Bailout bill

[Epinephrine]

No, it's like blaming the government for forcing a "government-approved" car onto consumers that Consumer Reports subsequently find below par - or the government subsidizing auto industries when they fail to innovate.

Well like I said, your perspective on this whole thing is 100% different from just about everyone else.

No, my anarchist view is because I believe government is inherently flawed - because I have never seen how a government would work.

What do you mean, government generally works pretty good. My personal freedoms have always been guaranteed ever since I came to Canada. I haven't been invaded ever. My water and sewers run great. The roads are generally in good condition. While we can't have NO crime, it's generally pretty safe here. Fires are taken care of as soon as possible. Ambulances run nicely. I got to go to a pretty good school for free until I was 18.

Yet I see that despite of government, society did indeed continue to function - often times when governments had failed. Ironically enough I see this here, in America - where we decided to throw off British rule because the Americans were doing well enough thank you, so could you not tax us?

The sad thing is, you can twist this argument around to ANYTHING. For instance I can say, the economy works fine despite of the excesses of the free market system.

I understand that you think that society is too complex and organized in order to be left alone to society - and so you want a few hundred individuals to make decisions concerning millions more is by developing a "complex and organizational system".

We both know it's a lot more than that. Government does a LOT of things which have been deemed necessary by society to have a representative force deal with. Things like running jails, keeping borders safe, protecting a country from wars, making sure there's working sewers and roads and so on. This takes much more than a few hundred people. If you're talking about the actual elective representatives, they work under an institutional framework and constitution which no matter what system aside from a dictatorship, guarantees that the end decision cannot veer too far either way. As well, governments, at least in the developed world (and even in China), frequently use experts to help with any number of problems, and use research to develop policy. It's not like people are just making things up on the spot randomly all the time.

Yeah, the last 50 years were great - and so all of history is thus refuted. You do realize that this cycle - of "ideal governments" turning into authoritarian regimes - has occured before? Many times? With different ideals, and different rhetoric - but a pretty consistent outcome?

Before modern times, we had thousands of years of the free market and no central bank, nor most of the modern regulatory framework either. It wasn't so great. The world has seen a MASSIVE change in the last 150 years since government responsible to the people and not just kings have existed and since modern interventionist policies have been implemented.

My argument is that society's complex organizational forces are superior than artificial government institutions.

Society CREATED government, and has done so in every single culture around the world in all of recorded history. People all over have always realized that having a government was better than not, and this is probably because those that didn't have a government got wiped out, the Inuit not withstanding.

Your entire system is resting on the hope that your organizational forces aren't too late. I can only hope the hope and faith in your system is well-founded.

Your entire system rests on the idea that 'stuff always works out'. Well this sounds more like faith to me, like faith in a religion, or blind faith that stuff just works out in the end if you let it be. I don't see that as a real confidence builder in any way.

What you cannot show is how the boom/bust cycle, and the "depth" and intensity of the recessions/depressions have been reduced. What you cannot show is how "stagflation", "inflationary recession", and other such weird terms do not ever occur before 1913. What you cannot show is how it is the central bank's manipulation of interest rates - a critical component of their function - does not distort market equilibrium and push supply/demand out of touch with actual market supplies and demands.

Jerome, see in a debate such as this, I actually don't NEED to show such things, because I'm on the side of the status quo. You are on the side of revolutionary change, and thus the onus is on YOU to PROVE your position. No, not by pointing out things that were done wrong now, we can all do that not in the context of saying throw out the system. No, not by name dropping or alluding to some theories that you've read about. Show me the hard data, show me the actual proof, show me the numbers working out in simulated runs, show me exactly how a world without central banks and without governments would actually work in today's world, and how things would actually be BETTER.

See I learned FAR more from Vihta's Chris Martenson website then I've ever learned from your rantings.

The first recession America experienced was because of moves made by the (central) Bank of England. The next major one occurs after our War of 1812.

You have to keep in mind, two centuries ago, not only were most people farmers, but they probably had their own land because there was so much bloody land to begin with. The actual dependence on the 'economy' was much, much less than today where most people actually have to get jobs instead of owning part of the virtually unlimited land out there and farming for a living. So no matter what happened back then, a 'downturn' could only affect so many people, and in fact the word 'famine' was much more important.

Then what is the solution? Not that mine is wrong - what's yours?

I said my solutions to the current problem. Give money and change bankruptcy laws to deal with defaulting mortgages. That will solve the problem at the source, and the rest will follow.

Congratulations - you have the gift of hindsight. Were you criticizing FEMA before Katrina? Were you bragging about your lack of subprimes a year ago?

Yes I was.

Who knows? The government doesn't have a crystal ball. I see that as slightly problematic to its very function, if it is to "plan".

No one has a crystal ball to anything. But sitting back and letting things 'sort out on their own' really isn't a solution. That's like having an oil spill and then arguing whether or not we really should be using oil in our society. Then saying 'well eventually the oil will just mix in around all the oceans of the world, and in a few hundred years no one will be the wiser' instead of actually just going to to clean up the mess first.

[Fluffz]

I am sure he thinks government fails because you went to a public school.

Hint of the Day: Cover your lack of intelligence by using the built in spell checker!

Those who can understand me do so anyway. But there is absolutely no intelligence my posts would gain by being conform with you. As long as you dont run your posts trough some intelligence check on your own i take the same freedom in terms of a spell check and use the time in a way i consider more useful. Just like i skip your posts because they are retarded you can skip mine because your fail to understand them. And dont pretend you did not fail, you even admitted your shortness right here in post form.

[Capital Knockers]

Just who the fuck are 'we' you goddamn canadian? Stop throwing 'we' into the mix when you're parasites to our economy. AMERICAN taxpayers are giving these companies money.

Funny side note...I called up Wachovia today to report a lost debit card and told the guy not to bother making a new one seeing as how I was transferring my money to a bank that didnt fail. The customer service rep. seemed adamant that the bank indeed did not fail, so after explaining to him the piss poor shape they're in and how I dont feel comfortable giving people my money who managed it poorly in the past, I eventually had to tell him to shut up and just help me out because its none of his business what I do with my money...retarded companies

That was a stupid rant that I didn't care to look over and edit. Why you decided to attack it out of no where I don't know. Canadians and Americans are like brothers, this bailout bill will have ripple effects, so yeah - WE'RE. Trust me, I wish we didn't depend so much on the states, but thats just the way it is. I have family in the states that are being affected by this, so yeah WE'RE. Fuck off Izor, and re-read that post and get to the point - go do something about your country rather than attacking me.

[Zerzera]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government

The primary duty of a government is to provide order and stability. Happiness is not a part of this.

Izor, why are you trying to attack my post when I was absolutely right? A democratic government can't be all about order and stability, it's only a mean to an end. They get votes because people are content with the way the politicians are dealing with all their issues. Order and stability are only two of the many aspects people care about. A government could get absolute order and stability if it would turn the entire population in a chain gang.. but I don't think even a tool like you would vote for a candidate that proposes such a policy.

The fundamental purpose of government is the maintenance of basic security and public order — without which individuals cannot attempt to find happiness.

See? Means + end. (Fundemental means there is more than that -like primary- just so you know what all these long english words mean.. lol)

Even going with your random thoughts on what a government should do, allowing banks to give out these loans that no one can afford that leads to the economy now does not lead to happiness

I know that you can't look any further than order and obeying to orders, and that's good. The world needs people who blindly follow.

Two years ago I already claimed on these forums that your economy couldn't sustain with these policies. Back then bank and insurance companies were already running risks of 1600%. Don't be decieved, they then already knew they had a bailout because they were 'too big to fail'. You shot me, I was jealous of your country, I was anti-American, I was a whining liberal. You were happy... and you still have all the reason to be happy.. Wait what happens if you fail to keep China or Japan from selling your bonds.

EDIT:
They offered them because they were in demand. They took even more risk than they did before. People knew they couldn't afford them, that's why previously they couldn't get any loans. But they took them anyway because living in a house made them happy. And if the US economy had kept growing in the pace it did then, nothing would have happened. The banks did nothing but gamble.. it was possible to get away with this!.. but the people failed.

It's funny that of all people, you now condemn the actions of the government. I thought Bush was your friend. You thought he was such a good guy. Only because he attacked Afghanistan and Iraq and cared for the troops? You should learn to be a little bit more critical and don't jump on the pointing-fingers-bandwagon now. I could always take you through the eat-your-own-words tour on these forums..

[Vehicle]

It's funny that of all people, you now condemn the actions of the government. I thought Bush was your friend. You thought he was such a good guy. Only because he attacked Afghanistan and Iraq and cared for the troops? You should learn to be a little bit more critical and don't jump on the pointing-fingers-bandwagon now. I could always take you through the eat-your-own-words tour on these forums..

ZZ, not to harp on a small point, but this is an unfair thing to say. Since 9/11 people have been going crazy over Bush policy initiatives and his actions in the White House. And certainly since the 2004 election his approval ratings have been below 50 percent and I think they're hovering around 30 right now. American's hate Georgey at this point, which they have for a long while. Just look at how much McCain is trying to distance himself from the man.

And Wark, a lot of the people on these forums are writing in their second language. I've taken three years of Spanish and I'm not about to go on some Spanish forum and try to make cohesive sentences. I give any Euro, besides the English, props for even knowing any English because I'm too elitist to learn theirs.

And as an extension of an important point Epi made: the social contract theory is the widely accepted explanation to where government came from. People indeed did create it because they found that by mutually agreeing to certain things and in turn sacrificing others the overall community would benefit.

[Galleleo]

Veh, I think zerz was talking about Izor, not the American people in general when he made that Bush is your friend statement.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Well like I said, your perspective on this whole thing is 100% different from just about everyone else.

Perhaps we can reduce this percentage, as the founder of the Mises Institute found some of my recent views interesting enough to share on his website. My opinion now joins those of various other political commentators, college professors, Nobel prize-winners, economists, and even a presidential candidate.

Say what you will but I think it's a start.

What do you mean, government generally works pretty good. My personal freedoms have always been guaranteed ever since I came to Canada. I haven't been invaded ever. My water and sewers run great. The roads are generally in good condition. While we can't have NO crime, it's generally pretty safe here. Fires are taken care of as soon as possible. Ambulances run nicely. I got to go to a pretty good school for free until I was 18.

This point would be a good "general" point - if Canada was the only government. It would be even better if it didn't follow up a "you're coming from a limited perspective" argument.

But to add to the "perspective" debate - you should also consider that timeframe is a great aspect of "perspective". You seem to lack this, given your post history and source material.

The sad thing is, you can twist this argument around to ANYTHING. For instance I can say, the economy works fine despite of the excesses of the free market system.

That works if you take the statement out of context but I have reason to believe I have shown unique cases to back up my assertions - not to mention your "twisted" logic is actually invalid, since an economy can not "work fine" if there are excesses. I'll refer you to the status quo economic situation for insight into this.

We both know it's a lot more than that. Government does a LOT of things which have been deemed necessary by society to have a representative force deal with.

Who is "Society" and why is his opinion more important than each individuals' viewpoint? We must be speaking of different things - Congress passed the bailout, necessary for Mr. Society - while ignoring the massive amounts of letters and calls showing which showed that American individuals did not want it.

Things like running jails, keeping borders safe, protecting a country from wars, making sure there's working sewers and roads and so on. This takes much more than a few hundred people.

I would say it takes every individual alive to organize and distribute resources amongst one another. Unless you're willing to hire every human alive as a Government employee - but then, who would pay taxes?

If you're talking about the actual elective representatives, they work under an institutional framework and constitution which no matter what system aside from a dictatorship, guarantees that the end decision cannot veer too far either way.

Sometimes, if you don't choose either path of a fork in the road - you'll hit a tree. Sometimes, "veering too far" might actually be a good thing.

As well, governments, at least in the developed world (and even in China), frequently use experts to help with any number of problems, and use research to develop policy. It's not like people are just making things up on the spot randomly all the time.

I have no doubt about this. You can put Albert Einstein in front of a supercomputer and he couldn't tell you how to efficiently allocate resources amongst a nation.

Before modern times, we had thousands of years of the free market and no central bank, nor most of the modern regulatory framework either. It wasn't so great.

What would you blame the free market for? The Plague? The Crusades? The Dark Ages?

The world has seen a MASSIVE change in the last 150 years since government responsible to the people and not just kings have existed and since modern interventionist policies have been implemented.

Huh, it seems such leaps and bounds in the scope of human intellect was due to free trade expanding and connecting the globe. As time has passed, free trade is the only thing that increases consistently with the discovery and adoption of new ideas.

Society CREATED government, and has done so in every single culture around the world in all of recorded history. People all over have always realized that having a government was better than not, and this is probably because those that didn't have a government got wiped out, the Inuit not withstanding.

So you admit that government does not organize society - but rather, society organized government? How does an inferior organizational force give birth to a superior one?

Underlying that - are you saying everything society creates is thus inherently good?

And those without government - why would they be wiped out? What force could wipe them out - aside from other governments?

Your entire system rests on the idea that 'stuff always works out'. Well this sounds more like faith to me, like faith in a religion, or blind faith that stuff just works out in the end if you let it be. I don't see that as a real confidence builder in any way.

If I were to say your system rests on the notion that 'a few good people can make things work' - would I not be vastly oversimplifying the intricate methods and concepts which underly that assertion? Of course I probably do make that assertion, but not without good cause.

When people use the word "love" - do they mean love in-of-itself, some singular substance in our brain? Or - perhaps, do they mean to simply reduce a very complicated and underlying concept to a more.. practical level?

If you want, I can copy-paste a few macro textbooks and some Adam Smith - but you complain my posts are long enough as-is.

As it stands, you must have more faith that no-one in your government will make a bad mistake, and that your government could never possibly give way to corruption.

Jerome, see in a debate such as this, I actually don't NEED to show such things, because I'm on the side of the status quo.

This doesn't exactly help your case of "governments doing good".

You are on the side of revolutionary change, and thus the onus is on YOU to PROVE your position. No, not by pointing out things that were done wrong now, we can all do that not in the context of saying throw out the system.

And by not considering the system's possible implications, you doom yourself to concluding wrong. I believe I've shown that, especially in the case of central banking - which you have yet to really argue.

No, not by name dropping or alluding to some theories that you've read about. Show me the hard data, show me the actual proof, show me the numbers working out in simulated runs, show me exactly how a world without central banks and without governments would actually work in today's world, and how things would actually be BETTER.

Well, for starters - there would be no government or central banking.

If anyone - government or anarchist - could "simulate" the actions, thoughts and words of 6 billion people over ANY period of time - well, this whole thread would be slightly useless.

It's the fact that no-one can show any world with or without anything, that is the reason I'd rather not have people ruling us who pretend otherwise.

See I learned FAR more from Vihta's Chris Martenson website then I've ever learned from your rantings.

And I've learned the most from your posts.

You have to keep in mind, two centuries ago, not only were most people farmers, but they probably had their own land because there was so much bloody land to begin with. The actual dependence on the 'economy' was much, much less than today where most people actually have to get jobs instead of owning part of the virtually unlimited land out there and farming for a living. So no matter what happened back then, a 'downturn' could only affect so many people, and in fact the word 'famine' was much more important.

These are pretty strong implications to be deriving from a "probably" statement.

I said my solutions to the current problem. Give money and change bankruptcy laws to deal with defaulting mortgages. That will solve the problem at the source, and the rest will follow.

Give money - to whom? Change bankruptcy laws - how? Solve the problem - at what source?

How is the chunk o' change doled out in the past month (alone) not "giving money" - and why is it not working?

"The rest will follow" - sounds a little faith-y to me.

No one has a crystal ball to anything. But sitting back and letting things 'sort out on their own' really isn't a solution. That's like having an oil spill and then arguing whether or not we really should be using oil in our society. Then saying 'well eventually the oil will just mix in around all the oceans of the world, and in a few hundred years no one will be the wiser' instead of actually just going to to clean up the mess first.

I don't argue against inaction - only government action.

[Fluffz]

Who is "Society" and why is his opinion more important than each individuals' viewpoint?

Its been like this for the bigger part of history, why the heck is the individual suddenly supposed to be more important than society?

So you admit that government does not organize society - but rather, society organized government? How does an inferior organizational force give birth to a superior one?

Other question, why would a superior organizational force ever accept an inferior one?

If anyone - government or anarchist - could "simulate" the actions, thoughts and words of 6 billion people over ANY period of time - well, this whole thread would be slightly useless.
It's the fact that no-one can show any world with or without anything, that is the reason I'd rather not have people ruling us who pretend otherwise.

Are you saying your theory is based on your faith?

Congress passed the bailout, necessary for Mr. Society - while ignoring the massive amounts of letters and calls showing which showed that American individuals did not want it.

Oh well this is a different matter. If people have no say in "society's" decision this is not a democracy anymore. It is a Dictatorship (the natural result of deregulation) that is no longer bound to society's rules but its own.

[404 Not Found]

Just who the fuck are 'we' you goddamn canadian? Stop throwing 'we' into the mix when you're parasites to our economy. AMERICAN taxpayers are giving these companies money.

I really do not see how one cannot throw "We" into the mix, considering that if you feel so strongly about Canadians in a negative fashion, I would only hope you hate the US automakers with a passion, as well as I hope you are not driving one of those Canadian or Mexian made Fords, Chryslers, GM, Chevy, Dodge crap cars. especially after the multi-billion dollar bailout they just got so they can expand their Mexican and Canadian factories...not U.S. factories...and with our tax dollars to make it happen!

My Honda has more American made labor in it than most of the so-called doemstic made U.S. autos.

The only reason one could call our neighboring countries parasites as you have made note of is due to global policies on trade, tax incentives, and on and on. Don't forget that Parasite called Dick "head" Cheney, of who socks all his Bechtel and Haliburton monies in an account off shore. Noting that we have so many that claim to be Americans true and blue and that many that question them are just liberals, how do they feel about their hero's of the conservative right wing; the policy makers who are considered super-rich use offshore tax havens to avoid paying what they owe in taxes, they're reneging on their duties as citizens. It seems only fair to me that the consequence of that kind of tax avoidance ought to be loss of citizenship. If it's more important to someone to avoid paying what they owe in taxes than to continue being an American, then let them keep their money. They can become a citizen of the Cayman Islands or Bermuda or wherever else they store their wealth, and come here on a visitor's visa — if they can get one.

Cheney, Phil Graham, former senator and now lobbyist George Allen, and many many more in the U.S. Govt. hide all the monies made in offshore accounts. They are stealing from their own country while calling out others to pay for them and be patriotic. There are these types on both sides of the political spectrum. I say kick them out of the country.

These are the true parasites I think we should be looking at. The ones that want us to follow their laws and yet they make monies off of us at our expense!

I for one appreciate my Canadian friends.

[DankNuggets]

sooo if mortgage banking failed, and millions of homes were foreclosed...

What's to stop the banks owning those houses that they just repossessed from just selling them back to the same people they originally sold them to? If they just repossess them they're not actually making any money until they sell them. Most people aren't going to go buy two extra houses and go through the hassle of renting them out, so where does that leave the banks?

It leaves them to sell them to the exact same people that needed them in the first place, and they'll do it hopefully for a more realistic price and stable interest rate. I might not make as much money for the bank on a mortgage to mortgage basis, but they'll stand a much better chance of not having people default all at the same time, or at least a smaller %.

when a person defaults on a loan, they're passing their debt to the person who gave them the loan, right? technically they owe them, but if the since it wasn't bank's money in the first place, who do they owe? People just aren't going to pay these loans back, so the bank's money (it's members money) shrinks, but it still has to pay it back to the people via FDIC so it then passes the debt to the gov't. Then the gov't either absorbs that debt or passes it the taxpayer - full circle. How far off is this last paragraph? just kinda key-styled while waiting for that clock to hit 4:00

[404 Not Found]

Just saw this article and found it interesting, especially due to who it was from:

Jim Cramer: Time to get out of the stock market

Bullish investors should turn into shrinking violets as the stock market continues its shocking downward spiral, CNBC’s “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer told Ann Curry on TODAY Monday.

In what Curry called a “dramatic statement,” Cramer emphatically urged any investor who has money they may need in the next five years tied to stocks to pull their dough out.

“I thought about this all weekend,” Cramer told Curry. “I do not want to say these things on TV.

I didn't think that I would be reading/hearing this from Jim Cramer.

“Whatever money you may need for the next five years, please take it out of the stock market right now, this week. I do not believe that you should risk those assets in the stock market right now.”

While the animated Cramer is known for telling investors the best prospects for earning money on the stock market, he’s now saying retreat is the best position in the face of some of the worst financial news in decades. The bank lending default crisis that put financial firms around the country on the brink of collapse could bring “as much as a 20 percent decrease in the stock market,” Cramer predicted.

He noted that the world’s markets are nosing downward in the face of the U.S. fiscal trauma.

Do we listen to Chicken Little? The sky is falling? I stopped adding contributions into my 401K for now.

[Vehicle]

Jerome, you're going by the wayside. Your posts have become less and less about the bailout, or even the state of the economy, and more and more about your personal political beliefs.

This point would be a good "general" point - if Canada was the only government. It would be even better if it didn't follow up a "you're coming from a limited perspective" argument.

Seriously, what does this have to do with anything we're talking about in this thread? You've taken a pointed debate about the bail out, and generalized it to have to do with every government? Please.

Who is "Society" and why is his opinion more important than each individuals' viewpoint? We must be speaking of different things - Congress passed the bailout, necessary for Mr. Society - while ignoring the massive amounts of letters and calls showing which showed that American individuals did not want it.

Again, come on. In the case of what Epi was saying, "society" is clearly the people who are being governed. The politicians you speak of were elected by the people and therefore represent the people. If popular support is behind an individual measure they support or oppose is a moot point. And before you argue that of course it matters, wait until the elections and see how many incumbents get their seats back.

I would say it takes every individual alive to organize and distribute resources amongst one another. Unless you're willing to hire every human alive as a Government employee - but then, who would pay taxes?

Really? This assertion is just ridiculous. It doesn't take every human being within a given society to distribute resources (equally or unequally, in case you're speaking from the purely Marxist sense.) Consider the government of ANY country to disprove this theory. This is the problem with your logic, it's not at all grounded. It's ridiculous rhetoric that someone whose as intelligent as yourself shouldn't be duped by.

To be honest I only got like 3 more rebuttles down and I had to stop reading. You seriously went from posting coherent, well thought out, points of views to spewing ridiculous and unfounded rhetoric that I'm not sure anyone could truly believe. And before you get all pissed off, go back and re-read your post, you really can't be serious.

And with that I'm done with this thread. Reading 2000 word posts where you assert you cannot define society is simply not worth my time.

[Izor]

I have never said that I agree with everything that the republican party has done. I have said in the past that some of my views are toward the left, but obviously shortly after saying that with most major points I'm pretty far to the right.

I also believe that you're confusing a democracy with the republic that we have. Obama is the one telling everyone what they want to hear so he can get elected no matter how little of it you'll actually see should he get elected. McCain is sadly doing this also, but not to the same degree. If it were a democracy, theres no way that bill would have been passed, plain and simple. I mean let me ask you this: do you REALLY think americans are going to get a tax cut while trying to fund this $700B we are now responsible for, while also implementing universal healthcare (btw nice tylenol you canadians get after you get your teeth pulled that goes a long way for that pain!) and the various other things Obama intends to do? Give me a break.

Knockers, none of your money is going directly to this. Worry about your own plummeting economy instead of my plummeting economy thanks. Or maybe the rest of the world is going to play blame america instead of blame canada? There wont be any 'were in this together' mentality there...only when it is convenient to say so.

[Jerome Scuggs]

Seriously, what does this have to do with anything we're talking about in this thread? You've taken a pointed debate about the bail out, and generalized it to have to do with every government?

The fact that every government is, at this very moment, bailing out?

And that shit is not fixed?

And that now the orchestrated global actions by the world's central banks is not helping?

"Even the unprecedented global interest-rate cut of half a percentage point yesterday had only the most limited effect, while the IMF called the credit crisis "the most dangerous shock in mature financial markets since the 1930s" and warned of a recession in the UK and elsewhere next year."

If you want to skirt around my beliefs, then whatever. But don't do it in some sort of condescending matter. Sarkozy is calling for a global economic regime change, and you're still stuck on bailouts. You're playing a game with outdated rules. Your ideals of government are gone, broseph. Put down the political science book and pick up a newspaper.

If you want to disagree with me, then argue. But don't skirt issues by calling it irrelevant. If you want to accuse my logic of not being grounded - dude, do you even know what you're talking about? Seriously? If you want to un-ground my logic - then do it. Don't throw some statement out there, and then... well... not ground it with logic.

[Kolar]

do you REALLY think americans are going to get a tax cut while trying to fund this $700B we are now responsible for, while also implementing universal healthcare (btw nice tylenol you canadians get after you get your teeth pulled that goes a long way for that pain!) and the various other things Obama intends to do? Give me a break.

I don't think that is realistic either but it will probably happen, just like how 150 billion was tacked onto the bill on its second run. The initial 700 billion will most likely be 1.4 trillion, and after that at least another one or two trillion. To get a lot done it will require more then control over the executive, a president has influcence but also limits. I think it's great that both of them are acknowledging the health care issue regardless of where you stand on it.

Our medicare system doesn't provide for dental care. Most people are covered by their employer or have private insurance. If you're getting more then one pulled they will most likely give you oxycontin over T3s these days.