Comments on: “Vapor bill” . . . what an interesting term

By: Mr. Dings

Mr. Dings — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 22:38:49 +0000

Anyhow, I’ve been spending too much time on what is wrong with the world rather than concentrating on what is wrong with me and my attitudes. Time for a break. I do enjoy this forum as a means to solidifying my ideas and inspiring my reading and learning about and reacting to current domestic and world affairs. And the ladies in my life appreciate the heat being off of them. For now, I will try to tear myself away and let the rest of the world have at this blog.

By: Mr. Dings

Mr. Dings — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 22:35:55 +0000

You can just move money into a different bank until there’s no FDIC $$$ behind the money the bank lost. Sometimes I wonder if you have a clue.

By: Mr. Dings

Mr. Dings — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 22:34:34 +0000

Thanks for what you say is a chance. I do that a lot too. I read to learn what’s going on? You? I suppose you have experience in all this. I have talked many times about regulation and you about de. My son thinks it’s kinda strange that I am the only blogger here.

By: Bentnotesmanhisself

Bentnotesmanhisself — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 22:09:24 +0000

What kind of regulation do you recommend? Come on, now. This is your big chance to put your own thoughts on the subject in your own words.

By: Bentnotesmanhisself

Bentnotesmanhisself — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 22:07:47 +0000

If my new bank goes kabust, I can just move my money to a different bank.
Sure, this will have an effect on investment and returns. Do you think there’s any entity that can shelter us from the downside of risk?

By: Mr. Dings

Mr. Dings — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:12:45 +0000

Where do you think the money comes from, trees? The insurance funds are bust. They are going to have to borrow from the treasury. How is that different from a bail-out? If they don’t borrow from the Treasury, they are going to have to assess all the remaining solvent banks. What effect do you think this is going ot have on investment returns? Savings and Loans (1988-89) and banks are not supposed to go bust. You continue to blame government for the problems. The bankers brung us here, bloggie! If it weren’t for the FDIC, you would hae lost all your money. As it is, it appears a lot of the same mismanagement will get to mismanage the new entity that is now your bank. The new bankers got a bargain and none of the liabilities. There’s probably some good money in it for the purchasers. We must prevent this from happening again. We blew deregulation big time!

By: Bentnotesmanhisself

Bentnotesmanhisself — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 19:54:03 +0000

Re: the FDIC running low on funds: what would you have them do?
Here’s a question for you to chew on: Is it really a bad thing if many more banks fail? Some institution will buy up their assets, such as they are. I still have a bank account, with the same account number and everything, at the new company that bought up IUB.

By: Bentnotesmanhisself

Bentnotesmanhisself — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 14:02:42 +0000

Oh, and re: San Francisco: That city, and the whole Bay Area generally, is hardly a representative cross section of America. This is the area that has given us Gavin Newsom, Nancy Pelosi, Berkeley’s banning of Marine recruiters, gay “marriage,” preoccupation with “green” hooey, ubiquitous homeless types, and further back, hippies and beatniks.

By: Bentnotesmanhisself

Bentnotesmanhisself — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 13:58:38 +0000

Let’s get clear abolut the premise here. I never said health-care costs weren’t a pressing problem for our society. What I have said is that free-market principles will solve that problem quickly and elegantly. You start with lower taxes on everything (which would solve a great many other of our problems, too). Then you allow health insurance to be purchased across state lines. Then you convince the business community to stop offering it as part of compensation packages. You repeal the 2005 drug-prescription benefit that was added to Medicare (conclusive proof if there ever was any that W was no conservative). You enact tort reform so doctors aren’t so skittish about being sued. And, along with all this, you convince individual citizens that their time and money are better spent elsewhere than running off to the docror’s office or the ER for every little sniffle they come down with.

By: Mr. Dings

Mr. Dings — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 00:12:02 +0000

But, please explain again how the primary domestic issue in the presidential campaign a short 11 months ago is now a dead issue since, as you claim, 92% of Americans are satisfied with their health care? It was on every candidate’s of each party’s plate and tongue in every debate.

Now here’s a stat, for ya, let’s play stat for stat:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/26/BAB719DL29.DTL

Ninety-four percent of participants in San Francisco’s unique universal health care program are at least somewhat satisfied with it, and 92 percent would recommend it to a friend and think other cities should create similar programs. Four in 10 participants said their care was considerably better since joining the program.