Politics

[chicago51]

I'm going home from work I'll back to respond to any respones at some point.

 

[GoIrish41]

The recession started in 06/07? My stocks were at record highs at that time.

According to Wikipedia (yeah I'm using Wikipedia) it started in December 2007.


A couple stories? lol

Isn't 07 in 06-07? Besides, it wasn't the stock market crash of 1929, there were cracks before the dam broke, your stocks notwithstanding.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Is that what they meant when they said "revenues are off the table" in the negotiations? Come on man, you don't believe that the GOP wants meaningful reform if they are saying sh*t like this in public. Obama has stated that he is willing to go against his party and talk about substanative entitlement reform, they don't want to negotiate for it. Instead, they throw a tantrum and threaten the economy just as it is getting ready to spring forward. They don't want a solution, they want the Dems to solve it on the backs of the middle class so the rich can keep more of their money.

I don't believe that at all. And, just to show the other side, why can't the Dems be saying in public they are all for reforming entitlements but stonewalling negotiations behind closed doors? You don't know it as fact one way or another more than I do. I don't trust what Fox news says or CNN or anyone for that matter since there isn't one unbiased news source out there.

I believe that the majority of R's want a pro-growth tax system and are willing to close loopholes like carried interest, like reduction of 2nd home mortgages, etc to bring down the rates overal. Really, you think Obama, after fighting tooth and nail to raise rates in Jan would agree to reduce them, to say, 30% even if it meant more revenue in the end? You think joe six pack really follows that? I don't.

 

[Downinthebend]

The only thing this chart shows is that for developed countries there is a correlation between higher GDP and lower gov't spending per GDP. That is, as the gov't spends less per GDP, its total GDP grows.

You can almost literally draw a straight line from Norway to the U.S.

Actually, you literally can draw a straight line -- all you need for a line is two points.

 

[Downinthebend]

I was responding to NDaccountant's point that Reagan's numbers might have been higher because of the Cold War. Having 2 "hot" wars is not considered when some talk about Obama. The ACA is actually designed to save money. Let's give it a chace beforw we automatically throw it in the garbage. Incidently, you reaction to the ACA does actually help my point.

Which of the two hot wars were declared as the constitution requires?

Also, I seriously doubt that ACA will save costs, but rather it will be used to justify more control over the industry, because those greedy health insurance/health care agencies keep raising their prices.

Seven million will lose insurance under Obama health law - Washington Times

ObamaCare's Triple-Digit Premium Hikes Dramatize the Need for Repeal | Cato @ Liberty

Obama Prepares To Screw His Base

 

[DSully1995]

Which of the two hot wars were declared as the constitution requires?

Also, I seriously doubt that ACA will save costs, but rather it will be used to justify more control over the industry, because those greedy health insurance/health care agencies keep raising their prices.

Seven million will lose insurance under Obama health law - Washington Times

ObamaCare's Triple-Digit Premium Hikes Dramatize the Need for Repeal | Cato @ Liberty

Obama Prepares To Screw His Base

ACA makes everyone buy health insurance, how woulkd this make 7 million people lose it? My biggest criticism with it is that insurance companies can now only base your rate off your location and your age, like what the hell, if i stay healthy I should be benefiting, not picking up the tab for people who make poor decisions

 

[GoIrish41]

I don't believe that at all. And, just to show the other side, why can't the Dems be saying in public they are all for reforming entitlements but stonewalling negotiations behind closed doors? You don't know it as fact one way or another more than I do. I don't trust what Fox news says or CNN or anyone for that matter since there isn't one unbiased news source out there.

I believe that the majority of R's want a pro-growth tax system and are willing to close loopholes like carried interest, like reduction of 2nd home mortgages, etc to bring down the rates overal. Really, you think Obama, after fighting tooth and nail to raise rates in Jan would agree to reduce them, to say, 30% even if it meant more revenue in the end? You think joe six pack really follows that? I don't.

I don't think it would mean more revenue in the end and I doubt he does either. If the Rs want a new comprehensive solution they shouldn't fall back on what we've been doing for the past 30 years. That was the central debate of the presidential election and the GOP lost. Yet, they continue to hold the government hostage during every one of these invented budget emergencies. I don't know what goes on behind closed doors, but I can clearly see what happens out in the open. The Rs are on the losing side of this argument and look like spoiled children who cannot admit they lost. The fact that they are digging their heels in will continue to cost them elections.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

ACA makes everyone buy health insurance, how woulkd this make 7 million people lose it? My biggest criticism with it is that insurance companies can now only base your rate off your location and your age, like what the hell, if i stay healthy I should be benefiting, not picking up the tab for people who make poor decisions

There are people losing their current coverage because of businesses now dropping health benefits. Or their current coverage isn't up to a certain new standard set.

 

[GoIrish41]

The new Time magazine has an article entitled Bitter Pill that talks about out-or-control charges in hospitals. The guy who wrote the article is on Hardball right now. Here's some examples: Box of Gauze, $77; Diabetes Test Strip, $18/each (I think they cost 60 cents normally); and 1 Tylenol Tablet, $1.50 (at 10,000% markup). All you guys claiming that Obamacare is the reason that healthcare prices are going up ought to read this article.

 

[Downinthebend]

There are people losing their current coverage because of businesses now dropping health benefits. Or their current coverage isn't up to a certain new standard set.

And, pray tell me, why are (a large amount of) businesses dropping coverages?

 

[RallySonsOfND]

The new Time magazine has an article entitled Bitter Pill that talks about out-or-control charges in hospitals. The guy who wrote the article is on Hardball right now. Here's some examples: Box of Gauze, $77; Diabetes Test Strip, $18/each (I think they cost 60 cents normally); and 1 Tylenol Tablet, $1.50 (at 10,000% markup). All you guys claiming that Obamacare is the reason that healthcare prices are going up ought to read this article.

If you think Obamacare is going to fix this, I got bad news for ya.

 

[GoIrish41]

If you think Obamacare is going to fix this, I got bad news for ya.

I don't think Obamacare is going to fix this. I do think that what is driving this country's financial difficulties is out of control medical costs. The author of the article said he looked at eight different hospital bills from patients who received large bills and he followed the money to figure out why, for example, a Tylenol costs $1.50 a tablet or why a medical procedure costs $1300. His premise is that at every step along the way -- the compensation of hospital administrators, pharm execs, insurance CEOs, etc. (all receiving compensation in the millions of dollars) -- makes the cost of medicine excessive.

This is not the fault of the ACA. Reversing a law that gives millions of people health insurance instead of correcting this problem is idiotic and cruel. It's easy to pile on Obamacare, but the real problem isn't that law. It is greed, plain and simple.

 

[Downinthebend]

I don't think Obamacare is going to fix this. I do think that what is driving this country's financial difficulties is out of control medical costs. The author of the article said he looked at eight different hospital bills from patients who received large bills and he followed the money to figure out why, for example, a Tylenol costs $1.50 a tablet or why a medical procedure costs $1300. His premise is that at every step along the way -- the compensation of hospital administrators, pharm execs, insurance CEOs, etc. (all receiving compensation in the millions of dollars) -- makes the cost of medicine excessive.

This is not the fault of the ACA. Reversing a law that gives millions of people health insurance instead of correcting this problem is idiotic and cruel. It's easy to pile on Obamacare, but the real problem isn't that law. It is greed, plain and simple.

So its greed, seems like an easy out. I disagree with you (I think the greed is more a symptom rather than the cause), (why couldn't all the markets get away with "greed" then? (I'd like to suggest that competition eliminates opportunity for "greed" unless there are monopolies (government enforced or otherwise) , it seems more likely that it is either a market force or a government force that is driving the costs).

Heres some food for though, unless you just want to stick with "greed".

Simply expanding coverage would have little effect on the quality of care, health disparities, or how long we live, nor would it stop free-riders from shifting costs to others. In fact, expanding coverage through government regulation or tax-and-transfer programs would make our problem worse.

Consider how we purchase health coverage. Every year, the average family of four spends thousands of dollars in taxes to fund care for others, and according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation, that family spends $11,000 for its own employer-controlled coverage.

More than 200 million Americans have public or employer-controlled coverage, and all are essentially purchasing it with someone else’s money. And that’s the problem: Americans demand more coverage than they would if they were spending their own money. In fact, we demand as much coverage as Canadians, for whom health care is supposed to be free. Both American and Canadian patients pay only about 14 cents for every dollar of medical care they consume.

Premiums soar

It should come as no surprise that health insurance premiums have risen 87% since 2000. Doctors and insurance companies can get away with charging high prices because their customers don’t bear the costs directly.

This isn’t some inevitable result of market forces, but of government programs and tax preferences for employer-controlled insurance. By rewarding employer-controlled coverage — and penalizing plans that stay with you from job to job — the government strips people of their health insurance when they need it most.

We don't pay for the costs with our own money, so we don't pay attention to the costs, as much as we would otherwise.
Fix Health Care by Making Americans Care About Costs | Cato Institute

 

[RallySonsOfND]

It is greed, plain and simple.

You need to read "I, Pencil" by Leonard Reed.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I don't think Obamacare is going to fix this. I do think that what is driving this country's financial difficulties is out of control medical costs. The author of the article said he looked at eight different hospital bills from patients who received large bills and he followed the money to figure out why, for example, a Tylenol costs $1.50 a tablet or why a medical procedure costs $1300. His premise is that at every step along the way -- the compensation of hospital administrators, pharm execs, insurance CEOs, etc. (all receiving compensation in the millions of dollars) -- makes the cost of medicine excessive.

This is not the fault of the ACA. Reversing a law that gives millions of people health insurance instead of correcting this problem is idiotic and cruel. It's easy to pile on Obamacare, but the real problem isn't that law. It is greed, plain and simple.

If it doesn't correct the problem, what exactly did the ACA do? Access? Only in name only. If you think Joe Six pack is going to have the same access as Mr Banker, you are mistaken. I liken it to car insurance. Safe Auto is technically insured, but policies thru Travelers really give you the benefits of insurance. The average Joe is not going to want to pay/can pay for Travelers, so SA it is. You feel secure until you realize that what you have isn't worth sh*t and that is usually the time you need it.

 

[chicago51]

It will be a single payor. Governmetn will eventually force all private companies outta biz.

When you have an endless supply of money to burn, you will force your competitiors (the ones that actually rely on doing business for a living) out of biz.

Not necessarily but it will force them to keep cost low. The public option would be a very basic bare bones package. Private insurances can earn business by offering either supplemental insurance like they do now for Medicare and offer insurance with choices and more options than the patient.

All I hear is that private sector can do things better than government. So the private insurances should be able to give the people that can afford it a better more versatile package that they will want to stay with their private coverage.

The public option is not going be done at loss. It design to be done for cost including administrative cost so the government is not going selling insurance at a loss just to put the private sector out business. It is designed to reduce the deficit and taking a loss would not do that.

 

[Buster Bluth]

All I hear is that private sector can do things better than government. So the private insurances should be able to give the people that can afford it a better more versatile package that they will want to stay with their private coverage.

It's the government's job to ensure that optimal competition is forcing the private sector to deliver the best product to the people. It's not the government's job to get into the arena outside of subsidies for the very poor and disabled, and to help fund research. That's about it.

The public option is not going be done at loss. It design to be done for cost including administrative cost so the government is not going selling insurance at a loss just to put the private sector out business. It is designed to reduce the deficit and taking a loss would not do that.

This sounds familiar...

sorta like with every government program since the beginning of god damn time.

 

[chicago51]

I do find it ridiculous that government subsidises junk food and has virtually no subsidises for fruits and vegetables. If we got more people eating right by making the good food cheaper and not the bad food I assume it would save in health care cost over time.

Why is Junk Food Being Subsidized??? - Food Integrity Campaign

Although rich people at times chose to eat lots of junk food by choice so who knows?

 

[RallySonsOfND]

I do find it ridiculous that government subsidises junk food and has virtually no subsidises for fruits and vegetables. If we got more people eating right by making the good food cheaper and not the bad food I assume it would save in health care cost over time.

Why is Junk Food Being Subsidized??? - Food Integrity Campaign

Although rich people at times chose to eat lots of junk food by choice so who knows?

IMO we shouldn't be subsidizing anything. Nothing, Zero, Nada.

 

[Black Irish]

I do find it ridiculous that government subsidises junk food and has virtually no subsidises for fruits and vegetables. If we got more people eating right by making the good food cheaper and not the bad food I assume it would save in health care cost over time.

Why is Junk Food Being Subsidized??? - Food Integrity Campaign

Although rich people at times chose to eat lots of junk food by choice so who knows?

Big Ag corporations get plenty of subsidies. And a week's worth of apples still costs less than a week's worth of potato chips.

 

[Buster Bluth]

IMO we shouldn't be subsidizing anything. Nothing, Zero, Nada.

The result wouldn't be anything like what you think it would be.

 

[Buster Bluth]

A good piece on China from Ted Koppel:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1fT2E5VwrWs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Even Koppel subtly admits there really is no solution to globalization. It's progress through pain, any way you slice it.

 

[chicago51]

A good piece on China from Ted Koppel:

Even Koppel subtly admits there really is no solution to globalization. It's progress through pain, any way you slice it.

There is no "solution" but I think the United States can and has been doing things in recent years to make manufacturing in the United States a better option. Plus there have been factors mostly coincidence because technology and resources, and a few because the adminstration like the push for natural gas. Plus China is slowly becoming like the US in the late stages of our industrial revoluation when wages slowly began to rise.

I actually think the price of oil might end up saving manufacturing in this country.

The Insourcing Boom - Charles Fishman - The Atlantic

•Oil prices are three times what they were in 2000, making cargo-ship fuel much more expensive now than it was then.
•The natural-gas boom in the U.S. has dramatically lowered the cost for running something as energy-intensive as a factory here at home. (Natural gas now costs four times as much in Asia as it does in the U.S.)
•In dollars, wages in China are some five times what they were in 2000—and they are expected to keep rising 18 percent a year.
•American unions are changing their priorities. Appliance Park’s union was so fractious in the ’70s and ’80s that the place was known as “Strike City.” That same union agreed to a two-tier wage scale in 2005—and today, 70 percent of the jobs there are on the lower tier, which starts at just over $13.50 an hour, almost $8 less than what the starting wage used to be.
•U.S. labor productivity has continued its long march upward, meaning that labor costs have become a smaller and smaller proportion of the total cost of finished goods. You simply can’t save much money chasing wages anymore.

I actually see reasons for being optimistic in terms of manufacturing. Plus one of the sayings I use and try to live by I is that "Despair is not an Option" if you don't like something fight for change.

 

[irishpat183]

IMO we shouldn't be subsidizing anything. Nothing, Zero, Nada.

THANK YOU!


Look at what government has done to corn farming....

 

[potownhero]

Spending is kind of like that but not investing.

When build a bomb. Yea there is a temporary job increase. After you drop that bomb though you get nothing back.

Now you rebuild (which has to be done at some point all we are doing is putting it off) and update your critical infastructure. That investment is going reused by the citizens over and over.

For exampe when the United States built the transcontinental railroad. It set the staging ground for the industrial revoluation in the United States. We recovered every single dollar we went on the transcontinental railroad and then some.

How is it that the Railroad Act that financed the railroads in the 1860's led to the "Industrial Revolution" that occurred earlier in the century?

Also the trying to stay high forver point does not necessarily apply. If demand in the economy picks up you will not have to spend as much plus you will be getting more revenue back in return.

You say your initial investments generates X amount of new jobs. Well those people with new jobs are going spend their money on goods and services in the economy. When that happens business are going to have to meet that increased demand. They are going hire more people, buy more raw materials, and that means more delivery drivers. So that means more new jobs that means more people spending money and the cycle contiunes.

Now if you cut back when their is no growth. Then that jobs loss means less demand. Less demand means less hiring or even law offs. That means even less demand. Suddenly the cycle is headed the wrong direction.

Like I've noted to you in the past, maybe we should have a "productivity" based model.

Also when less people are working what does it mean? Less taxes. Less taxes mean higher deficits and if you are following the austerity plan that means more cutting back. Hence more job loss, less demand, more job loss, less taxes and the cycle continues.

The narrative in the United States national media has been all about the debt. We need to be talking about jobs. If the 1990s taught Americans anything is that the fastest way to shrink the deficit is a booming economy.

Awesome again, let's have half the country digging holes and the other half filling them in. That'll work really well. Everyone has a job, right? Utopia!

Your simple level of thinking is so frustrating.

 

[chicago51]

Its all just one big coincidence.

Presidential Data

Since World War 2, 55,794,000 jobs have been created under Democratic Presidents, while 38,256,000 jobs have been created under Republican Presidents
Jobs have grown an average of twice as fast annually under Democratic Presidents than under Republican Presidents
Nine of the last ten recessions have occurred under Republican presidents.
Republican presidents' deficits are twice as large as Democrats' and nearly twice as high as a percent of GDP.
GDP grows 52% faster under Democratic presidents.
Businesses invest more than two times as much under Democratic presidents.

Data compiled here come from official government sources such as Statistical Abstracts of the United States, the Economic Reports of the President, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For more information and data, see Presidential Data. Contact: Jere Glover, 21st Century Democrats, 2120 L Street NW, Suite 305, Washington, D.C. 20037. Phone: 202.628.0100

DEMOCRATS AND ECONOMIC GROWTHThis data is compiled by offsetting a President's Administration by a year to account for the fact that the Federal budget for any given fiscal year is drafted and passed in the previous calendar year. For example, 1993's budget was drafted and passed in 1992, during the Bush administration, so that year is ascribed to President Bush, even though President Clinton was in office in 1993.

One exception has been made: 2009's ARRA was drafted and passed by the Obama administration, creating $114 billion of Federal outlays for 2009. That amount has been subtracted from President Bush II's 2009 budget/deficit total and added to President Obama's.

Since World War II . . .

Almost twice as many jobs are created per year under Democratic Presidents than Republican Presidents (1.8 million jobs under Democratic Presidents versus one million jobs under Republican Presidents.)

The deficit under Republican Presidents has been more than twice as large as the under Democratic Presidents. In dollars, Republican Presidents have contributed nearly $4 trillion more to the national debt than Democratic Presidents.

GDP growth has been 52% higher under Democratic Presidents.

Business Investment Growth has been 165% higher under Democratic Presidents.
Unemployment has been 23% higher under Republican Presidents.

Average increase in weekly earnings have been 107.5% higher under Democratic Presidents

Nine of the last ten recessions have occurred under Republican Presidents (www.nber.org/cycles.html)

JOB GROWTH

Democratic Presidents have created 17.5 million more jobs than Republican Presidents, and jobs have grown nearly twice as fast under Democratic Presidents as under Republican Presidents.

Total jobs created under Democratic Presidents: 55,794,000
Total jobs created under Republican Presidents: 38,256,000
Average jobs gained per year under Democratic Presidents: 1,830,000
Average jobs gained per year under Republican Presidents: 1,063,000

GDP GROWTH

Real Gross Domestic Product growth under Democratic Presidents has been 52% higher than during Republican Presidents.

Average real GDP growth under Democratic Presidents: +4%
Average real GDP growth under Republican Presidents: +2.63%

BUSINESS INVESTMENT GROWTH

Real business investment growth under Democratic Presidents has been 165% higher than under Republican Presidents.

Average growth under Democratic Presidents: +6.3%
Average growth under Republican Presidents: +2.76%

FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICITS

Federal budget deficits under Republican Presidents are 100% higher than under Democratic Presidents (as a percentage of GDP, Republican Presidents have been 90% higher than Democratic Presidents).

Total Democratic Budget Deficit: $3,887.6 billion
Total Republican Budget Deficit: $7,807.2 billion

Average deficit under Democratic Presidents: 2.1% of GDP
Average deficit under Republican Presidents: 3.98% of GDP

UNEMPLOYMENT

Unemployment under Republican Presidents has been 23% higher than under Democratic Presidents.

Average unemployment under Democratic Presidents: 5.06%
Average unemployment under Republican Presidents: 6.23%

GROWTH IN SPENDING

Federal Spending has increased twice as fast under Republican Presidents than under Democratic Presidents

Democratic Presidents' annual spending increased by an average of $35.3 billion per year
Republican Presidents' annual spending increased by an average of $70 billion per year

BALANCE OF TRADE

Trade deficits under Republican Presidents have been 116% higher than under Democratic Presidents.

Total trade deficit under Democratic Administrations (in millions): $2,695,994
Total trade deficit under Republican Administrations (in millions): $5,828,385

STOCK MARKET

The Stock Market under Democratic Presidents has grown 200% faster under Democratic Presidents than under Republican Presidents.

Average yearly growth in Stock Market returns under Democratic Presidents: +1.92%
Average yearly growth in Stock Market returns under Republican Presidents: +0.64%
Among the Best Presidents or the Worst, in Economic Terms - Graphic - NYTimes.com

For more detailed information and specific sources, click on the topics above. You can download the full document here. Footnotes for all documents can be downloaded here.

Most Sources from: Statistical Abstract of the United States; 1992-2011 Economic Reports of the President, Congressional Budget Office, Bureau of Labor Statistics, all data since World War II.

 

[potownhero]

So with the sequester here's how it works out.

The President (on record) wanted budget cuts (Really?) and tax hikes on the wealthy. The Republicans refused to negotiate, so he only got half of what he wanted, but half a victory is better than none.

But the President already increased taxes on most Americans when he signed the tax bill passed around New Year

The Republicans wanted the President and the Democrats to get nothing.....oops.
Again, he already got tax increases - did you forget or just not know?

The tax hikes on the wealthy will just be delayed until next year when the republicans lose their majority, and they'll be higher too.

The wealthy should have been begging the republicans to negotiate.

Did the President tell us which nation ever taxed its way to prosperity? If so, I must have missed it.

 

[chicago51]

Awesome again, let's have half the country digging holes and the other half filling them in. That'll work really well. Everyone has a job, right? Utopia!

Your simple level of thinking is so frustrating.

We have actually work that can and needs to be done. We wouldn't be just digging holes.

1- Fix our many outdated roads and bridges

2- Transportation (High Speed Rail) - Having an outdated rail structure is going to put us behind in the global economy.

3- Modernizing our Power - If even if you don't believe in climate change. Even if you do not believe that anything we did would make a difference. When other coutries like say China are producing more and more electricity from cheaper and renewable sources of energy it is going put us behind the global economy if we don't keep up.

4- Better fiberoptic internet network- Our broadband is alright. However other countries are better. South Korea just put in a new fiberoptic network it has done wonders for business. Plus the network is can be used by anyone not just the private company that built, so high speed internet in places like Europe, Japan, South Korea is way cheeper than in the United States.

If people don't think having good roads and bridges that are all up to code, having a rail transit system that can efficently move people, materials, and equipment, having sources of energy that is not going to be effected by the price of the oil, and having a state of the ark telecommunication and internet network is going help business then I can't help you.

How would anything I mentioned not benefit business?

 

[chicago51]

Did the President tell us which nation ever taxed its way to prosperity? If so, I must have missed it.

United States of American 1932-1979.

Also 1898-1920.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

^Wish lists are meaningless until you analyze costs.