Warrior General Games

Originally posted by glbisthewaytobe
I really don't mind paying taxes at all. I just like that system because when I went to college at ndsu that was what north dakota was doing. It doesn't fuck with your paycheck all that much and you pay for your involvement in society. North Dakota is a well run state, and fargo is a gorgeous metro area.

What amazes me most about North Dakota in terms of govt is the state bank. I look at it and say to myself, if such a deep red state can have a state bank, why can't other states, especially the blue states? You've got almost 100 years of data illustrating the benefits of a state-run bank there, and yet no other state has created their own.

Why can't we have good things like ND??

~~~

North Dakota is the very definition of a red state. It voted 58 percent to 39 percent for Romney over Obama, and its statehouse and senate have a total of 104 Republicans and only 47 Democrats. The Republican super-majority is so conservative it recently passed the nation's most severe anti-abortion resolution – a measure that declares a fertilized human egg has the same right to life as a fully formed person.

But North Dakota is also red in another sense: it fully supports its state-owned Bank of North Dakota (BND), a socialist relic that exists nowhere else in America. Why is financial socialism still alive in North Dakota? Why haven't the North Dakotan free-market crusaders slain it dead?

Because it works.

http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/why-socialism-doing-so-darn-well-deep-red-north-dakota

tldr: Conservatives got something really, really right in ND, Liberals not so much.

Originally posted by Lurchy

Because it works.

http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/why-socialism-doing-so-darn-well-deep-red-north-dakota


You realize that the articles description of "banking" is more of a Sesame Street telling of the tale, right? What they describe isn't *really* how "banks" and "that bank" operate. Its maybe somewhat in the same area code of how "banks" and "that bank" operate, but they bend so much of it to narrative to appeal to the "Gee, Golly!" crowd that it ends up being a disinformation piece.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

You realize that the articles description of "banking" is more of a Sesame Street telling of the tale, right? What they describe isn't *really* how "banks" and "that bank" operate. Its maybe somewhat in the same area code of how "banks" and "that bank" operate, but they bend so much of it to narrative to appeal to the "Gee, Golly!" crowd that it ends up being a disinformation piece.

State bank =/= commercial bank

Originally posted by Lurchy
State bank =/= commercial bank


It doesn't matter--neither entity is staffed by fairy godmothers and sainted accountants. The activity they describe borders on a fairy tale rather than a "let's look behind the scenes" expose.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

You realize that the articles description of "banking" is more of a Sesame Street telling of the tale, right? What they describe isn't *really* how "banks" and "that bank" operate. Its maybe somewhat in the same area code of how "banks" and "that bank" operate, but they bend so much of it to narrative to appeal to the "Gee, Golly!" crowd that it ends up being a disinformation piece.

I don't know if I liked that better, or Lurchy characterizing ND and/or a central bank as communist.

Originally posted by Larry Roadgrader

You realize that the articles description of "banking" is more of a Sesame Street telling of the tale, right? What they describe isn't *really* how "banks" and "that bank" operate. Its maybe somewhat in the same area code of how "banks" and "that bank" operate, but they bend so much of it to narrative to appeal to the "Gee, Golly!" crowd that it ends up being a disinformation piece.

Not really at all. As someone who lived there, this article did a pretty good job of generalizing how it operates. It wasn't super specific, but it wasn't disinformation. Just because it's not in line with you ideologically doesn't mean it isn't factual. North Dakota is probably one of the most well run states in the union fiscally. Need more help on the social end of the spectrum, but as far as finances go you'd be hard pressed to find a better system. I don't get why there aren't more states that look at what they do and copy/amend as necessary.

I was open minded to the ACA before it passed.

But once Obama said his plan was going to provide better care, eliminate higher premiums for pre-existing conditions and reduce healthcare costs overall.........I understood right there that President Obama really doesn't understand how "insurance" works or even worse if he actually knew how insurance works...then he is just lying. Given Obamas track record thus far....Ill go with he just doesn't know how insurance works.

In insurance you pay your premium based on "risk". Just like a smoker pays a higher premium on life insurance than a non-smoker, it because the smoker has a higher chance of dying sooner than a non-smoker. A preexisting condition like diabetes or aids, will require a higher premium to insure the "risk" of that person succumbing to illness more often....which lead to more medical bills that the insurer will have to pay.

Im not saying its fair.....but if it wasn't structured like that insurance companies couldn't operate, and there would be no insurance.

Therefore, eliminating preexisting conditions, providing better care and reducing cost to the consumer...is an oxymoron and cant happen unless the level of care goes down or costs get passed on to others (in ACA the others are the states and that states taxpayers).

Not trying to pick sides (been and independent for 20 years), just saying.

Originally posted by glbisthewaytobe
Not really at all. As someone who lived there, this article did a pretty good job of generalizing how it operates. It wasn't super specific, but it wasn't disinformation. Just because it's not in line with you ideologically doesn't mean it isn't factual. North Dakota is probably one of the most well run states in the union fiscally. Need more help on the social end of the spectrum, but as far as finances go you'd be hard pressed to find a better system. I don't get why there aren't more states that look at what they do and copy/amend as necessary.

I spent 9+ years as a Federal bank examiner. I promise you that neither that bank nor any other bank operates in the manner described in that article. Not because "oh, that's shocking" or "oh, that's communism!" but instead because "that's not how *money* works", and if you re-read the article with your OWN income-and-expenses in mind and then substituted it for the ND bank's income-and-expenses you would see that there are GAPING holes in this articles portrayal of how "banking" works. They might as well have been proclaiming that the coffee served in ND's lobbies is made from coffee beans picked off the lot out back of the building.

One other thing I thought was pretty funny when all the healthcare debate was going on.....Was how many people thought it was going to be "free" for everyone.

Now the penalties for not being enrolled are getting higher and higher each year, and for those enrolled in ACA and in private insurance the premiums keep going up.

I chuckle a bit now when a friend I know is complaining that his tax return check is getting smaller due to not being enrolled. pretty funny to hear him say "I guess I cant get that new TV now that my tax return, is being cut in half". This was the same person who was pounding the table about getting his "free" healthcare.

What was even worse was when he found out how much he was going to have to pay in premiums due to his income (which isnt very high 50K). He is stuck in limbo now as he makes to much for "free" health care, yet his personal spending habits make the premiums to expensive to afford.....

Another interesting dilemma is when a person who is getting "free" health care is in a position to get a pay raise. In my state a family of four has to make less thank 31k to get "free" health care. Therefore before someone can consider taking on a promotion or getting a higher paying job, they must first decide if the raise in income will offset the cost of now having to pay insurance premiums.

When something starts holding people back from personal growth and prosperity, I see a negative trickle down effect could transpire. Turning that job promotion down because it ends up being a net income loss due to having to pay higher health care costs, is a real conundrum.

Remember that premiums you pay for health care costs under the ACA scale based on income....so sometimes it not just the ones on "free" health care turning down opportunity due to the downside of making more money........"the downside of making more money"....wow that's no longer an oxymoron in the USA today. Pretty scary.

Uhm, I used that bank when I lived there. At the branch right off 13th ave. That is pretty much exactly how it operates. Sorry bro, but there isn't any misinformation in that article about how it operates.

What exactly in that article relating to the bnd isn't accurate. Please tell me.

In closing I look over the ACA since it passed for some friends ( I carry private insurance). Honestly the costs seemed to be fair to me. It was much cheaper than my private plan (but I have plans with very low deductables), and it was about 15% cheaper than my cousins group plan offered at his company ( however his premiums rose 25% since ACA passed).

So the way I look at it.....its like a big group plan and I think that was the idea.

It does provide lower income families with a low cost or free health plan, yet it sets stipulations to encourage then to remain a low income family.

It hurts upper income families by forcing them to help subsidize the insurance cost of the lower income families and im not opposed to paying a little more so those less fortunate than myself can have access to coverage.

The group it really stifles in my opinion is the middle class, those folks like my friend who make to much for free health care, but don't have enough disposable income to comfortably afford the premiums. It also sometimes makes families choose between working harder and making more money and keeping household expenses in control.

Like most laws this one is no different it either helps low income citizens or helps the upper class....and always affects the middle class most.

One poster also pointed out that many of the costs have been back loaded till after 2016 (I think) also the penalties for not having insurance go up dramatically after 2016 (2-3k per year). So I think we will all be a better judge of how the ACA is really affecting us will be in another 4-5 years.

Can we afford it one side say YES one side says NO....I say lets see.

I just can help myself I didn't know this forum was even here....lol

For all the people thinking government bureaucracy will manage health care better than a private company LOL.

Sure Government will make things "more fair" for some segments.....when your getting something for nothing whats not to like?!?

However there is just as much if not more wasted spending and opulent lifestyles within the public sector as there is in the private sector. The only real difference being is the bureaucrats are parading around as "civil servants" and the private sector folks are just open about being out for themselves. Which is worse the wolf or the wolf in sheep's clothing?!? Neither they are both wolfs.

Many people want to point out the US postal service or Amtrak as examples of government failing the people and why private sector is better at running things for profit, than the government who accepts break even as a win ( profits from government entities are pass back to the FED to help prop-up agencies that are un-profitable.

Lets face it some government agencies are not going to make a profit....... police, fire dept and schools come to mind. However do you know what a public school super attendant makes in FLA? $280,000 a year......after his retirement his publicly funded pension pay him 60% of that a year for the rest of his or her life ($196K a year).

The private sector got rid of pension plans in the late 70's for the most part because the were not sustainable and replaced them with contributor driven retirement plans like 401Ks. Where the person saving is responsible for managing there retirement assets. If the stock market goes down or the spend their money faster than they anticipate, that's on them......their not living off a 200k a year allowance for the rest of their life funded by the tax payer.

Compound the fact that many school unions game the pension system so that people are put into high paying jobs just long enough to "pad" their pension numbers then retire an put a new person in there to "pad" their numbers before retirement.

Originally posted by Longneck1845
I just can help myself I didn't know this forum was even here....lol




Welcome, or welcome back--whatever the case may be.