Michael Ramirez for September 26, 2008

No thanks, Stewie, we have enough problems already.

Because we see how well letting the market handle things works…. 98 cents out of the dollar in medicare goes to care for the patient. 70 cents out of the dollar in private insurance goes to patient care.

Last I looked, the US was #1 in dollar spent per patient, but only #28 on quality of care. We’re not getting our money’s worth. Back in ‘92, when the Clintons thought optimistically they would take on the insurance block, I attended a conference of the Catholic Healthcare Association – 1600 Catholic health institutions in the US – and it was striking that despite the fear they had that the Clintons would require abortion or something like that and thus exterminate the Catholic system (which covers an astonishing percentage of US healthcare, especially the poor), the biggest thing they criticized, over and over again, was the insurance industry, which gets between the healthcare professional and the patient.

“Because we see how well letting the market handle things works….”

It wasn’t the free market that caused this crisis. It was the government’s meddling into the free market that did this.

Why does everyone ignore this?

It was the greed of the market and the trickle down economics of the republicans that made it fail. The middle class, the 98%, buy all the products in our country. Mortgages, car loans, shoes, milk, televisions…etc… and if you squeeze the middle class with the policies of the last 7 1/2 years the middle class has less disposable income, everything starts to topple down.

“It wasn’t the free market that caused this crisis. It was the government’s meddling into the free market that did this. Why does everyone ignore this?” Maybe because it’s wrong? Controls were removed by Congress and the Administration (and McCain still believes in reducing controls still more, or he did last week), oversight was reduced or simply not done. You take on riskier loans, you take on greater risk. Derivatives were then sold, thinking that it would spread the risk and protect the market – and it actually seemed to work for a while, but it turns out not to do so, and we had no way to pull them back. Wall Streeters are saying that the laws and controls haven’t kept up with the new financial tools and offerings, and that we need more and better. I’ve seen it stated here that the government “forced” mortgage lenders to offer these loans. Nonsense. Mortgage options are strictly limited by the government, but never forced. Mortgage banks can choose to offer whichever approaches they want. They decided to go for the high-risk options, betting that real estate would go up forever and blew it. Surprise, surprise. Just like the dot-com bubble. Just like the tulip bubble, for that matter.

motivemagus, add in that the high risk mortgages were rebundeled and then resold in other securities.

StewieZ says:

If you want something really screwed up, let the federal government run it… like, oh, let’s let the feds do national healthcare!! Like McIdiots solution of privatizing Social Security? I wonder how many people whose SS would depend on Wall Street would love that solution. McElite wants a worse one for his Health care package.

So as an example of the government running something, you mention the “privatization” of SS? The Republicans’ plan for “privatization” was to allow individuals, if they so wanted, to take a small percentage of their income that would otherwise feed into the gov’t SS program, and instead invest it privately. Isn’t that the exact opposite of the government running something?

With 30+ years to retirement, I’d love to take some of the money I’m paying to SS and invest in “Wall Street.” I don’t know when there’s been a better opportunity to “buy low.”

But Dan… the gov’t is guaranteed benefits what happens if when you choose to retire and Wall St blows up again and you wind up w/ nothing? Would you ask the gov’t to bail you out or would you quietly eat your Alpo?

Well, since only a small percentage of what I would have gotten without “privatization” turned into nothing with it, I guess I’d receive the same guaranteed benefits minus a small percentage. But if my small investment were to grow in 30+ years, I’ll receive a good bit more than the guaranteed benefits.

Investments pretty much always grow over the long haul. You may not cash out at your highest point, but you typically cash out higher than you bought in. You just need to adjust strategy over time to more stable funds. In fact, I’d bet my 401(k) that my cash-out price would be many times higher than the currently ultra-low buy-in price, were I allowed to “privatize.” Actually, I guess I’m already making that bet.

“Mortgage options are strictly limited by the government, but never forced.”

Please see the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977.

DantheForth is absolutely correct on this matter. The “privatization” charge leveled at Bush is quite obviously the very opposite. The Free Market will triumph over government regulation everytime and history proves this.

the SS is taken like a tax held hostage then when yu come back for it you are given no increse in market value for inflation then taxed for it again…not that it matters for me, with 30+ years to reach retiring age SS will not even buy me ALPO to eat.

Bob – google this: “community reinvestment act” percentage foreclosed

All I get when I google that against what I’m saying is an article by media matters that offers absolutely no proof of what they are saying or alternative to what really is causing the crisis and a blog. The rest is about things confirming my thoughts.

Maybe whatever you wanted me to find didn’t come up for me? I’ll be willing to look at whatever you’d like me too.