5 ms·

Universal healthcare? Too expensive. $1.5T to bail out wall street? Sure!

by mdszy 7y ago

jacquesm 7y ago
I don't think you fully understand the subject. This money did not 'bail out wall street', it made sure the bottom did not drop out of the market which would affect pensions and savings plans of very large numbers of people. The thing to worry about is that it did not work.
- chasd00 7y ago
  i'll add it prevents runs on the bank which, in turn, prevents the market from bottoming out. But even then, if banks lose access to cash and money stops moving there is no market. There's nothing. I think many people in this thread don't understand the gravity of money ceasing to move around the global economy.
- thedance 7y ago
  The number of affected people is pretty large, but it's also worth remembering that about half of American households have no direct exposure to stock markets: no pension, no 401(k) plan, no direct holdings. If you're trying to prop up the stock market you're only directly benefitting, at most, half the people.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Fair enough. But half the people is a substantial number. What bugs me is how short lived the 'up' was. You'd expect more from such a massive injection. All it seems to have done was prop up the market long enough for some laggards to exit their positions as well and then it was back where it all started. Very scary.
- sequoia 7y ago
  Is it impossible to provide a basement/bottom to these pension funds without rewarding/bailing out hedge funds & rich bankers & investors? I have no idea, I'm asking honestly. I understand both the fact that market crash would negatively impact people's retirement, and that it really rankles to have to prop up/"bail out" rich investors when we claim to not be able to afford healthcare. It's worth noting that if there were more baseline social services such as healthcare, it would be less necessary to gamble on the stock market for one's retirement. Also: people nearing retirement should not be highly exposed to the worst market volatility. If they are, either they or their investment manager is mismanaging their money–you're supposed to reduce risk more and more as you approach retirement. I'm 35 & not concerned about this vis-a-vis my retirement as there's lots of time for it to recover.
paulmd 7y ago
this isn't spending, it's overnight loans to keep the market from seizing up if everybody's so panicked that nobody will let loose of their cash even for a "sure bet". but as to your general sentiment, yeah, you're right, we've blown $1.5T on dumb bullshit like new military spending and a wall that mexico is going to pay for and yet we can't find any money for universal healthcare even when people are dying in the streets. Even when it would likely reduce healthcare spending.
- a_tractor 7y ago
  >even when people are dying in the streets And this is happening where, exactly? Are you talking about heroin addicts or something? >military spending You are talking about <19% of all Federal spending, most of which ends up in the hands of American citizens employed by the DoD and private Defense contractors. Medicare and medicaid combined equal this expense, then you still have SS and the rest of the welfare system. >the wall Less than $5B was appropriated for the border wall and border security, which represents an aspect of national defense which is about as basic and fundamental as the concept of an independent nation itself. So, clearly, the vast majority of the rest of that $1.5 trillion budget is going to other "dumb shit" that is even less important than the most foundational purpose of state government but you haven't bothered to mention what, for some reason... >Even when it would likely reduce healthcare spending. For who? How likely? How much would it be reduced? What do we have to give up in exchange? You do know that giving full control of your personal healthcare and a larger portion of your hard-earned income over to a bloated and corrupt bureaucratic state (that has proven time and time again to put the interests of the state over and above that of the nation/people it is mandated to serve, to the extent that the idea of replacing American citizens with a completely foreign population is seen as a viable avenue in pursuit of its own expansion and preservation) isn't the only way to reduce the price of healthcare, right? Universal healthcare in a country where people like you wish to basically dismantle our national defense and allow open borders is just about the fastest way to national ruin I could ever imagine. Just stone cold stupid.

Universal healthcare? Too expensive. $1.5T to bail out wall street? Sure!

by mdszy 7y ago

Universal healthcare? Too expensive. $1.5T to bail out wall street? Sure!

I don't think you fully understand the subject. This money did not 'bail out wall street', it made sure the bottom did not drop out of the market which would affect pensions and savings plans of very large numbers of people. The thing to worry about is that it did not work.

chasd00 7y ago
i'll add it prevents runs on the bank which, in turn, prevents the market from bottoming out. But even then, if banks lose access to cash and money stops moving there is no market. There's nothing. I think many people in this thread don't understand the gravity of money ceasing to move around the global economy.
thedance 7y ago
The number of affected people is pretty large, but it's also worth remembering that about half of American households have no direct exposure to stock markets: no pension, no 401(k) plan, no direct holdings. If you're trying to prop up the stock market you're only directly benefitting, at most, half the people.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Fair enough. But half the people is a substantial number. What bugs me is how short lived the 'up' was. You'd expect more from such a massive injection. All it seems to have done was prop up the market long enough for some laggards to exit their positions as well and then it was back where it all started. Very scary.
sequoia 7y ago
Is it impossible to provide a basement/bottom to these pension funds without rewarding/bailing out hedge funds & rich bankers & investors? I have no idea, I'm asking honestly. I understand both the fact that market crash would negatively impact people's retirement, and that it really rankles to have to prop up/"bail out" rich investors when we claim to not be able to afford healthcare. It's worth noting that if there were more baseline social services such as healthcare, it would be less necessary to gamble on the stock market for one's retirement. Also: people nearing retirement should not be highly exposed to the worst market volatility. If they are, either they or their investment manager is mismanaging their money–you're supposed to reduce risk more and more as you approach retirement. I'm 35 & not concerned about this vis-a-vis my retirement as there's lots of time for it to recover.

paulmd 7y ago

this isn't spending, it's overnight loans to keep the market from seizing up if everybody's so panicked that nobody will let loose of their cash even for a "sure bet". but as to your general sentiment, yeah, you're right, we've blown $1.5T on dumb bullshit like new military spending and a wall that mexico is going to pay for and yet we can't find any money for universal healthcare even when people are dying in the streets. Even when it would likely reduce healthcare spending.

a_tractor 7y ago
>even when people are dying in the streets And this is happening where, exactly? Are you talking about heroin addicts or something? >military spending You are talking about <19% of all Federal spending, most of which ends up in the hands of American citizens employed by the DoD and private Defense contractors. Medicare and medicaid combined equal this expense, then you still have SS and the rest of the welfare system. >the wall Less than $5B was appropriated for the border wall and border security, which represents an aspect of national defense which is about as basic and fundamental as the concept of an independent nation itself. So, clearly, the vast majority of the rest of that $1.5 trillion budget is going to other "dumb shit" that is even less important than the most foundational purpose of state government but you haven't bothered to mention what, for some reason... >Even when it would likely reduce healthcare spending. For who? How likely? How much would it be reduced? What do we have to give up in exchange? You do know that giving full control of your personal healthcare and a larger portion of your hard-earned income over to a bloated and corrupt bureaucratic state (that has proven time and time again to put the interests of the state over and above that of the nation/people it is mandated to serve, to the extent that the idea of replacing American citizens with a completely foreign population is seen as a viable avenue in pursuit of its own expansion and preservation) isn't the only way to reduce the price of healthcare, right? Universal healthcare in a country where people like you wish to basically dismantle our national defense and allow open borders is just about the fastest way to national ruin I could ever imagine. Just stone cold stupid.