[mlarsen23]

You need to become familiar with the fact that while many polls showed a slight majority of people opposing the health care bill, about 20% of those people opposed the bill from the LEFT – believing that it did not do _enough_ to socialize health care.

In other words, the majority of Americans with an opinion support the health care reform in this bill _or a more radical version of health care reform_.

National health care is extremely popular in every country that has it, and has never been repealed in any country. In no other country has the major conservative party even ever _tried_ to move from a national health care system to a private system – because they all support national health care! In time, this bill will be improved and we will someday join the rest of the developed world in enjoying high quality health care that is 1/2 to 3/4 as expensive (as a % of GDP) compared to now.

[mlarsen23]

You need to become familiar with the fact that while many polls showed a slight majority of people opposing the health care bill, about 20% of those people opposed the bill from the LEFT – believing that it did not do _enough_ to socialize health care.

In other words, the majority of Americans with an opinion support the health care reform in this bill _or a more radical version of health care reform_.

National health care is extremely popular in every country that has it, and has never been repealed in any country. In no other country has the major conservative party even ever _tried_ to move from a national health care system to a private system – because they all support national health care! In time, this bill will be improved and we will someday join the rest of the developed world in enjoying high quality health care that is 1/2 to 3/4 as expensive (as a % of GDP) compared to now.

[mlarsen23]

You need to become familiar with the fact that while many polls showed a slight majority of people opposing the health care bill, about 20% of those people opposed the bill from the LEFT – believing that it did not do _enough_ to socialize health care.

In other words, the majority of Americans with an opinion support the health care reform in this bill _or a more radical version of health care reform_.

National health care is extremely popular in every country that has it, and has never been repealed in any country. In no other country has the major conservative party even ever _tried_ to move from a national health care system to a private system – because they all support national health care! In time, this bill will be improved and we will someday join the rest of the developed world in enjoying high quality health care that is 1/2 to 3/4 as expensive (as a % of GDP) compared to now.

[mlarsen23]

You need to become familiar with the fact that while many polls showed a slight majority of people opposing the health care bill, about 20% of those people opposed the bill from the LEFT – believing that it did not do _enough_ to socialize health care.

In other words, the majority of Americans with an opinion support the health care reform in this bill _or a more radical version of health care reform_.

National health care is extremely popular in every country that has it, and has never been repealed in any country. In no other country has the major conservative party even ever _tried_ to move from a national health care system to a private system – because they all support national health care! In time, this bill will be improved and we will someday join the rest of the developed world in enjoying high quality health care that is 1/2 to 3/4 as expensive (as a % of GDP) compared to now.

[mlarsen23]

You need to become familiar with the fact that while many polls showed a slight majority of people opposing the health care bill, about 20% of those people opposed the bill from the LEFT – believing that it did not do _enough_ to socialize health care.

In other words, the majority of Americans with an opinion support the health care reform in this bill _or a more radical version of health care reform_.

National health care is extremely popular in every country that has it, and has never been repealed in any country. In no other country has the major conservative party even ever _tried_ to move from a national health care system to a private system – because they all support national health care! In time, this bill will be improved and we will someday join the rest of the developed world in enjoying high quality health care that is 1/2 to 3/4 as expensive (as a % of GDP) compared to now.

[mlarsen23]

Contrary to what Arraya and many in the uninformed news media want the American public to believe, there is no risk of a bailout for Social Security any time soon. It is true that it is now paying out more money in benefits than it takes in from taxes, but this means zero, nada, nothing in terms of the finances of the program.

Under the law that governs Social Security’s operations, it can pay full benefits as long as it maintains a minimum balance in its trust fund. At present, it has more than $2 trillion in the trust fund, far more than the minimum balance. In fact, because SS collects interest on the bonds in the trust fund it actually is projected to continue to run surpluses even through the current economic crisis.

The fund is projected face a shortfall after 2037. While there will probably have to be some adjustments made to the program at some point, this has been true in prior decades as well. It is striking how much attention the media devote to comparatively minor problem. The country is suffering the worst downturn in 70 years because the geniuses who run the Fed and Treasury could not see an $8 trillion housing bubble and let the Wall Street crew run wild with fraudulent loans and complex derivative instruments. It is those same Wall Street geniuses who would stand to benefit from the privatization of Social Security, and they are generally the folks behind the frequent meme that there is a big problem with Social Security.

An interesting thing for the media to focus on might be why the our neighbor to the north has done so comparatively well during the economic crisis despite its highly regulated financial sector and much stronger social safety net.

[mlarsen23]

Contrary to what Arraya and many in the uninformed news media want the American public to believe, there is no risk of a bailout for Social Security any time soon. It is true that it is now paying out more money in benefits than it takes in from taxes, but this means zero, nada, nothing in terms of the finances of the program.

Under the law that governs Social Security’s operations, it can pay full benefits as long as it maintains a minimum balance in its trust fund. At present, it has more than $2 trillion in the trust fund, far more than the minimum balance. In fact, because SS collects interest on the bonds in the trust fund it actually is projected to continue to run surpluses even through the current economic crisis.

The fund is projected face a shortfall after 2037. While there will probably have to be some adjustments made to the program at some point, this has been true in prior decades as well. It is striking how much attention the media devote to comparatively minor problem. The country is suffering the worst downturn in 70 years because the geniuses who run the Fed and Treasury could not see an $8 trillion housing bubble and let the Wall Street crew run wild with fraudulent loans and complex derivative instruments. It is those same Wall Street geniuses who would stand to benefit from the privatization of Social Security, and they are generally the folks behind the frequent meme that there is a big problem with Social Security.

An interesting thing for the media to focus on might be why the our neighbor to the north has done so comparatively well during the economic crisis despite its highly regulated financial sector and much stronger social safety net.

[mlarsen23]

Contrary to what Arraya and many in the uninformed news media want the American public to believe, there is no risk of a bailout for Social Security any time soon. It is true that it is now paying out more money in benefits than it takes in from taxes, but this means zero, nada, nothing in terms of the finances of the program.

Under the law that governs Social Security’s operations, it can pay full benefits as long as it maintains a minimum balance in its trust fund. At present, it has more than $2 trillion in the trust fund, far more than the minimum balance. In fact, because SS collects interest on the bonds in the trust fund it actually is projected to continue to run surpluses even through the current economic crisis.

The fund is projected face a shortfall after 2037. While there will probably have to be some adjustments made to the program at some point, this has been true in prior decades as well. It is striking how much attention the media devote to comparatively minor problem. The country is suffering the worst downturn in 70 years because the geniuses who run the Fed and Treasury could not see an $8 trillion housing bubble and let the Wall Street crew run wild with fraudulent loans and complex derivative instruments. It is those same Wall Street geniuses who would stand to benefit from the privatization of Social Security, and they are generally the folks behind the frequent meme that there is a big problem with Social Security.

An interesting thing for the media to focus on might be why the our neighbor to the north has done so comparatively well during the economic crisis despite its highly regulated financial sector and much stronger social safety net.

[mlarsen23]

Contrary to what Arraya and many in the uninformed news media want the American public to believe, there is no risk of a bailout for Social Security any time soon. It is true that it is now paying out more money in benefits than it takes in from taxes, but this means zero, nada, nothing in terms of the finances of the program.

Under the law that governs Social Security’s operations, it can pay full benefits as long as it maintains a minimum balance in its trust fund. At present, it has more than $2 trillion in the trust fund, far more than the minimum balance. In fact, because SS collects interest on the bonds in the trust fund it actually is projected to continue to run surpluses even through the current economic crisis.

The fund is projected face a shortfall after 2037. While there will probably have to be some adjustments made to the program at some point, this has been true in prior decades as well. It is striking how much attention the media devote to comparatively minor problem. The country is suffering the worst downturn in 70 years because the geniuses who run the Fed and Treasury could not see an $8 trillion housing bubble and let the Wall Street crew run wild with fraudulent loans and complex derivative instruments. It is those same Wall Street geniuses who would stand to benefit from the privatization of Social Security, and they are generally the folks behind the frequent meme that there is a big problem with Social Security.

An interesting thing for the media to focus on might be why the our neighbor to the north has done so comparatively well during the economic crisis despite its highly regulated financial sector and much stronger social safety net.

[mlarsen23]

Contrary to what Arraya and many in the uninformed news media want the American public to believe, there is no risk of a bailout for Social Security any time soon. It is true that it is now paying out more money in benefits than it takes in from taxes, but this means zero, nada, nothing in terms of the finances of the program.

Under the law that governs Social Security’s operations, it can pay full benefits as long as it maintains a minimum balance in its trust fund. At present, it has more than $2 trillion in the trust fund, far more than the minimum balance. In fact, because SS collects interest on the bonds in the trust fund it actually is projected to continue to run surpluses even through the current economic crisis.

The fund is projected face a shortfall after 2037. While there will probably have to be some adjustments made to the program at some point, this has been true in prior decades as well. It is striking how much attention the media devote to comparatively minor problem. The country is suffering the worst downturn in 70 years because the geniuses who run the Fed and Treasury could not see an $8 trillion housing bubble and let the Wall Street crew run wild with fraudulent loans and complex derivative instruments. It is those same Wall Street geniuses who would stand to benefit from the privatization of Social Security, and they are generally the folks behind the frequent meme that there is a big problem with Social Security.

An interesting thing for the media to focus on might be why the our neighbor to the north has done so comparatively well during the economic crisis despite its highly regulated financial sector and much stronger social safety net.

[mlarsen23]

I think you’ve got a skewed notion of who or what is a “welfare type.” Right now by my sights welfare types include most everyone who works for an investment bank, GM, Chrysler, on a farm, or any of numerous other places where government subsidies are required to keep folks employed. And sure, everyone who is on unemployment.

I think the question of whether home ownership is a societal good in and of itself is still open. Rates of home ownership are generally lower in modern day Europe, and most European countries have less income inequality, a larger middle class, and greater social mobility than the United States. I don’t think there are any serfs in modern day Europe either. At the end of the day houses are not an inherently great investment, although it can make a lot of sense for some folks some times.

I don’t want to see folks out on the street, so I am happy to spend my tax dollars to help them stay off the street. I am not happy to see my tax dollars going to help folks hold on to an asset that could some day appreciate. So I’m fine with a program that lets people who purchased their home below a certain price – say $400,000 or so – and can’t make their mortgage payments now – be allowed to convert to a market rate rental in their same home. And I’d even be OK with a rental subsidy type arrangement, kind of like the Section 8 that we already do in these circumstances. Like I said, I want to take care of folks.

But let’s be clear – these people are on welfare. Personally, I’d rather live in a society where we do more to take care of people.

[mlarsen23]

I think you’ve got a skewed notion of who or what is a “welfare type.” Right now by my sights welfare types include most everyone who works for an investment bank, GM, Chrysler, on a farm, or any of numerous other places where government subsidies are required to keep folks employed. And sure, everyone who is on unemployment.

I think the question of whether home ownership is a societal good in and of itself is still open. Rates of home ownership are generally lower in modern day Europe, and most European countries have less income inequality, a larger middle class, and greater social mobility than the United States. I don’t think there are any serfs in modern day Europe either. At the end of the day houses are not an inherently great investment, although it can make a lot of sense for some folks some times.

I don’t want to see folks out on the street, so I am happy to spend my tax dollars to help them stay off the street. I am not happy to see my tax dollars going to help folks hold on to an asset that could some day appreciate. So I’m fine with a program that lets people who purchased their home below a certain price – say $400,000 or so – and can’t make their mortgage payments now – be allowed to convert to a market rate rental in their same home. And I’d even be OK with a rental subsidy type arrangement, kind of like the Section 8 that we already do in these circumstances. Like I said, I want to take care of folks.

But let’s be clear – these people are on welfare. Personally, I’d rather live in a society where we do more to take care of people.

[mlarsen23]

I think you’ve got a skewed notion of who or what is a “welfare type.” Right now by my sights welfare types include most everyone who works for an investment bank, GM, Chrysler, on a farm, or any of numerous other places where government subsidies are required to keep folks employed. And sure, everyone who is on unemployment.

I think the question of whether home ownership is a societal good in and of itself is still open. Rates of home ownership are generally lower in modern day Europe, and most European countries have less income inequality, a larger middle class, and greater social mobility than the United States. I don’t think there are any serfs in modern day Europe either. At the end of the day houses are not an inherently great investment, although it can make a lot of sense for some folks some times.

I don’t want to see folks out on the street, so I am happy to spend my tax dollars to help them stay off the street. I am not happy to see my tax dollars going to help folks hold on to an asset that could some day appreciate. So I’m fine with a program that lets people who purchased their home below a certain price – say $400,000 or so – and can’t make their mortgage payments now – be allowed to convert to a market rate rental in their same home. And I’d even be OK with a rental subsidy type arrangement, kind of like the Section 8 that we already do in these circumstances. Like I said, I want to take care of folks.

But let’s be clear – these people are on welfare. Personally, I’d rather live in a society where we do more to take care of people.

[mlarsen23]

I think you’ve got a skewed notion of who or what is a “welfare type.” Right now by my sights welfare types include most everyone who works for an investment bank, GM, Chrysler, on a farm, or any of numerous other places where government subsidies are required to keep folks employed. And sure, everyone who is on unemployment.

I think the question of whether home ownership is a societal good in and of itself is still open. Rates of home ownership are generally lower in modern day Europe, and most European countries have less income inequality, a larger middle class, and greater social mobility than the United States. I don’t think there are any serfs in modern day Europe either. At the end of the day houses are not an inherently great investment, although it can make a lot of sense for some folks some times.

I don’t want to see folks out on the street, so I am happy to spend my tax dollars to help them stay off the street. I am not happy to see my tax dollars going to help folks hold on to an asset that could some day appreciate. So I’m fine with a program that lets people who purchased their home below a certain price – say $400,000 or so – and can’t make their mortgage payments now – be allowed to convert to a market rate rental in their same home. And I’d even be OK with a rental subsidy type arrangement, kind of like the Section 8 that we already do in these circumstances. Like I said, I want to take care of folks.

But let’s be clear – these people are on welfare. Personally, I’d rather live in a society where we do more to take care of people.

[mlarsen23]

I think you’ve got a skewed notion of who or what is a “welfare type.” Right now by my sights welfare types include most everyone who works for an investment bank, GM, Chrysler, on a farm, or any of numerous other places where government subsidies are required to keep folks employed. And sure, everyone who is on unemployment.

I think the question of whether home ownership is a societal good in and of itself is still open. Rates of home ownership are generally lower in modern day Europe, and most European countries have less income inequality, a larger middle class, and greater social mobility than the United States. I don’t think there are any serfs in modern day Europe either. At the end of the day houses are not an inherently great investment, although it can make a lot of sense for some folks some times.

I don’t want to see folks out on the street, so I am happy to spend my tax dollars to help them stay off the street. I am not happy to see my tax dollars going to help folks hold on to an asset that could some day appreciate. So I’m fine with a program that lets people who purchased their home below a certain price – say $400,000 or so – and can’t make their mortgage payments now – be allowed to convert to a market rate rental in their same home. And I’d even be OK with a rental subsidy type arrangement, kind of like the Section 8 that we already do in these circumstances. Like I said, I want to take care of folks.

But let’s be clear – these people are on welfare. Personally, I’d rather live in a society where we do more to take care of people.

[Author]

Posts