OT: Healthcare and Green Energy > Bailout

[Sad Darwin]

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Forbes/7BetterUsesfor700Billion.aspx

 

7 better uses for $700 billion:

 

If the bailout sounds like a lot of money, that's because it is.

What else it could buy? How about health insurance for everyone, or fixing all the roads and bridges?

 

Wall Street's crisis is about to become Main Street's crisis, as bank credit freezes and loans dry up. The government's fix: $700 billion to buy up the bad loans choking the system.

 

 

It's a monster plan, but there's little choice, according White House and Federal Reserve officials. Though much of the money may return to the nation's coffers over time as the Treasury sells off the mortgage-backed assets it will purchase, the bailout will severely limit what the government can afford to spend on health care, energy, infrastructure and education in the years ahead.

 

 

New bridges and guilt-free electricity:

Let's start with the nation's infrastructure. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates our nation's bridges need $180 billion in repairs, with our rail infrastructure in need of $185 billion in maintenance. California wants to spend $40 billion for the nation's first high-speed rail network to connect Southern and Northern California.

 

 

Saskia Sassen, a professor on Columbia University's Committee on Global Thought, points out that infrastructure investments would feed directly into gross domestic product, based on job and enterprise growth. And we certainly have the builders to do it. Unemployment in construction is 40% higher than in manufacturing.

 

 

Arizona Public Service, an electric utility, is building the nation's largest solar power array in the desert near Gila Bend, Ariz. It will be able to power 70,000 homes using only the sun's rays -- and will create thousands of high-tech green energy jobs. Construction costs will be about $1 billion, but the utility says the 3-square-mile project will pay for itself in about seven years. With $699 billion left over, you could put even more of the Southwest's desert to work in creating clean energy.

 

 

Peace of mind for the environment and our bodies:

Health care and climate change are other major concerns. Kenneth Thorpe, a professor of health policy at Emory University, points out that for $150 billion you could provide every American with private health insurance and create a universal automated health-information system.

 

 

When you consider that the National Cancer Institute receives $5 billion a year in funding, you could multiply its budget by 10 and provide private health care to every American.

 

 

McKinsey, a consulting firm, estimates it will cost the U.S. economy $150 billion a year to stabilize greenhouse gases by 2030. For three years, $700 billion could pay for the cost of both health care plans (in case one doesn't work) and cover the cost to reduce carbon emissions.

 

Defend the borders, the economy and our academic edge

Since global trade isn't going away anytime soon and America's ports are getting increasingly crowded, using the money for port expansion might be a smart idea. According to the American Association of Port Authorities, container volumes at U.S. ports have increased by 7% a year over the past 20 years, far outpacing capacity growth.

 

 

National security is also a concern. After five years in Iraq, most estimates for the war's cost tally into the $500 billion range. Unlike investments in distressed assets, paying for the Iraq war won't produce a return, but $700 billion would stem the government's future debt obligations to its creditors.

 

 

Then there's education. The U.S. currently spends about $500 billion annually on public education, yet still finds itself slipping behind many other industrialized nations when it comes to giving the next generation the skills it needs to compete globally.

 

 

The difference, of course, is that government spending for any of this would require a massive tax increase, with no chance of getting any of the money back. The upside: At least it would be a sure bet.

 

 

This article was reported and written by Matt Woolsey for Forbes. com.

[duncan]

10 pages.

[Sad Darwin]

10 pages.

 

 

Meaning?

[frankiej]

go take your hippie {censored} else where.

 

we have this place called the political forum...use it.

[Sad Darwin]

go take your hippie {censored} else where.

 

 

Wow, I'm not even remotely a "hippie"... what are you 60?

 

It's a good article and as I've observed there seems to be a great deal of off the topic political discussion occuring everywhere at the moment. So what did you think of the article?

[Demian03]

i think its OT

[frankiej]

indeed very OT.

 

everyone knows we could spend the money else where. Its already been discussed to death in the "i didnt vote from bla blah why should i pay for the bailout" thread.

[Welladjusted]

go take your hippie {censored} else where. we have this place called the political forum...use it.

 

 

My understanding is as follows:

 

- The thread is labeled as off-topic, and can be avoided by those who are disinterested in political discussion

- Off-topic threads are permitted, and the mods have the right/ability to close a thread should it be off-base.

- The political forum is completely bat{censored}.

[Sad Darwin]

I'd say for consistancy's sake let us then delete the "presidential debate" thread, the myriad random worship threads (unless jesus is considered an effect), and heck let's get rid of the "guy makes out with model" thread that you seemed to have no problem with. I'm all for it, unless of course you just had a problem with this one not being in line with how you feel about things. Then I'd have to say that's pretty dumb.

Wouldn't you frankiej?

[hierophant]

Americans have all the right to be angry as hell about the bailout. but sadly it is a necessity. {censored} would fundamentally change in you nation if this 700 billion didn't happen, huge job losses, retirement funds gone, etc. private enterprise just isn't big enough to buy up and hold all those assets until the can sell them off, the only thing big enough is your government.

 

it sucks for everybody....but it has to happen.

[frankiej]

I'd say for consistancy's sake let us then delete the "presidential debate" thread, the myriad random worship threads (unless jesus is considered an effect), and heck let's get rid of the "guy makes out with model" thread that you seemed to have no problem with. I'm all for it, unless of course you just had a problem with this one not being in line with how you feel about things. Then I'd have to say that's pretty dumb. Wouldn't you frankiej?

 

 

Im down. And just because i pop into a thread doesnt mean i dont have a problem with it.

 

This is why we have the Mapz forum. They provide the entertainment.

[frankiej]

- The political forum is completely bat{censored}.

 

 

Indeed. Scares me a bit.

[Sad Darwin]

People discussing doesn't scare me. People writing people off prior to discussion scares me. I've read Chomsky, I've read William F. Buckley. I'd like to sort out how I feel by injesting as much information as possible, sans supposition. So the "hippie" comment was not only confusing, but ignorant as hell. Take information in and consider it. I don't agree with this entire article, but I still found it to be a concise informative spin on what's looking like an economic disaster, the likes of which your children will continue to be saddled with.

[skitzy]

i want nuclear power nao

[Phil O'Keefe]

My understanding is as follows: - The thread is labeled as off-topic, and can be avoided by those who are disinterested in political discussion - Off-topic threads are permitted, and the mods have the right/ability to close a thread should it be off-base. - The political forum is completely bat{censored}.

 

 

I would say that's a reasonably accurate and astute observation.

[jorhay1]

over the past few days

changing my mind

 

used to favor the bailout

now against it

 

but i don't know {censored} about economics

or the vagina and those pesky female orgasms

[Sad Darwin]

over the past few days changing my mind used to favor the bailout now against it but i don't know {censored} about economics or the vagina and those pesky female orgasms

 

 

Neither do people who know too much about economics.

[hierophant]

Neither do people who know too much about economics.

ZING

[Destructobot]

i want nuclear power nao

 

 

 

 

Not cost competitive. There's a reason no nuclear plants are being built right now - it's not a good investment once you strip away all the training wheels the government puts on it.