Contagion hits Portugal as Ireland dithers on rescue

[Lord Tammerlain]

No, Lord Tammerlain, budgeting is not rationing.

Budgeting allows freedom of choice as to where we might spend our money, while rationing is imposed.

If you need X amount of health care and have to settle for less due to financial reasons, you are having health care rationed. You are doing the rationing rather then the government but it is still being rationed.

The end result is that you did not get the health care you need

 

[Grant]

If you need X amount of health care and have to settle for less due to financial reasons, you are having health care rationed. You are doing the rationing rather then the government but it is still being rationed.

The end result is that you did not get the health care you need

I think we are at a stalemate here, Lord Tammerlain. I feel the words have different meaning, but you feel differently. I dont see any purpose in arguing the semantics when definitions are easily available..

define:budget - Google Search

rationing - definition of rationing by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

the act of distributing by allotting or apportioning; distribution according to a plan

sounds like budgetting does it not.

Your concern is that the government is determining what and who receives a scarce resource causing some to go without, rather then have the market determine who goes without. Someone will go without the medical care they need in a timely manner either way

 

[Grant]

the act of distributing by allotting or apportioning; distribution according to a plan

sounds like budgetting does it not.

It might sound like budgetting but it isnt. A person might decide that they will spend X amount of money on food, entertainment, rent, clothing, etc. That is budgeting. Its a matter of personal choice, Rationing is not a personal choice.

Your concern is that the government is determining what and who receives a scarce resource causing some to go without, rather then have the market determine who goes without. Someone will go without the medical care they need in a timely manner either way

Why will someone go without in a free market system? There is no health rationing where pets are concerned, or dentists, or anything else where the government doesn't get involved.. It only comes into play when bureaucrats, politicians and monopolies take control.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

It might sound like budgetting but it isnt. A person might decide that they will spend X amount of money on food, entertainment, rent, clothing, etc. That is budgeting. Its a matter of personal choice, Rationing is not a personal choice.



Why will someone go without in a free market system? There is no health rationing where pets are concerned, or dentists, or anything else where the government doesn't get involved.. It only comes into play when bureaucrats, politicians and monopolies take control.

A lot of people do not go to the dentist because they cant afford it correct?

Dentists are not cheap, my last visit cost $400, a significant amount of money for some, a sum that many can not afford and will do without. Pets of owners who have the money to go to the vets will get care, those without money will do without. It is not a matter of personal choice if it is clearly unaffordable for them. It is a decision forced on them by a lack of resources. If they had the money and could afford, but choose not to use the service that would be a personal choice, rather then an imposed on

 

[Grant]

A lot of people do not go to the dentist because they cant afford it correct?

I don't know of anyone who can't afford it, and I'm living in a rather poor area at the moment. Dentists will charge whatever the local market will bear, and that goes for rich or poor areas.

Dentists are not cheap, my last visit cost $400, a significant amount of money for some, a sum that many can not afford and will do without.

But you could afford it and you went.

Pets of owners who have the money to go to the vets will get care, those without money will do without.

Then they might want to think twice about having pets.

It is not a matter of personal choice if it is clearly unaffordable for them. It is a decision forced on them by a lack of resources. If they had the money and could afford, but choose not to use the service that would be a personal choice, rather then an imposed on

If you can;t afford something, don't buy it. If you are desperate, borrow the money, look to your friends and family. We should not look around for worst case scenarios and then pass laws based on those possible scenarios.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I don't know of anyone who can't afford it, and I'm living in a rather poor area at the moment. Dentists will charge whatever the local market will bear, and that goes for rich or poor areas.



But you could afford it and you went.

Yes I can, I do know people who cant

Then they might want to think twice about having pets.



If you can;t afford something, don't buy it. If you are desperate, borrow the money, look to your friends and family. We should not look around for worst case scenarios and then pass laws based on those possible scenarios.

Health care issues are generally worst case scenarios are they not. A hip replacement for an elderly person, a heart attack etc. Given that you live in a relatively poor area currently how many of them could afford an MRI, or a heart transplant if they required one?

 

[obvious Child]

No, Lord Tammerlain, budgeting is not rationing.

Budgeting allows freedom of choice as to where we might spend our money, while rationing is imposed.

That was nonsense. A budget imposes financial restrictions on allocation of resources. The virtually the same thing as rationing. The only difference is that rationing is generally allocated based on overall need where budgeting allows the same amount of resources to be divided not based on need. Both are imposed. budgeting is basically rationing.

 

[Grant]

Yes I can, I do know people who cant

Yes, there are many things we can't afford in this world. That's why we have to act responsibly regarding the essentials.

Health care issues are generally worst case scenarios are they not.

No, they are not.

A hip replacement for an elderly person, a heart attack etc.

These are just a couple of many thousands of issues, from terminal cancer to a sprained ankle.

Given that you live in a relatively poor area currently how many of them could afford an MRI, or a heart transplant if they required one?

There is a young woman here (who in fact was in my English class) who recently lost her right leg due to cancer. It cost $13,000 to get an artificial leg and the community contributed toward the expense, including her air fare to the States to get it done.

Regarding the MRI or heart transplant it could only be done privately. The public health system, unless you have the right connections, is available but terrible.

 

[Grant]

That was nonsense. A budget imposes financial restrictions on allocation of resources. The virtually the same thing as rationing. The only difference is that rationing is generally allocated based on overall need where budgeting allows the same amount of resources to be divided not based on need. Both are imposed. budgeting is basically rationing.

A budget imposes financial restirctions? Tell that to Obama!

If the Chinese stop lending, then the rationing will begin.

If budgeting was rationing we wouldn't need both words!

 

[Kushinator]

A budget imposes financial restirctions? Tell that to Obama!

People, organizations, and entities can always borrow to reduce their short term budgetary constraints. Your argument is weak.

If the Chinese stop lending, then the rationing will begin.

Wow....

If budgeting was rationing we wouldn't need both words!

Budgets refer to liquidity limits, where as rationing refers strictly to supply limits. Yet access to liquidity functions as a supply determinant; budgets have implicit supply limits where as rations are explicit supply limits.

 

[Grant]

People, organizations, and entities can always borrow to reduce their short term budgetary constraints. Your argument is weak.

You figure the US debt is short term?? It's almost $14 trillion, growing steadily, and a looming crisis. And despite ignoring any restrictions on spending, it's still called the US Budget, not the US Rationing. That might come next though.

 

[Kushinator]

You figure the US debt is short term??

Not at all. Borrowing provides liquidity to continue funding government programs in the short term. Debt is normally a long term liability.

It's almost $14 trillion, growing steadily, and a looming crisis. And despite ignoring any restrictions on spending, it's still called the US Budget, not the US Rationing. That might come next though.

Did you bother reading the last part of my post?

 

[Grant]

Not at all. Borrowing provides liquidity to continue funding government programs in the short term. Debt is normally a long term liability.



Did you bother reading the last part of my post?

Yes, i did bother, in fact. What more do you want?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Yes, there are many things we can't afford in this world. That's why we have to act responsibly regarding the essentials.


No, they are not.


These are just a couple of many thousands of issues, from terminal cancer to a sprained ankle.


There is a young woman here (who in fact was in my English class) who recently lost her right leg due to cancer. It cost $13,000 to get an artificial leg and the community contributed toward the expense, including her air fare to the States to get it done.

Regarding the MRI or heart transplant it could only be done privately. The public health system, unless you have the right connections, is available but terrible.

What type of cancer did the young woman have? Was it a type of cancer that could have been cured through chemotherapy or other treatments if caught early enough? If so does the region have the medical resources for private health care that would have caught the cancer early enough that her leg would not have had to be amputated?

 

[obvious Child]

A budget imposes financial restirctions? Tell that to Obama!

If the Chinese stop lending, then the rationing will begin.

If budgeting was rationing we wouldn't need both words!

I point out how you are wrong and you go off on irrelevant tangents attacking Obama.

And the overall maturity of the forum drops because of you.

 

[Kandahar]

So now the anti-Euro crowd is changing the way you count national debt? Hope they apply the same changes to say the US economy... doubt it though.

There is good reason to be anti-euro at this point: The unified currency is wreaking havoc on nearly every economy that uses it. The weaker countries are unable to devalue their currency, so they're forced with harsh "austerity packages" that will lead to years of slow growth. The stronger countries are unable to pursue as tight of a fiscal policy as they should be, meaning that they have yawning trade surpluses and asset bubbles.

The economies of Europe simply aren't integrated enough to make it work. Ireland, Germany, and Greece have very little in common with one another, and it's foolish to think that a unified monetary policy is appropriate for such a diverse group of economies. This sovereign debt crisis will happen over and over again, every time there is a recession, until nations start to abandon the euro.

And the comparison to the US economy is silly. The US states are very unified economically, and so a common currency makes sense on this side of the Atlantic. Over here, most spending is done by the federal government (as opposed to the EU government which has very little tax-and-spend power). So even if a few states get in trouble with their finances, they don't pose a serious danger to the dollar as a whole. Even if California were to default, the federal government would continue to send out the social security and medicare checks to Californians. There is no equivalent in the EU.

 

[PeteEU]

There is good reason to be anti-euro at this point: The unified currency is wreaking havoc on nearly every economy that uses it. The weaker countries are unable to devalue their currency, so they're forced with harsh "austerity packages" that will lead to years of slow growth. The stronger countries are unable to pursue as tight of a fiscal policy as they should be, meaning that they have yawning trade surpluses and asset bubbles.

The economies of Europe simply aren't integrated enough to make it work. Ireland, Germany, and Greece have very little in common with one another, and it's foolish to think that a unified monetary policy is appropriate for such a diverse group of economies. This sovereign debt crisis will happen over and over again, every time there is a recession, until nations start to abandon the euro.

I agree for the most part, with the exception that there is no debt crisis in most countries. Yes Greece, and Ireland (private lead problem), but the other countries no, especially when compared to the US. It is hype pure and simple for the most part. Debt levels in Europe have for a few exceptions not change much the last 20 years. Also private held debt (non secured) is far far lower in Europe than in say the UK and US, plus European savings rates are and have been far far far higher.

Also you are not being realistic. The cost of going out of the Euro will bankrupt all countries but France and Germany. After all any debt they do have will be in Euros, and if they start devaluing their "new currency" then that debt would explode basically sealing their fate. And in the end it would not change anything. At least in the Eurozone countries are forced to deal with the structural problems that lead to any problems they are in.

And the comparison to the US economy is silly.

No it is not. Public owned companies and state debt are not counted in the US debt numbers. But all of a sudden the right wingers want to include public companies in Europe?

The US states are very unified economically, and so a common currency makes sense on this side of the Atlantic. Over here, most spending is done by the federal government (as opposed to the EU government which has very little tax-and-spend power).

That may be, but the state spending (and debt) in considerable amount of US states is still more than that of many European countries. In fact from what I can gather, state and local spending accounts for 46% of all spending in government in the US.

So even if a few states get in trouble with their finances, they don't pose a serious danger to the dollar as a whole.

A few? What about most? You are aware that if you apply the same standards that are being applied on European countries by mostly US based media, then the US would be in the ****ter right?

Even if California were to default, the federal government would continue to send out the social security and medicare checks to Californians. There is no equivalent in the EU.

If California were to default, the other states and the Feds would bail em out. Hence any debt and deficit by California or other states should be included in the over US debt picture, but they are not. And California is not the worst state, their debt burden is relatively small.. Ever look at Alaska? 70+% debt vs GDP.. Alaska is a freeloader state or Greece 2.0 on steroids. It gets most money per capita from the Feds and has the largest amount of liabilities per capita in the US. Their whole state pension system is pretty much unfunded.

 

[The Prof]

Bonds sink further on report of U.S aid to Europe - MarketWatch

U.S. fiscal health worse than Europe's: China adviser | Reuters

Schwarzenegger Proposes $9.9B In Cuts « CBS Los Angeles- News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of LA

 

[Thorgasm]

 

[The Prof]

here we go again

EURO GOVT-Periphery suffers as supply worries gather pace | Reuters

The Associated Press: Portugal's debt worries worsen as bond yields rise

 

[The Prof]

here we go again

this weekend:

Greece slams moodys after ratings cut

Spain's savings banks race to find funds by Thursday

portugal edges closer to crisis: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10710543

 

[donsutherland1]

here we go again

this weekend:

Greece slams moodys after ratings cut

The move concerning Greece is not too surprising--that it wasn't classified previously at junk status was somewhat surprising. While the EU rescue plan addressed Greece's liquidity issues, Greece's own policy actions will be required to address its solvency issues. To date, early evidence as suggested that Greece may be lagging behind its fiscal targets e.g., its deficits are narrowing somewhat less quickly than had been projected. Real concerns persist and much work remains to be done.

Indeed, in its February 2011 review, the IMF noted progress but also indicated that "major reforms" still need to be devised and then implemented if Greece is to achieve fiscal sustainability. In part, the IMF's report stated:

Our overall assessment is that the program has made further progress toward its objectives. While there have been delays in some areas, the underlying fiscal and broader reforms necessary to deliver the program’s medium-term objectives are being put in place. However, major reforms still need to be designed and implemented to build a critical mass necessary to secure fiscal sustainability and economic recovery.

It's those "major reforms" that are likely to be most politically contentious. Yet, without the restructuring of select programs, Greece will face a growing risk of partial or full default.

 

[The Prof]

not in the least surprising

as a matter of fact, it was all utterly predictable many years ago

who's gonna be surprised when the next shoe falls---in washington, brussels, lisbon, dublin, sacramento, springfield, albany...

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Where's Spock when you need him?

"Captain, Mr Teixeira made a thinly veiled attack on Germany's Angela Merkel and France's Nicolas Sarkozy. The country was at the mercy of global forces and may be forced to call for help. Activating the EU-IMF bail-out mechanism, Captain, is not advised. You are inherently risking a debt-compound trap if you do so as this could create a self-fulfilling prophecy towards default."

:rofl that sounded like something straight out of sci-fi