering what they bring to the table?

To me this seems very, very, very shallow thinking. Remind yourself about the task at hand, since there is a lot at stake this time. You are choosing the president of a country which many other countries have come to depend upon [even though a sizeable portion of that country seems to be ignorant to the fact that other countries exist].

Not a pair of sneakers.

why the hostility? i'm perfectly aware of what's at stake. you like dems, I don't. you don't like republicans...... neither do I really. and yes I do think a lot of people agree with me. I took a president as bad as GWB to get some democrats finally voted into congress . Otherwise it would still be looking like R/R/R...

LOL, I didn't want to sound hostile, and if I did I'm sorry.
Your post did come across as sounding overly naive to me, that's why in me first re: I pointed that out.


That is probably the reason why we shouldn't use internet posts to determine how they sound though (while we do communicate using these, they are not real voice, and their tone cannot be readily determined), but we'll do it anyway anyhow.

[Lukie]

I guess I don't see why it's so hard to get a job with benefits or buy it privately. I pay less than $100 month and I have more than enough coverage.

I wanna ask if you have seen the movie Sicko, but I am afraid of all the right wingers jumping all over me yelling "THAT'S LEFT WING CONSPIRACY THEORY CRAP" or something along those lines...

i've never seen the movie sicko, and i try my hardest not to be influenced by hollywood, but if u have a legit point i'd love to hear it.

[Lukie]

If Kerry wasn't a dumbass he would have won 4 years ago. Obama won't drop the ball, but the vast majority of our country is poor, religiously fanatical, racist trash. For example, a dude near my work has a truck with the plate "GOP NRA". Hopefully there aren't too many people scared of the dauwkie's.

I'm an NRA member. I wouldn't consider myself poor, religiously fanatical, or racist trash. I don't see what you're getting at honestly.

I wouldn't consider myself a republican either. I'm a liberterian. Democrats have some good ideas, but also have some really awful and crushing ones to go with them. I think a lot of people agree with me. I'll probably be voting for Ron Paul, maybe McCain. Definitely not the other 2.

Its funny.

You mention the Democrats, and your opinion about their ideas, but you never mentioned the Republicans (their direct competitors, if you wish) and your opinion about their ideas for comparison. As stated, it seems as if you will simply vote for any Republican "because".

I think a lot of people agree with me.

Agree with you about what? That the Democrats have good ideas, but also have some really awful and crushing ones to go with them, and that because of that you should vote for any Republican really, without equally considering what they bring to the table?

To me this seems very, very, very shallow thinking. Remind yourself about the task at hand, since there is a lot at stake this time. You are choosing the president of a country which many other countries have come to depend upon [even though a sizeable portion of that country seems to be ignorant to the fact that other countries exist].

Not a pair of sneakers.

why the hostility? i'm perfectly aware of what's at stake. you like dems, I don't. you don't like republicans...... neither do I really. and yes I do think a lot of people agree with me. I took a president as bad as GWB to get some democrats finally voted into congress . Otherwise it would still be looking like R/R/R...

LOL, I didn't want to sound hostile, and if I did I'm sorry.
Your post did come across as sounding overly naive to me, that's why in me first re: I pointed that out.


That is probably the reason why we shouldn't use internet posts to determine how they sound though (while we do communicate using these, they are not real voice, and their tone cannot be readily determined), but we'll do it anyway anyhow.

lol yes you did. i was intentionally vague because discussing politics on the internet is about as useful as _______________________. and u jumped all over me lol.

[will641]

I guess I don't see why it's so hard to get a job with benefits or buy it privately. I pay less than $100 month and I have more than enough coverage.

I wanna ask if you have seen the movie Sicko, but I am afraid of all the right wingers jumping all over me yelling "THAT'S LEFT WING CONSPIRACY THEORY CRAP" or something along those lines...

i've never seen the movie sicko, and i try my hardest not to be influenced by hollywood, but if u have a legit point i'd love to hear it.

lukie, i can almost guarantee you you won't like it. there is something to be said about hearing both sides to an argument, but michael moore is a congenital liar. he has proven it throughout his career. im not saying its left wing c.t. crap as JL put it, but its propaganda from the biggest propagandist in hollywood.

[kevster]

Back to the OP. Hillary's finally fucking conceded. What was up with that?

[DJJunkPauds]

Yeah, don't watch any Michael Moore films. Moore is to informative and investigative debate what Osama Bin Laden is to big buildings in New York.

[will641]

Back to the OP. Hillary's finally fucking conceded. What was up with that?

obama finally got enough delegates to clinch it?

[kevster]

Back to the OP. Hillary's finally fucking conceded. What was up with that?

obama finally got enough delegates to clinch it?

I struggle with understanding the red tape when it comes to politics. I'm sure governments intentionally make it hard to understand.

[swiggidy]

Lukie, I didn't say everyone in the NRA is a nutjob. It's the majority of people who live more than 5 miles from a major city.

You're most likely to be a nutjob if you...?

A) Look at a map of a vast country, and choose the tiny pinprick with the least space to yourself. The most expensive prices for dwellings. The place with the least fresh food. The highest rate of air pollution. The highest murder rate. The biggest terrorist target. The highest overall crime rate. The highest cost of living. The place where a nights sleep is noisiest. The place with the most traffic congestion. The place where the night-sky is least visible.

B) Don't do A).

You argument doesn't make any sense at all. I get what you're trying to say, but you epically failed at making a valid point.

Hillary and Obama's views are similar, their delivery is completely different. Here's another fun post (a week old now)
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_p...s-parable.aspx

[Warpe]

michael moore is a congenital liar. he has proven it throughout his career.

examples?

[DJJunkPauds]

Lukie, I didn't say everyone in the NRA is a nutjob. It's the majority of people who live more than 5 miles from a major city.

You're most likely to be a nutjob if you...?

A) Look at a map of a vast country, and choose the tiny pinprick with the least space to yourself. The most expensive prices for dwellings. The place with the least fresh food. The highest rate of air pollution. The highest murder rate. The biggest terrorist target. The highest overall crime rate. The highest cost of living. The place where a nights sleep is noisiest. The place with the most traffic congestion. The place where the night-sky is least visible.

B) Don't do A).

You argument doesn't make any sense at all. I get what you're trying to say, but you epically failed at making a valid point.

How can you possibly say that more than 50% of people who don't live within 5 miles of a major city are nutjobs? What exactly makes a city major? Moreover, what constitutes a nutjob? I'm assuming you mean more than 3 million in population, or there abouts. That's an awful lot of people you're slamming, just for where they choose to live. How is location any more relevant to character than say skin-colour, or gender orientation - you might as well say "teh magoritee off fagz iz fucktards!!!!1one" - you wouldn't seem more bigoted, or ignorant than you already do. What you're doing is a belittling a lifestyle simply because you don't understand it.

I live in a pretty tiny city of 150,000 (give or take 50K, I forget), does that mean there's a greater than 50% chance I'm a nutjob?

As for your failing to see a valid point, well that's puzzling. I'm saying that there are many reasons why it's irrational - even nuts - to live in a city. Considering you called the majority of non-city dwellers nutjobs, how can such a point fail to be valid? Wrong perhaps, that's open to debate, but invalid? What makes a point valid in your eyes? Do you have to agree with it for it to be valid?

[DJJunkPauds]

michael moore is a congenital liar. he has proven it throughout his career.

examples?

Here's one: "Hello. I'm a documentary film maker."

[will641]

michael moore is a congenital liar. he has proven it throughout his career.

examples?

http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fift...Election_Night

[swiggidy]

Settle down DJ.

You tried to make an argument for not living in a city by listing everything that's wrong. That's just bad form for a persuasive argument.

Major probably wasn't necessary. I live in the 43rd largest metropolis so it's not "major" by your criterion.

Good to know you can determine I'm bigoted and ignorant by two posts. You're obviously infinitely smarter and more rational than me. I hope you understand that everyone can't be as perfect as you, and I do feel bad about wasting precious oxygen that would better serve someone such as yourself. (if you need further proof just look at my sig. I'm barely capable of consuming beverages without an assistive peripheral.)

[swiggidy]

Wait a second, DJ lives in England?!?!?!?!

Unless you've spent significant time in the U.S. you're a presumptuous fuck. Assuming rural U.S. is anything like rural U.K. is asinine. Is your only city reference London?

[will641]

Good to know you can determine I'm bigoted and ignorant by two posts. You're obviously infinitely smarter and more rational than me. I hope you understand that everyone can't be as perfect as you, and I do feel bad about wasting precious oxygen that would better serve someone such as yourself. (if you need further proof just look at my sig. I'm barely capable of consuming beverages without an assistive peripheral.)

swig, you are trying to make dj into the elitist here and turn yourself into the victim, and its bullshit. you are the one that said the vast majority of america is poor, white trash, religious nut jobs. were you quoting barack there?

[DJJunkPauds]

Right, so there I am thinking we're having a perhaps heated, though certainly civilized debate, and suddenly someone crosses the line and calls me a presumptuous fuck. How big0ted and ignorant of them.

We're talking about the main country here are we? I'm sorry, you never said the American country-side, but I should have obviously assumed we were talking about country #1, America, the unless-otherwise-stated presumptive default in all things, and everything.

Considering this is a thread about the American Presidential race, I of course realized that you probably had rural America in mind, but that doesn't mean I can't challenge your assertion without first hand experience.

I am not aware of any factor present in rural America, absent from rural UK (or rural anywhere for that matter), that would inherently tip the nutjob quotient over 50%. Perhaps you are. Is it something in the air? Was everyone in the cities injected with some sanity drug in secret? No? What is it then? Because if it's nothing, other than the fact you think a lot of your choices, and like belittling anyone who doesn't carry on as you do, then you are, as will641 put it, the elitist, and elitism is bigoted, and ignorant. I don't need experience of the American country-side to tell that you are being bigoted against it, just like I don't need to go to Afghanistan to tell that the Taliban were dick-heads to their people. Prejudice is so glaring that it can be spotted from across the Atlantic.

But I never said you were bigoted and ignorant, I was giving you the heads up that you were coming across that way. Though to be honest, as things turn out, it doesn't seem like I need much more confirmation.

Of course my original post was a little bias, and I was aware of the irony, but that was only because I was still so tickled by your ludicrously broad and sweeping statement. I'm perfectly happy to have a reasoned debate about the comparative qualities of life in conurbations and rural areas, but I don't think that's going to be possible with you, because you tend to loose it and call people presumptuous fucks, so I guess rationalism is out.

[kingnat]

Hello, I willfully admit that I am ignorant of a great many things in the world. I have no clue how the economy, our government or the world actually runs.... also, I don't read or write particularly well either. So I ask for some assistance to help fill in the holes in my head. (note: the above is totally true, and I am not saying it with tongue in cheek, w/ any sense of irony, sarcasm, or anything of the sort... seriously.)

Please define "elitist".

If an individual rates high in one of the following categories how does it affect their status as a potential elitist: 1) someone that "you'd like to have a beer with", 2) unintelligent, 3) a thick accent (other than french - all french people are so obv elitist), 4) supreme, unwavering faith in a Christian god and every word printed in the The King James Bible (which we all know is what god, jesus, etc. REALLY meant to say), 5) a belief that ID is science and should be taught in schools (actual scientists are SO FUCKING elitist... i mean.. wtf... oh.. define some "rules" of "science".. and then just demand that people obey YOUR RULES.... FUCKING ELITISTS.)

[will641]

1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

this is the definition of elitism. so you probably wouldnt want to have a beer with them. they are typically intelligent. not sure how much accent plays into it. eh, i would tend to think that most elitists aren't that religous, or at least their "faith" is not the focal point of their elitism. and lol, i dont think the bible thumpers think scientists are elitist, they just think that they have strayed from the path of our savior the lord jesus christ, or work for the devil maybe, who knows. it took me a little while to get ID was intelligent design.

[kingnat]

Please elaborate on how one determines the extent to which an individual or group of individuals believe they deserve favored treatment?

edit: i deleted the bulk of my post accidently because I'm fucking stupid....

[will641]

its not my definition its the dictionarys. i mean i guess everyone is elitist to some degree, just like everyone is hypocritical. but i think you are looking at it the wrong way. its their mentality, not their social status alone.

[2_Thumbs_Up]

This might be a small bump in the road for mccain:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_571996.html

[IowaSkinsFan]

Anyone making a strong argument in this thread is likely elitist about their own opinions.

I agree with will's last post.

[swiggidy]

Good to know you can determine I'm bigoted and ignorant by two posts. You're obviously infinitely smarter and more rational than me. I hope you understand that everyone can't be as perfect as you, and I do feel bad about wasting precious oxygen that would better serve someone such as yourself. (if you need further proof just look at my sig. I'm barely capable of consuming beverages without an assistive peripheral.)

swig, you are trying to make dj into the elitist here and turn yourself into the victim, and its bullshit. you are the one that said the vast majority of america is poor, white trash, religious nut jobs. were you quoting barack there?

Cute. If anything I was quoting Chris Rock.

Nutjob was a modifier for religious, implying they let their views of morality, based on the bible, have an extremely heavy sway on their political views, to the point that one could consider it illogical.

2 points:
1) http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...pfreeslave.htm

2) Any post Spoon has made about his hometown

[Hawk]

Looks like I'm another victim of "I'm staying out of that shit...until I see something I have to reply to..."

I guess I don't see why it's so hard to get a job with benefits or buy it privately. I pay less than $100 month and I have more than enough coverage.

What?!? I'm glad that it's easy to get coverage for some people, but not for me. And my job even OFFERS health insurance. Unfortunately, it's actually more expensive than buying my own coverage (despite the fact that our parent company's primary business is SELLING INSURANCE AND BENEFITS PACKAGES!! I guess I'm just another customer).

Yes, my job sucks (and thats not the only reason), but it's not realistic to think that it's easy to get a job that offers benefits. If it was easy, there wouldn't be much of an argument for universal health care.

I got curious and googled "americans without health coverage" to see what kind of numbers came up. Now I'll admit that the source for these numbers appears that they are likely biased, but they certainly seem realistic to me (I didn't look for someone that would support my view, just the first search result that came up):

-> Nearly 47 million Americans, or 16 percent of the population, were without health insurance in 2005, the latest government data available.

-> Over 8 in 10 uninsured people come from working families - almost 70 percent from families with one or more full-time workers and 11 percent from families with part-time workers.

-> The percentage of people (workers and dependents) with employment-based health insurance has dropped from 70 percent in 1987 to 59 percent in 2006. This is the lowest level of employment-based insurance coverage in more than a decade

-> In 2006, 37.7 million workers were uninsured because not all businesses offer health benefits, not all workers qualify for coverage and many employees cannot afford their share of the health insurance premium even when coverage is at their fingertips.

-> Nearly 40 percent of the uninsured population reside in households that earn $50,000 or more. A growing number of middle-income families cannot afford health insurance payments even when coverage is offered by their employers.
-http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

Now I have as little faith as anyone in terms of believing our gov't can do anything right, but surely SOME coverage has to be better than NO coverage.

That said, I'm continually searching for that easy-to-find better job that offers me real benefits.

[thizzSantaCruz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69Z5AKVwCNk

[will641]

Nutjob was a modifier for religious, implying they let their views of morality, based on the bible, have an extremely heavy sway on their political views, to the point that one could consider it illogical.

like what?

[Phantaroth]

I am not as concerned with creating an efficient health care system as I am with having a President who understands why it'd be a good idea.

I like Obama's plan because he mandates that children have health care and does not mandate so for adults. I don't really see this as a leftist concept. Even in libertarian theory, children should have a right to health care, and I appreciate Obama's understanding of the issue.

[Jack Sawyer]

Ok, time to bring out the dogs of war.

I knew all of this situation was coming, and coming soon, mainly because I spent a long time (a long time ago) researching the economy and why it was a bad idea for our currency to remain pegged to the $.

Just read and decide for yourself its relevancy.


Most of my information came from this article, but I crosstested it with many others, and all of it checks out:

(date - July 06)


Edit: let me format it first so anybody can read easily.
Edit 2: here you go

The coming financial collapse of the U.S. government: Fed papers reveal what's in store
for Americans

by Mike Adams



The bankruptcy of the United States government has been talked about for years by independent observers. If you've read the book, "Empire of Debt," then you know where the U.S. is headed financially. But most people have no idea about the ultimate financial consequences of decades of borrowing and spending by Washington, and they remain irrationally convinced that the status quo will remain intact for eternity. No one in any position of authority, you see, has yet admitted that the U.S. government is indeed going bankrupt.
Until now, that is.
In a remarkable paper posted by the Federal Reserve of St. Louis, and authored by a Boston University teacher named Prof Kotlikoff, it is revealed in blunt, powerful language that the era of borrowing and spending without consequence may soon come to a close. The paper, entitled, Is the United States Bankrupt?, may not remain posted for very long once the public gets word of what it actually says.
And what, exactly, does it say? For starters, Kotlikoff explains, "Unless the United States moves quickly to fundamentally change and restrain its fiscal behavior, its bankruptcy will become a foregone conclusion."


The country is bankrupt
He goes on to explain, "[that] the United States is going broke, [and] ...that radical reform of U.S. fiscal institutions is essential to secure the nation’s economic future."
Failure to engage in these massive reforms will inevitably result in the financial demise of the United States, Kotlikoff says: "[W]e have a country at the end of its resources. It’s exhausted, stripped bear, destitute, bereft, wanting in property, and wrecked (at least in terms of its consumption and borrowing capacity) in consequence of failure to pay its creditors. In short, the country is bankrupt and is forced to reorganize its operations by paying its creditors (the oldsters) less than they were promised."
We might possibly be saved, he explains, if the nation engages in massive, radical reform in three areas:

1) Eliminating the current income tax system and moving to a national retail sales tax of 33 percent.
2) Privatizing social security so that workers own their savings accounts and the federal government can no longer swipe funds from Social Security.
3) Launching a national health insurance program that covers everyone and relies on a system of government-issued vouchers that citizens can spend with health insurance companies.

These radical reforms are necessary because the future gap between what the government owes and what it stands to receive in revenues is already monstrously large, and it's growing by the minute. This gap, called the Gokhale and Smetters measure, currently stands at an astonishing $65.9 trillion. (Yes, with a "T".) As Kotlikoff explains, "This figure is more than five times U.S. GDP and almost twice the size of national wealth. One way to wrap one’s head around $65.9 trillion is to ask what fiscal adjustments are needed to eliminate this red hole. The answers are terrifying. One solution is an immediate and permanent doubling of personal and corporate income taxes. Another is an immediate and permanent two-thirds cut in Social Security and Medicare benefits. A third alternative, were it feasible, would be to immediately and permanently cut all federal discretionary spending by 143 percent."
If you read that last paragraph with any presence of mind, you now begin to understand the magnitude of the fiscal problem facing the United States. It could be solved, as explained above, by doubling all personal and corporate income taxes. But then what's the point in working? It could also be solved by slashing promised benefits in Social Security and Medicare. But what about the inevitable street riots?
None of these solutions are likely to occur. And that leaves the Ace up the sleeve. It's the Ace that all government eventually play on their way to bankruptcy and collapse, and it's the Ace that the United States will ultimately be forced to play, too: hyperinflation. The U.S. will have to print more money to escape the financial consequences of its unbridled spending.


Hyperinflation is inevitable
As Kotlikoff explains:
"Given the reluctance of our politicians to raise taxes, cut benefits, or even limit the growth in benefits, the most likely scenario is that the government will start printing money to pay its bills. This could arise in the context of the Federal Reserve “being forced” to buy Treasury bills and bonds to reduce interest rates. Specifically, once the financial markets begin to understand the depth and extent of the country’s financial insolvency, they will start worrying about inflation and about being paid back in watered-down dollars. This concern will lead them to start dumping their holdings of U.S. Treasuries. In so doing, they’ll drive up interest rates, which will lead the Fed to print money to buy up those bonds. The consequence will be more money creation—exactly what the bond traders will have come to fear. This could lead to spiraling expectations of higher inflation, with the process eventuating in hyperinflation."
It's not like it hasn't happened before. Hyperinflation is actually the norm, not the exception, and it's the escape route taken by virtually every country suffering under the burden of payment promises is cannot possibly keep. Whether we're talking about Germany after World War I, or the United States over the next few years, hyperinflation is the only option remaining for politicians who refuse to practice fiscal sanity. No politician ever got elected by promising voters their entitlements would be halted, did they? Political popularity is derived from promising voters precisely what the nation cannot afford: Endless entitlements and runaway spending without apparent consequence.


The China factor
The only thing keeping the U.S. afloat right now is the temporary willingness of Asian countries to keep buying U.S. debt, thereby pumping up the U.S. economy with dollars earned on the backs of Chinese laborers. But even the Chinese -- known for their tolerance of hard times and manual labor -- may eventually tire of lending money to a posh, arrogant Western nation that has all but abandoned the concept of saving money. Says Kotlikoff, "China is saving so much that it’s running a current account surplus. Not only is China supplying capital to the rest of the world, it’s increasingly doing so via direct investment. The question for the United States is whether China will tire of investing only indirectly in our country and begin to sell its dollar-denominated reserves. Doing so could have spectacularly bad implications for the value of the dollar and the level of U.S. interest rates."
By "spectacularly bad implications," Kotlikoff means the value of the U.S. dollar would plummet, the level of U.S. interest rates would skyrocket, and hyperinflation would be well underway. U.S. citizens would find not only their dollars to be near-worthless on the global market, but their savings to be all but wiped out as well. Sure, you'll still have the same number of dollars in your bank account, but they won't be worth anything.
This is what eventually happens, by the way, when a government eliminates the gold standard and separates its currency from precious metals. The U.S. dollar, a green piece of paper, technically stands for nothing other than the U.S. government's promise to pay. But when push comes to shove, the government will have no choice but to hyperinflate its way out of financial obligations, thereby rendering all currently-held U.S. dollars to be virtually worthless. Those investors or citizens who hold savings in U.S. dollars will be wiped out by a government that will essentially steal their wealth without having to snatch a single physical dollar from their hands.


Future obligations cannot be met
And yet, despite the seriousness of the U.S. fiscal situation, Americans and their elected representative live their merry lives oblivious to financial reality. National newspaper headlines even add to the denial, running headlines that claim the nation's economy is strong because the 2006 budget deficit will be "only" $296 billion. That this is considered a success by the Bush Administration is testament to the psychotic fiscal self-deception that now serves as the norm in the United States. It's like a family that owes $1 million on a $200,000 home announcing "success" because it has just reduced its monthly credit card borrowing from $15,000 to $12,000. And that's if you actually believe the numbers, because if there's one area where Washington has proven its skill, it's the expert deployment of smoke and mirrors on all things involving numbers.
Cutting the annual budget deficit won't save us anyway. It only means that we're barreling head-first into a brick wall at a slightly slower pace than before. The entitlements will still come due: "There are 77 million baby boomers now ranging from age 41 to age 59. All are hoping to collect tens of thousands of dollars in pension and healthcare benefits from the next generation. These claimants aren’t going away. In three years, the oldest boomers will be eligible for early Social Security benefits. In six years, the boomer vanguard will start collecting Medicare. Our nation has done nothing to prepare for this onslaught of obligation. Instead, it has continued to focus on a completely meaningless fiscal metric—“the” federal deficit—censored and studiously ignored long-term fiscal analyses that are scientifically coherent, and dramatically expanded the benefit levels being explicitly or implicitly promised to the baby boomers." The result of this is not in question: The United States government is already running on fumes, and in a few more years, it will suffer financial collapse.
"Countries can and do go bankrupt," says Kotlikoff, and the U.S. is no exception to the laws of economic reality.
Oblivious to what's coming The American people, as usual, remain oblivious to the financial future that awaits them. Even as the housing bubble is now beginning to burst in the nation's most overpriced real estate markets, most people don't have a clue what "hard times" really means. To today's debt-ridden yuppie spenders, "hard times" means shuffling six different credit card accounts to cover the payments on an overpriced house, two new SUVs in the driveway and a vacation to Paris, none of which the yuppie couple can afford.
The idea of ever having to pay back their debt and live within their means is as foreign to most Americans as it is their own government. Financial consequences have been put off so habitually, for so long, that people forget they even exist. And thus the reality awakening becomes ever more rude when it finally appears. To say that most Americans will be in a state of shock when their life savings are suddenly wiped out is an understatement: These people will have never even imagined such an event is possible, much less contemplated how it might affect them.


Rome is burning
It's too late to save the United States from its financial meltdown, I believe. For starters, there is a complete lack of willingness to make tough financial decisions and begin paying off the national debt. Such an idea is so foreign to the U.S. that no presidential candidate in the last two decades has even seriously proposed such a plan, save perhaps Ross Perot, a man with such well-grounded ideas of cutting government spending that he was
immediately branded a crackpot by the status quo.
Even worse, there's not even recognition among the masses that a financial problem exists. As long as the President continues to proclaim the economy is in good shape, and the press remains complicit with its printing of economic half-truths, few will recognize any problem at all. Besides, any such recognition of the financial problems now facing this nation requires the observers to actually be able to do basic math. Our public education system, which is now largely considered institutionalized day care for nutritionally-deficient children, has seen to it that mathematics instruction never gets in the way of diagnosing children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and drugging them up on amphetamines so powerful that they actually have a street value as
recreational drugs.
Thus, few young Americans can even do math. And none of them lived through the Great Depression, nor did they understand the study of it in school, meaning they are precisely the kind of naive, overconfident yuppie spenders who are ripe for being financially obliterated by an economic meltdown. When their ignorance turns to fear, the ever-widening spiral of financial panic becomes unstoppable until the whole system hits rock bottom. And "rock bottom" is far, far below the relatively luxurious lifestyle to which American consumers have become so smugly accustomed.


Protecting yourself from the inevitable
The timetable for this economic collapse is unknown, but it's very unlikely to happen in the next year or two. A collapse by 2012 is certainly possible, and seeing it by 2020 is almost certain. That leaves the more intelligent among us plenty of time to prepare. But the usual preparatory actions by Americans won't suffice in such a large-scale collapse. FDIC-insured banks, for example, will almost certainly collapse and take the DFIC down with them. Even if you are repaid by the FDIC, you'll only be paid in worthless U.S. dollars anyway.
Beating the odds on this financial hurricane requires exceptional planning and preparedness.

[Jack Sawyer]

The last part should read: ...very likely to happen in a year or two, three at most... then this dude woulda been Nostradamus

of course, throw "Iraq" & "millions of dollars daily" into the equation and see how the answer changes

[2_Thumbs_Up]

That article seem pretty accurate to me. The obvious question is, how do you make money from this? Buy gold.

[Warpe]

[SaulPaul]

$70 trillion? i looked at a couple of places and it only seems to be $9 trillion

also republicans sure love saddling you guys with debt : http://zfacts.com/p/480.html

[Jack Sawyer]

whatever happened to Ron Paul?

[will641]

whatever happened to Ron Paul?

hes going back to congress, obv.

[Jack Sawyer]

whatever happened to Ron Paul?

hes going back to congress, obv.

He was the best candidate, imo

[2_Thumbs_Up]

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

[wufwugy]

looooooooooooooollll

[pankfish]

I guess I don't see why it's so hard to get a job with benefits or buy it privately. I pay less than $100 month and I have more than enough coverage.

This is pretty narrow sighted. You are a single man in his twenties. If you were middle aged and married with 3 kids you would be paying at least $300 a week.

[BankItDrew]

The Onion: Pretend You Give A Shit About The Election
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DXY_8cJlGMc

[swiggidy]

FWIW, I don't hate Hilary anymore.

[will641]

FWIW, I don't hate Hilary anymore.

LOL.

yes she has gone through a magnificent transformation hasn't she.

[2_Thumbs_Up]

Hillary reminds me of the vice president in prison break.

[swiggidy]

FWIW, I don't hate Hilary anymore.

LOL.

yes she has gone through a magnificent transformation hasn't she.

She stopped being a selfish cunt, so I would say she has.

If you want to argue that she's only supporting obama for selfish interests, and not for a love of her party (or hatred of republicans) I would be willing to shift back towards 50% dislike 50% tolerate.

[will641]

FWIW, I don't hate Hilary anymore.

LOL.

yes she has gone through a magnificent transformation hasn't she.

She stopped being a selfish cunt, so I would say she has.

If you want to argue that she's only supporting obama for selfish interests, and not for a love of her party (or hatred of republicans) I would be willing to shift back towards 50% dislike 50% tolerate.

come on man, that was so fucking staged, so fake, so disingenuous. it wasnt just for her selfish interest, it was for baracks interests too.

[swiggidy]

You're saying she intentionally stalled to draw more attention to the Democratic party?

Interesting.

[will641]

what? im not really sure what youre insinuating. im saying that everything hillary does is carefully calculated, and i dont believe anything she says or does is genuine. if you dont believe me look at her marriage. wouldnt a "strong" woman have left her cheating husband 20+ years ago?

[swiggidy]

what? im not really sure what youre insinuating. im saying that everything hillary does is carefully calculated, and i dont believe anything she says or does is genuine. if you dont believe me look at her marriage. wouldnt a "strong" woman have left her cheating husband 20+ years ago?

Saying she did it for Obama confused me (still does).

Ultimately I don't really care a whole lot.

[will641]

what? im not really sure what youre insinuating. im saying that everything hillary does is carefully calculated, and i dont believe anything she says or does is genuine. if you dont believe me look at her marriage. wouldnt a "strong" woman have left her cheating husband 20+ years ago?

Saying she did it for Obama confused me (still does).

Ultimately I don't really care a whole lot.

oh. no i dont think she did it for obama. i was saying they both did it for their own reasons. hillary needs to repair her relationship with the black community, obama needs to repair his relationship with white blue collar workers.

[will641]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle4392846.ece

edit: its actually much better when its read and with pictoors. IZ LIKE STORY TIME!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0drwfnGlF_E