Chile Forum

All the best to Pinera in his new job. The successes of Chile are not going unnoticed up here in the U.S. Just in the past month I've heard major figures on radio and TV mention Chile and how it's outpacing the other economies in South America with better financial discipline and growth in per capita income.

As for Mr. Obama, people are finding that he was just a mirror that reflected their hopes and wishes, a nice man with no real substance. Sure he has a booming nicotine voice, and he looks dashing in a suit and $300 necktie, but he's just not cut out to be a leader. He lacks the experience needed to administer the federal government and he is easily bullied by more experienced politicians in both houses of Congress. Obama would make a fine law professor at a small, liberal arts college.

Laura55llc wrote:

admin wrote:The healthcare bill in the US was a better deal for corporations than universal healthcare here(although it's a really good deal for them here-at last count 300 companies vying for the market) and yet the right was screaming about death camps while completely ignoring a real opportunity to cash in.

I don't want to hijack this thread, but I can't let that statement go by without a response. We have a system called Medicare where people aged 65 and older get health care funded largely by the government. Doctors hate it with a passion, to the point where they refuse to accept new patients, even though they could easily "cash in". An example: The doctor bills $300 for tests and treatment, Medicare denies all but $75 of the bill, then 18-24 months later, the doctor is paid $15. Medicare is an abject failure, yet Obama wanted to implement a similar system nationwide!

The simple truth is we have no way to pay for the present government health care system, let alone a "reformed" system that would add another 10-30 million patients to the government rolls. All the reform laws do is cleverly find a way to pick Peter's pocket to pay for Paul's health care. Right now in the U.S., there are five Pauls for every one Peter.

Laura,

You have me at a disadvantage, as you surely more about Fonasa than I. From everything I have heard, it is quite popular across party lines and seems to work well in the Chilean context. Question: If we replaced existing (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid) and proposed government healthcare in the US with Fonasa (including copying exactly what it does and does not cover and its other features), would Americans be happy with it as a supplement to a truly private system (which we have not had since the 1960’s)?


Cali,

You give me Hope! for Change We Can Believe In. MA electing an anti-Obama, anti- healthcare Republican because the existing proposals did not go far enough? Ridiculous. A cursory examination of issues and poll data would back up what sense makes clear to most. Even Obama gets that, given that he is now looking to downscale his proposals, at least in word if perhaps not in fact. Nonetheless, I dream of the Democrats pushing for healthcare "reform" harder & harder, the way you dream of Sarah Palin as a presidential candidate.....unlikely, but dreamy for our respective positions.

Speaking of which.....I have more Hope! than ever based on your comments. First, I do not think that Sarah Palin has a chance to be the Republican candidate, nor do I think that she is doing what must be done to head in that direction. While not nearly as dumb as portrayed by the Democrat's media allies, she does lack depth on issues. She tends to intuit the right answer (which is how most Americans approach things), but cannot discuss, say, the intricacies of our policy towards Israel, etc. When it comes to inexperience, she has about the same experience as the empty suit in the Oval Office, so that clearly isn’t a fatal barrier. A lack of wonkishness (greatly exaggerated by the press, which treats Palin or Quayle very differently from Biden or what’s her face in MA) and quitting as governor killed her chances as a candidate. That, and I do not think that she wants to go through the hell that is modern politics again. Making some money for herself and raising massive amounts of money for her political allies will likely meet her goals.

Obama is her opposite, not just in ideology, but also in traits. He is somewhat smart in the traditional "high IQ" sense.....and has absolutely no sense or real-world understanding. He reminds me of the old Gary Larson cartoon where a kid was pushing on a door with all his might....and the door was marked "School for the Gifted, Pull Open". Like most liberal arts professors & “intellectuals” today, he is a brilliant idiot......ala Adlai Stevenson, the original egghead. And like most so-called intellectuals, Obama thinks himself better than the hoi polloi, the rubes in flyover-country, who need to have their freedom diminished for their own good…..and of course, intellectuals such as Obama, by virtue of their popularity with other brilliant idiots, their Ivy League degrees, and the like, should be the ones to guide their stunted little redneck brothers to the Way, by force if need be. Never mind that the brilliant idiots’ ideas can only work in Hollywood, the press and academia. Everywhere they apply their Ivory Tower ideas, somehow they fail and cause more misery than good. For example, the liberal government healthcare solution to end all healthcare solutions of the 1960’s is now ten times (!!!) over budget (hmmmm, no “savings”), squeezing out the once functional private market and sucking more money than the military from the budget. But now, this time, they’ll get it right, it really will work, just trust us with 1/6 of the economy. Right.

Sarah Palin’s popularity is certainly not because of her educational pedigree or detailed grasp of foreign policy. That popularity is a rejection of pedantic, condescending brilliant idiots with such pedigrees. She really has common sense (Obama doesn’t have enough of that to tie his own shoes or speak without a TelePrompTer), really is “one of us” and “gets it”, something that people like Obama, with their obvious disdain for “bitter people who cling to Guns and God” will never get. It is that arrogance towards Palin in particular and the common man in general (who leftists everywhere profess to love and seek to rule) that makes people like Obama think they can and should run our lives and reduce our freedom. It is that arrogance that may well cause them to ignore the Massachusetts rebuke, as you suggest, and go at the speed of lemming straight into the political air. And it is that arrogance, combined with the failed status quo of liberalism (masquerading as “change”) that shines through at the ballot box and ultimately costs these people elections. If the Republicans ever do get their act together (not a very promising prospect, I admit), the chances that the brilliant idiots to run our lives go right down the tubes. So by all means, crack on that "dummy" Sarah Palin….and watch when “dummies” like Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush eat the lunch of Pinheads like Stevenson, Carter, Mondale, Gore and Kerry.

I do not care for or agree with Obama, but I do understand where he is coming from and why his base likes him. Can you honestly say the same of Palin? I do not think so. Probably their bitterness, right?

John Hyre, getting more Hope! by the minute

Didn't take long for this thread to drift out to sea! Let me save y'all lots of typing. The democrats are shit and the republicans are crap (I ran both words through my Spanish dictionary and they translate as the same word, "excremento". Both are bought and payed for. America is brain dead and waiting for the coroner's verdict and the supreme court just over ruled 100 years of their own decisions and removed what little limit on corporate donations to politicians we had.

And my paper work is in Washington DC and even if I get it back from them what are the odds that I will get it back from the Chilean consulate in a manner sufficiently expeditious for me to escape before they close the boarders.

OK guys. Have you realized that there are less murders in Chile in a year than in a week in New York (comparable population)? And Pinera appeals to you because of the "crime issue"? Give me a break!
I am happy that Chile has defeated the " dictatorship within a democracy" crowd. However, the Chilean system is very much like the government run system in the States...ONCE YOU GET A GOVERNMENT JOB, NO ONE CAN TOUCH YOU... unless you commit murder or some terrible crime and even then you might be able to keep your job!. It takes three..yes 3..three years on the "bad list" to even consider firing someone here..just like back home.
In four years, the Pinera government will not be able to get to those that really run the country..and are responsible for the stagnant conditions. The middle and low level civil servants .
The "dictatorship within a democracy crowd" will defeat the Pinera government unless he stars at the bottom of the food chain and not at the top. And in four years, we will have Bachelet back. Not that she was a bad President.. but the crowd will be back!
I made a comment that made me quite unpopular when the healthcare workers were on strike...I said that health care for people is something that should not be compromised and that if I were the President, I would do what President Reagan did when the air traffic controllers went on a strike....fire them all!
Do you know what the President did..paid them a "return to work bonus"!!!!!!! People were saying that they should go on strike just to get the "return to work bonus".
In the short time I have been back in Chile I have witnessed favoritism and vendettas by unqualified "chiefs"...and those are the ones that will remain there as chiefs until the next election. I have also witnessed the unreasonable demands and expectations of a population that has been led to believe that THEY CONTROL THE SYSTEM (empowering the masses!). Yeah, and they still believe in Santa Claus here..and have been introduced to the Easter Bunny.

FrankPintor wrote:

JHyre wrote:I certainly hope that the Left in the US...

Not that I pretend to understand US politics, but there isn't really a "left" in the accepted sense up there, is there? To be honest, I found the article quoted by Mr. P to be pretty shallow. While it contained no obvious mistakes it didn't cover anything that hasn't appeared dozens of times in the press in the past week. But its surprise that the "left" in Chile didn't react in a knee-jerk fashion to Pinochet-era reforms is a bit off base. Sometimes people, even governments, do think rationally. And the "left" can be surprising, look for example at the last socialist government in Germany under Schröder, that was much more radical than any government of the right that preceded it. Or any that's succeeded it to date. No reason why Chile's mildly left-of-centre ex-government should have veered down a different path to the one it took, in particular considering Chile's largely democratic traditions which were brutally interrupted by Pinochet. And the perfect counterexample to political stereotypes is the Bush government, which turned out to be a party of big-government rather than one in the Reagan tradition. If Bush is held to blame for New Orleans and other disasters it's because he failed utterly at managing the crisis.

And regarding Mr. Obama, I really wish him well. If he won based on "no more Bush" that's his strongest card, I mean, who on Earth would want that pair back? BTW, the Economist's "obituary" of Bush ("End of an Aura", it's premium content unfortunately) is worth reading.

Hell yeah there's a "left" side of politics, but only 17% of the US population is truly left. 46% consider themselves conversatives according to the most recent poll (have to go back to find the article). I'm a conservative thru and thru. I cared for Bush about as much as any state-ist, but for differing reasons. He was no economic conservative. My question is, is Pinera an economic conservative or a pseudo-economic conservative? From what I gather in the US, he's got the love of some very powerful conservatives so I'm hoping he can do Chile some real, long lasting good, especially since I'll be living there later this year (loved my time there this past month).

I'll begin reading the book "End of an Aura", but if its similar to the other emotional, non-statisically accurate BS I'll have no choice but to go outside and burn the thing while singing I've got a love-i-ly bunch of coconuts... at the top of my lungs as the neighborhood dog chorus sings in harmony in one harmoneous encantation if epic proportions allowing all who hear to achieve nirvonic bliss thus freeing the world of all chaotic forces and bringing the force back into balance saving all mankind from certain doom! "Words, words, words, I'm so sick of words...first from him then from you, is that all you bluggers can do! Don't say it's...________, show me!" (a line from a musical, not you guys per se)

From Al Gore's "An Unconvenient Truth" to Michael Moore's propaganda, I've become jaded from an attack on my intelligence. Show me the facts and I'll be happy and stop the "they didn't want you to know..." BS. There are plenty of True things one can choose to say to prove the point that Bush was terrible for our country.

"Btw, a lot of the discontent in the US and Massachusetts on the left is because the current healthcare bill doesn't include any public option or anything to control costs. And the President is acting more like a Republican. Good grief- if he were a socialist as they like to spout, all those banks and insurance companies would be state owned."

What do you think has been happening up here? The Obama Administration was in the process of setting the leg work to create state owned banks, insurance companies, businesses, etc. and unionizing them. He begin demonizing the banks and private companies (the same play book Castro, Chavez, Ortega, Stalin uses(ed) with the plan of swaying public opinion in his favor in order to gain more power and eventually socialize these and many other institutions. It was the American people who have forced his hand and none save the people who have halted his socialist agenda. It amazes me how people choose not to see what is really happening because the promises and the message are so alluring.

BTW, doesn't MA already have it's hands in the health insurance cookie jar already thanks to Mitt Romney? And tell me exactly how the president is acting more like a republican??????? WHAT??????? Some of what he is saying is Republican-esk, but his actions are the exact opposite. He just eloquently says what is needed to to be said to disarm his opponents before gutting them. Having said this, I was excited he was president as I hoped he would further polarize our country and put us into action. He's done well so far and finally see a glimmer of hope returning in some ways here in the US. I do not see much progress regarding the moral decay of our people however.

sputnic1 wrote:BTW, doesn't MA already have it's hands in the health insurance cookie jar already thanks to Mitt Romney? And tell me exactly how the president is acting more like a republican??????? WHAT??????? Some of what he is saying is Republican-esk, but his actions are the exact opposite. He just eloquently says what is needed to to be said to disarm his opponents before gutting them. Having said this, I was excited he was president as I hoped he would further polarize our country and put us into action. He's done well so far and finally see a glimmer of hope returning in some ways here in the US. I do not see much progress regarding the moral decay of our people however.

One of the articles I saw recently was the following:

In his State of the Union address last night, President Obama urged the Senate to adopt pay-as-you-go rules (PAYGO), which essentially stipulate that all spending increases will be offset by either cuts elsewhere or tax increases. “When the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s,” Obama said.
Today, the Senate followed through, and considering all of the deficit fearmongering that has been going on in Congress, you’d think that it would have passed by a fairly wide margin. But no. Instead, the rules passed on a party line vote of 60-40.

And the blanket Republican opposition is particularly interesting considering that some Senate Republicans used to support PAYGO, even when it was opposed by their own party.

And I really have a hard time understanding why Republicans-in a block-voted "no"

It’s called "Paygo,"short for pay-as-you-go, shouldn't it fit into fiscal responsibility. Fiscal conservatives anyone?

If the current President really want pay as you go, why is the budget he is sending to Congress double that of previous years? Half of it to be borrowed?

Why borrow when you are the reserve currency and can print physically and digitally. The faster we can get this Ponzu scheme and smoke and mirrors over with, the sooner we can rebuild. And for those who believe the bullshit numbers from the government and continue to get caught up in the right-left Demopublican show, I recommend a credible alternative analysis of the numbers at http://www.shadowstats.com/

OK enough of that spew, what about PIÑERA, the new Prez of CHILE, and what it means for CHILE and EXPATS IN CHILE

Zenth wrote:If the current President really want pay as you go, why is the budget he is sending to Congress double that of previous years? Half of it to be borrowed?

Double? Which year?

2011 United States federal budget - $3.83 trillion (submitted 2010 by President Obama)
2010 United States federal budget - $3.55 trillion (submitted 2009 by President Obama)
2009 United States federal budget - $3.10 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)

Oh, I see-double Clinton's 2001 budget. Agreed. The US spends way too much money.

2008 United States federal budget - $2.90 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
2007 United States federal budget - $2.77 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
2006 United States federal budget - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
2005 United States federal budget - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
2004 United States federal budget - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
2003 United States federal budget - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
2002 United States federal budget - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
2001 United States federal budget - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
2000 United States federal budget - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
1999 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
1998 United States federal budget - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
1997 United States federal budget - $1.63 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)

I really want to know why it isn't a good idea to "pay as you go".

You aren't "paying as you go" if you have to borrow or create money by printing it. Pay as you go refers to spending what you earn, not more. The expression seems to have been adjusted somewhat to fit the situation and the political climate.