Oldschool Swedm Appreciation Thread

Knowing lots of Swedes, including one who is in healthcare, I can tell you that their system, just like their oldschool death metal for the most part is superior to ours.
 
ugh...

(Keep in mind I think the plan itself isn't really all that bad. When I said ridiculous I meant fiscally irresponsible, relatively threatening to future deficits and downright stupid and backwards in its implementation, especially regarding restrictions on existing institutions and funding. Basically: Fine plan (on a liberal agenda), awful timing.

Over $1 trillion needed for funding. Seriously, where is this money going to come from? Adding $1 trillion to your deficit, while debt surges far beyond record levels ($11.6 trillion, currently), and expecting the program to be a decade long investment is NOT what the Obama administration should be focused on at this moment in time. I don’t know if anyone has ever told him that heavy fiscal spending + sluggish, unresponsive economy = large deficit, heavy inflation, weak dollar, especially with the majority of leading economic indicators realizing less than spectacular figures as the monthly reports file in. On top of this you don’t expect $635 billion of your $1 trillion needed for the down payment to come in the form of tax hikes and spending cuts across the health care systems while your economy is experiencing the WORST ECONOMIC CONDITIONS SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION. The rest of the funding comes from $313 billion in cuts from Medicare and Medicaid (over 10 years), and $200 billion in federal payment cuts to hospitals. It doesn’t take a genius to understand why his popularity fell below 50% this morning.

Love how he is cutting spending for defensive medicines that help doctors protect against malpractice suits, which has crippled the orthopedics industry for decades. Once again it’s the business that is evil and the government won’t let them hurt the poor old blue collar Joe America. You don’t fund a reform which will hurt private institutions and discourage sector stimulation by taking money from those same institutions you’ll be stealing business from. Fucking backwards shit!
 
Health care in the US will never be what it should. It is not even care, just service. Insurance companies will find a way to try and not provide insurance for something you need.
 
Well, our deficit wouldn't have been as big as it was if we weren't out in the desert for almost a decade dying on a lie. Let's make sure that's clear. ;)

Honestly, I'm not really an economist like you are Don, but I can't really think of too many positives that have come out of our corporate lifestyle. This whole Reaganist, "greed is good" mantra that we've been spewing for 20 years sickens me. When corporations like Walmart and shit get where they are today, we're supposed to stand back and applaud capitalism at work. It's stupid/bullshit.

And don't get me wrong, I'm absolutely for industry and making money and all that fun stuff, but ever since Reagan (and I've even seen very convincing arguments that claim that this has been going on since WW2, really) corporate America has gotten out of control. If anything, I'm glad that we're in this economic situation and I want to see these companies fucking crumble so we can start anew. Earlier last month, I saw the dude who was on Colbert last week, Douglas Rushkoff, give a lecture at a bookstore. Shit was unbelievable and basically nailed my sentiments 100%. I'd rather not get into everything he said, but: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/238643/july-15-2009/douglas-rushkoff

His lecture was 100 x better than this, but it gives you an idea.

Anyways, I know that this post doesn't really have to do much with Health Care and is just a rant. In some ways, I do agree with your concerns Don, but in others I really don't give two shits about what happens to our economy.
 
Sorry to jump on the 'Pound Don's Ass With Fiscal Cock' bandwagon, but...

I don’t know if anyone has ever told him that heavy fiscal spending + sluggish, unresponsive economy = large deficit, heavy inflation, weak dollar, especially with the majority of leading economic indicators realizing less than spectacular figures as the monthly reports file in.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm a crazy person, but a lot of economists seem to think that reigning in spending is actually what caused the Great Depression and Japan's fiscal crisis in the early 90's to last so long.

"After slumping early in the decade, Japan experienced a partial recovery, with the economy growing almost 3 percent in 1996. Policy makers responded by shifting their focus to the budget deficit, raising taxes and cutting spending. Japan proceeded to slide back into recession. "

from my good man, el krugmanno: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1
 
Aeonic, I'm not against the democratic economic approach, or agreeing with the corporate lifestyle. Corporate greed is absolutely disgusting, unregulated, and uncontrollable at this point. Check out the Bernie Madoff situation if you haven't already. What a crazy fuck. He personally wiped thousands of life savings completely away in the snap of a finger. Insurance companies, while destitute in their own respect, are not what I'm getting at. Neither are companies like Wal-Mart or corporate giants that fuck middle America and represent the very things that our government tries to protect against. All I was trying to say, was that in this specific reform, the matter in which the Obama administration is achieving its long term goals (which appear to be sustainable if done correctly and not overtly to satisfy a target customer) hurts the very demographic it is trying to augment and sustain. It's hypocritical, and harmful to small and mid-size practices, ESPECIALLY now, the worst possible time to be straining small or young businesses. Obama is pushing political agenda at the forefront as a backlash to the decade of bullshit that Bush set in place. Fix the health care system, just don't do it now.

Also, politicians shouldn't be involved in business, for better or for worse. Put limitations and regulate, but don't willingly look to your SENATOR to know how to restructure the corporate makeup of GM. All Congressmen do is live to get reelected, and always act in their own best interest or in a manner that is popular, however dumb it may be. While I think Hank Paulson is similar in appearance and attitude to the devil, it's pathetic to have him testify in court and explain his rational decisions to a bunch of ignorant congressman that just want to make the other side look bad.

Gadlor, you're right. Reigning in spending does cause problems, which was the point of my post. While a shift in fiscal focus may have caused the Great Depression and Japan's lengthy recovery, the situation in the US has been completely different from his 2 "examples", one that occurred nearly a century ago and offers nearly no resemblance to the global credit crisis. Our spending wasn't the kind of spending that is supposed to increase AD. This spending was the "oh shit let's not fall off the face of the earth" "stimulus" (hence, BAILOUT, not stimulative at all). Something had to be done though, and at the time everyone was way too panicked. Policy was the problem. This act was win, then became suck. Coulda changed mark to market earlier, called for a freeze on trading of mortgage backed securities, and took a step back and say "ok holy shit, let's not let this get any more out of hand". Instead, all we did was let it burst, then throw hundreds of billions out the window because there were few alternatives. You want a stimulus package? Get Horgh to go door to door in his WWE black metal garb commanding people to buy TVs.
 
This spending was the "oh shit let's not fall off the face of the earth" "stimulus" (hence, BAILOUT, not stimulative at all).
Click to expand...

What I think you're referring to is the TARP bill and spending, as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008

That's the one where we pump loads of cash into AIG and other banks, buy the hell out of their troubled assets - and hope the values of those assets rise and try to make a profit on them. Somehow. Considering the rapidity with which some banks have paid back these loans, it seems like the number of troubled assets may not have been as hellacious as originally suspected - at least from a banker's point of view. From a homeowner's point of view this bill didn't do diddly, and the situation still sucks.

What I was actually talking about is the stimulus bill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

which does resemble New Deal spending. Admittedly it's been really fucking slow to come to fruition - I hear something like 10% will be spent in 2009. A lot of states are reluctant to use the money since it's not going to be renewable. I would like to see more focused spending in this bill - I think TARP was a waste of a lot of $$$. Especially the way it was implemented - it takes the banks entirely off the hook and puts the burden entirely on the taxpayer.

I'm not sure if you mixed up the bills or if you think the Recovery act was useless - or if you meant the TARP crap. Lemme know, I'm curious.

I would just plow most of that money into infrastructure, education, energy and science and not use as much on tax relief. The return on investment for education is insane and I don't understand why more money wasn't put aside.

Well, I actually do. And it has to do with another point you made:

All Congressmen do is live to get reelected, and always act in their own best interest or in a manner that is popular, however dumb it may be.
Click to expand...

You're absofuckinglutely correct on this one. Congressmen and Representatives have SO little interest in the long term health of our nation. It boggles my fucking mind. It's almost exactly like CEO's reaping temporary gains by making fiscally irresponsible decisions and then jumping ship. All they have to do is dither around and make it seem as if they're doing an okay, acceptable job. They're not willing to make any tough choices or actually change anything - their loyalty is to their own job and not to the United States, however much fucking flagwaving they do. I actually feel decent about the Rep for my area - you may have seen his ugly mug on TV, Barney Frank - but some of these guys are just huge dillweeds and if I could challenge them on in one-to-one combat to depose them, I would. :oops:

Don does have a point that doesn't make a lot of sense to me intuitively - in general, it seems that cutting tax rates on most companies actually increases tax revenue. It doesn't look like they've hit a point yet where tax revenue decreases when tax rates go down. I kind of want to look into this more, because it was relayed to me by a coworker - a very smart one, but I'm still not 100% convinced. In general though I'd say, fine, keep corporate taxes lower if that increases revenue, but I think that perhaps a higher capital gains tax for individuals - and not corporations - is in order. It's pretty obvious to me, after just a little bit of thought about the stock market, is that the only way to really make money in the United States is to already have a shit-ton of it. If I sit here today and put $1000 in some stock, and it goes up 2%, I get $20 (if I sell). If I plow 100k, I get 2k. If I had 100k to play with I could just sit here reaping profits all day long - buy the shit I like when it's down, sell it when it's high, repeat the cycle over and over. Chances are you'll make a lot in a hurry. Once you get past a certain tipping point of wealth, it's essentially self-generating. And those individuals who are past that point, I don't really have much problem with a higher tax rate for them. Sure, corporations want to re-invest in their infrastructure, but I just don't see individual capital gains as a right for the extremely wealthy.

Just my .02. I'm willing to re-evaluate my position on better info. :Smokin:
 
Gadlor said:
What I think you're referring to is the TARP bill and spending, as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008

That's the one where we pump loads of cash into AIG and other banks, buy the hell out of their troubled assets - and hope the values of those assets rise and try to make a profit on them. Somehow. Considering the rapidity with which some banks have paid back these loans, it seems like the number of troubled assets may not have been as hellacious as originally suspected - at least from a banker's point of view. From a homeowner's point of view this bill didn't do diddly, and the situation still sucks.

What I was actually talking about is the stimulus bill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

which does resemble New Deal spending. Admittedly it's been really fucking slow to come to fruition - I hear something like 10% will be spent in 2009. A lot of states are reluctant to use the money since it's not going to be renewable. I would like to see more focused spending in this bill - I think TARP was a waste of a lot of $$$. Especially the way it was implemented - it takes the banks entirely off the hook and puts the burden entirely on the taxpayer.

I'm not sure if you mixed up the bills or if you think the Recovery act was useless - or if you meant the TARP crap. Lemme know, I'm curious.
Click to expand...


Lol sorry no I have been specifically referring to the TARP, as well as funds allocated to help failing businesses when shit was hitting the fan (still going on, GM, maybe United soon (again)). For some reason when I think of stimulus spending in my mind I'm referring to active, short term plans. The act itself seems part of a much more responsible, albeit controversial, less stupid approach that runs parallel to the ridiculous, outrageous spending going on in recent months. You're right when you say that only a percentage is going to be spent in 2009. I want to say it's more like 20 though, but that's just what I remember from late night drunken library paper sessions last spring. My criticisms were directed at the immediate emergency stimulus spending, which was a total waste. Only time will tell if comparisons can be drawn with the Obama administration's stimulus ACT to something like the New Deal, though my argument about fiscal focus was directed at the TARP, the bill, the GM bailout, and the new health care proposal, adding over 2 trillion in debt. To compare an the situation of an unprecedented, MASSIVE, extremely short term dumping of debt to the fiscal focus of recovering Japan in the 90s is an irrelevant comparison, since environments of the two were stark in contrast. That's all I was trying to say, didn't mean to sound like a dick.

Gadlor said:
I would just plow most of that money into infrastructure, education, energy and science and not use as much on tax relief. The return on investment for education is insane and I don't understand why more money wasn't put aside.

Well, I actually do. And it has to do with another point you made:



You're absofuckinglutely correct on this one. Congressmen and Representatives have SO little interest in the long term health of our nation. It boggles my fucking mind. It's almost exactly like CEO's reaping temporary gains by making fiscally irresponsible decisions and then jumping ship. All they have to do is dither around and make it seem as if they're doing an okay, acceptable job. They're not willing to make any tough choices or actually change anything - their loyalty is to their own job and not to the United States, however much fucking flagwaving they do. I actually feel decent about the Rep for my area - you may have seen his ugly mug on TV, Barney Frank - but some of these guys are just huge dillweeds and if I could challenge them on in one-to-one combat to depose them, I would. :oops:

Don does have a point that doesn't make a lot of sense to me intuitively - in general, it seems that cutting tax rates on most companies actually increases tax revenue. It doesn't look like they've hit a point yet where tax revenue decreases when tax rates go down. I kind of want to look into this more, because it was relayed to me by a coworker - a very smart one, but I'm still not 100% convinced. In general though I'd say, fine, keep corporate taxes lower if that increases revenue, but I think that perhaps a higher capital gains tax for individuals - and not corporations - is in order. It's pretty obvious to me, after just a little bit of thought about the stock market, is that the only way to really make money in the United States is to already have a shit-ton of it. If I sit here today and put $1000 in some stock, and it goes up 2%, I get $20 (if I sell). If I plow 100k, I get 2k. If I had 100k to play with I could just sit here reaping profits all day long - buy the shit I like when it's down, sell it when it's high, repeat the cycle over and over. Chances are you'll make a lot in a hurry. Once you get past a certain tipping point of wealth, it's essentially self-generating. And those individuals who are past that point, I don't really have much problem with a higher tax rate for them. Sure, corporations want to re-invest in their infrastructure, but I just don't see individual capital gains as a right for the extremely wealthy.

Just my .02. I'm willing to re-evaluate my position on better info. :Smokin:
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Except the money part. Lol if you can get 2% a trade day-trading 8/10 times I'll PM you my bank account number :loco:. Plus you have to factor in fees and the times that you're WRONG. Still, I agree with what you're saying. Oh, and if you want a laugh: HA . Thought this was funny considering this little debate. Gov = evil, lawyers = evil, banks = evil. nice.
 
That's all I was trying to say, didn't mean to sound like a dick.
Click to expand...

:loco: No worries donnyboy, you are an intelligent and well-spoken individuallllll. you did not come across as such.

As per the new health care proposal...I think it's actually likely to not increase debt as much as is the hysteria. A lot of people are all "OMG UNIVERSAL COVERAGE" but it looks like Obama is doing a lot of work with the more fiscally conservative Democrats (especially as of today) to do some sorts of cost-analysis of treatments (as in, are they effective? or are they just expensive bullshit, like the thousands of cancer screenings that actually seem to do more harm than good :err: and MRIs and suchforth). also doctors are paid by procedure and not by outcome which is also gay, dontchaknow. noone gives my company money for attempting to make software that works. admittedly, people can die despite our best science but there is no point that we should pay for expensive treatments merely because they're expensive (useless otherwise).

maybe i'm a little off on my day-trading ideas. :) but if you pick a stock that has any kind of fluctuation and you dump enough cash into it, even if you can nail it with a .1 percent increase...momentarily..then you've got enoguh to cover your fees (with mad cash).

so...yeah...what's your routing number? :oops:
 
Gadlor said:
:loco: No worries donnyboy, you are an intelligent and well-spoken individuallllll. you did not come across as such.

As per the new health care proposal...I think it's actually likely to not increase debt as much as is the hysteria. A lot of people are all "OMG UNIVERSAL COVERAGE" but it looks like Obama is doing a lot of work with the more fiscally conservative Democrats (especially as of today) to do some sorts of cost-analysis of treatments (as in, are they effective? or are they just expensive bullshit, like the thousands of cancer screenings that actually seem to do more harm than good :err: and MRIs and suchforth). also doctors are paid by procedure and not by outcome which is also gay, dontchaknow. noone gives my company money for attempting to make software that works. admittedly, people can die despite our best science but there is no point that we should pay for expensive treatments merely because they're expensive (useless otherwise).

maybe i'm a little off on my day-trading ideas. :) but if you pick a stock that has any kind of fluctuation and you dump enough cash into it, even if you can nail it with a .1 percent increase...momentarily..then you've got enoguh to cover your fees (with mad cash).

so...yeah...what's your routing number? :oops:
Click to expand...

LOL. I'm up 25.64% on my "Insiders" port this year (comprising of stocks that insiders are buying heavily given their employers' expectations, and company performance). What's YOUR routing number? PM me and I'll give you a free subscription (no, srlsy). I'm glad that Obama embraced the move to act on the bill after the recess though. It needs some tinkering, and more than a few congressman pledged to pen a more effective, intelligent bill when Congress comes back. Good move.
 
...So...

Any fans of Grave in here? I just listened to their latest and it was a real disappointment. Seems like the only olschool Swedm band doing anything good nowadays is Dismember. :'(
 
AeonicSlumber said:
...So...

Any fans of Grave in here? I just listened to their latest and it was a real disappointment. Seems like the only olschool Swedm band doing anything good nowadays is Dismember. :'(
Click to expand...


Lots of good oldschool death bands from Sweden... following are active and up and coming!
Tribulation, Interment, Stench, Bombs of Hades, Maim, Invidious (Katalysator), Graveless, Tormented, Evocation, Morbus Chron and the mighty Kaamos and Internal Decay has reformed!

I'm a Grave fan, but only Into the Grave and You'll never see are worth listening to! =)
 
I thought the Tribulation album was pretty fun if I remember it correctly, I think I need to spin it again.

Evocation is fantastic, they are the only band I have heard recently that still have the brutal as fuck buzzsaw type riffage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

owen10se
The best metal-nation?
Replies
66
Views
3K
Amon Amarth
darkkiuban
D
E
my rabbits don't likes Skyfire
Replies
13
Views
404
Skyfire
Gadlor
G
S
Is Crimson II still "Swedish death metal?"
Replies
1
Views
426
Dan Swanö
Dan Swanö
D
Patric
Looking to trade away my death metal collection
Replies
2
Views
233
Trade / For Sale
wolf
W
Hammer of Might
Masters of Death Tour
Replies
26
Views
860
General Metal Discussion
Saparmurat_Niyazov
S
Top Bottom
Back