Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
DWCAP
ParticipantI dont buy it. Dollar will be around for a long long time. And it will be a major player for a long time too.
Every country out there wants to export their way back to health. China, the big international heaththrob, has built its economy to export. They link their currency to the Dollar so even though we are falling, they are falling too. Unpeg that and China would get creamed. Wal-Mart/Target prices would shoot up, US consumption of nearly everything would fall (less money to spend after buying necessities will affect everything we buy), and their exports would plummet. They have a very large population to support, and that population needs jobs.
Europe and Japan are no different. Even Toyota is loosing money and crying uncle from the yen exchange rate. Arn’t they suppose to the role model for our crappy us automakers? A plunging dollar would just make that worse, and drag all of Japan down with it.
Plus remember that huge percentages of our ‘Asian’ imports are finished goods. They imported Austrailian iron ore and Middle east oil and south asian plastic pieces and …. to make all those things they send to us. They stop sending to us, they stop buying from them, and that ends the ‘non-US consumer’ thoeory of how we will get out of this.I agree that internationally leaders are unhappy with the dollar. They need a ‘strong dollar’ to support their politically popular and economically powerful export engines. However, they also dont have a choice in the matter. Europe is PISSED at their exchange rate, and if it gets too much worse will intervine to lower it. China’s currency doesnt float, nuf said till it does. Japan is going into a population, currency, and dept crisis all at the same time. They are more Fraked than we are. Who else is there?
People are stuck with the dollar, and that is just the way it will be for a lot longer than 2010. Just like China is buying treasuries (a loosing proposition right now IMO) they are stuck with the dollar because their PTB are getting rich off the trade system we have. They wont change and risk their fortunes and political systems for their own countries long term good. And the system and power base we have now is priced in ‘strong dollars’.
ParticipantThe fight in congress now isnt about if extending health care coverage to everyone is a popular idea. It isnt about if extending health care to everyone is going to increase overall health. It isnt if doctors support increased health care spending.
The fight is about COST. COST of extending health care. I believe that the reason the Democrats are so intent on getting bi-partisan support for this bill is becuase they know their ‘savings’ are crap and will not be realized. As such, it will cost hundreds of billions to TRILLIONs of dollars over the next decade to do what they are proposing.
When added ontop of the trillions in deficit spending we are spending each year, it is a mind numbing reality. If they can claim bi-partisan support, even alittle, they stand a chance when the blowback comes politically. If not then it will be 1994 all over again.
ParticipantThe fight in congress now isnt about if extending health care coverage to everyone is a popular idea. It isnt about if extending health care to everyone is going to increase overall health. It isnt if doctors support increased health care spending.
The fight is about COST. COST of extending health care. I believe that the reason the Democrats are so intent on getting bi-partisan support for this bill is becuase they know their ‘savings’ are crap and will not be realized. As such, it will cost hundreds of billions to TRILLIONs of dollars over the next decade to do what they are proposing.
When added ontop of the trillions in deficit spending we are spending each year, it is a mind numbing reality. If they can claim bi-partisan support, even alittle, they stand a chance when the blowback comes politically. If not then it will be 1994 all over again.
ParticipantThe fight in congress now isnt about if extending health care coverage to everyone is a popular idea. It isnt about if extending health care to everyone is going to increase overall health. It isnt if doctors support increased health care spending.
The fight is about COST. COST of extending health care. I believe that the reason the Democrats are so intent on getting bi-partisan support for this bill is becuase they know their ‘savings’ are crap and will not be realized. As such, it will cost hundreds of billions to TRILLIONs of dollars over the next decade to do what they are proposing.
When added ontop of the trillions in deficit spending we are spending each year, it is a mind numbing reality. If they can claim bi-partisan support, even alittle, they stand a chance when the blowback comes politically. If not then it will be 1994 all over again.
ParticipantThe fight in congress now isnt about if extending health care coverage to everyone is a popular idea. It isnt about if extending health care to everyone is going to increase overall health. It isnt if doctors support increased health care spending.
The fight is about COST. COST of extending health care. I believe that the reason the Democrats are so intent on getting bi-partisan support for this bill is becuase they know their ‘savings’ are crap and will not be realized. As such, it will cost hundreds of billions to TRILLIONs of dollars over the next decade to do what they are proposing.
When added ontop of the trillions in deficit spending we are spending each year, it is a mind numbing reality. If they can claim bi-partisan support, even alittle, they stand a chance when the blowback comes politically. If not then it will be 1994 all over again.
ParticipantThe fight in congress now isnt about if extending health care coverage to everyone is a popular idea. It isnt about if extending health care to everyone is going to increase overall health. It isnt if doctors support increased health care spending.
The fight is about COST. COST of extending health care. I believe that the reason the Democrats are so intent on getting bi-partisan support for this bill is becuase they know their ‘savings’ are crap and will not be realized. As such, it will cost hundreds of billions to TRILLIONs of dollars over the next decade to do what they are proposing.
When added ontop of the trillions in deficit spending we are spending each year, it is a mind numbing reality. If they can claim bi-partisan support, even alittle, they stand a chance when the blowback comes politically. If not then it will be 1994 all over again.
ParticipantSomething is missing from that story. I dont know what it is, but that cant be the whole story. My guess is that there is alot of other debt in there that isnt disclosed. They only disclose the assets side of the balance sheet, what about the debts side? (morgages on those rentals, cc, auto loans…) If they owe alot of money already, it is a risky loan even if they have a house that isnt underwater.
Plus, they can almost pay off the stupid thing with savings. Why do two people in their 60’s want to extend their payments into their 90’s? To save a few bucks on the interest rate reduction? They’ll pay alot more long term than any interest rate reduction will give them. (I am assuming that this ‘savy’ person got a rate back in 2003, or so an isnt carrying something from the 80’s or worse)
ParticipantSomething is missing from that story. I dont know what it is, but that cant be the whole story. My guess is that there is alot of other debt in there that isnt disclosed. They only disclose the assets side of the balance sheet, what about the debts side? (morgages on those rentals, cc, auto loans…) If they owe alot of money already, it is a risky loan even if they have a house that isnt underwater.
Plus, they can almost pay off the stupid thing with savings. Why do two people in their 60’s want to extend their payments into their 90’s? To save a few bucks on the interest rate reduction? They’ll pay alot more long term than any interest rate reduction will give them. (I am assuming that this ‘savy’ person got a rate back in 2003, or so an isnt carrying something from the 80’s or worse)
ParticipantSomething is missing from that story. I dont know what it is, but that cant be the whole story. My guess is that there is alot of other debt in there that isnt disclosed. They only disclose the assets side of the balance sheet, what about the debts side? (morgages on those rentals, cc, auto loans…) If they owe alot of money already, it is a risky loan even if they have a house that isnt underwater.
Plus, they can almost pay off the stupid thing with savings. Why do two people in their 60’s want to extend their payments into their 90’s? To save a few bucks on the interest rate reduction? They’ll pay alot more long term than any interest rate reduction will give them. (I am assuming that this ‘savy’ person got a rate back in 2003, or so an isnt carrying something from the 80’s or worse)
ParticipantSomething is missing from that story. I dont know what it is, but that cant be the whole story. My guess is that there is alot of other debt in there that isnt disclosed. They only disclose the assets side of the balance sheet, what about the debts side? (morgages on those rentals, cc, auto loans…) If they owe alot of money already, it is a risky loan even if they have a house that isnt underwater.
Plus, they can almost pay off the stupid thing with savings. Why do two people in their 60’s want to extend their payments into their 90’s? To save a few bucks on the interest rate reduction? They’ll pay alot more long term than any interest rate reduction will give them. (I am assuming that this ‘savy’ person got a rate back in 2003, or so an isnt carrying something from the 80’s or worse)
ParticipantSomething is missing from that story. I dont know what it is, but that cant be the whole story. My guess is that there is alot of other debt in there that isnt disclosed. They only disclose the assets side of the balance sheet, what about the debts side? (morgages on those rentals, cc, auto loans…) If they owe alot of money already, it is a risky loan even if they have a house that isnt underwater.
Plus, they can almost pay off the stupid thing with savings. Why do two people in their 60’s want to extend their payments into their 90’s? To save a few bucks on the interest rate reduction? They’ll pay alot more long term than any interest rate reduction will give them. (I am assuming that this ‘savy’ person got a rate back in 2003, or so an isnt carrying something from the 80’s or worse)
ParticipantYou could make an argument that vaccines are a problem when given too often, not allowing the body to respond with full force when necessary. I havnt seen much evidence of this one way or the other, but I dont work with them so my knowledge is mostly school based (which all seems to be slipping out the back of my head somehow).
You could also argue that they are teaching proper responses to foreign pathogens. Not every pathogen needs an A bomb response. Infact, as I am sure you know, many of our ‘diseases’ today are actually overzealous immune responses or immune systems not recognizing ‘self’. Alittle moderation on the immune systems part may be a prefered route.
With a population as large and varied as our human population today, I am sure you could come up with evidence for both.
ParticipantYou could make an argument that vaccines are a problem when given too often, not allowing the body to respond with full force when necessary. I havnt seen much evidence of this one way or the other, but I dont work with them so my knowledge is mostly school based (which all seems to be slipping out the back of my head somehow).
You could also argue that they are teaching proper responses to foreign pathogens. Not every pathogen needs an A bomb response. Infact, as I am sure you know, many of our ‘diseases’ today are actually overzealous immune responses or immune systems not recognizing ‘self’. Alittle moderation on the immune systems part may be a prefered route.
With a population as large and varied as our human population today, I am sure you could come up with evidence for both.
ParticipantYou could make an argument that vaccines are a problem when given too often, not allowing the body to respond with full force when necessary. I havnt seen much evidence of this one way or the other, but I dont work with them so my knowledge is mostly school based (which all seems to be slipping out the back of my head somehow).
You could also argue that they are teaching proper responses to foreign pathogens. Not every pathogen needs an A bomb response. Infact, as I am sure you know, many of our ‘diseases’ today are actually overzealous immune responses or immune systems not recognizing ‘self’. Alittle moderation on the immune systems part may be a prefered route.
With a population as large and varied as our human population today, I am sure you could come up with evidence for both.
-
AuthorPosts
