What I said...." The Fed has just taken one small step to acknowledging reality... and Zero Hedge's keyword of 2011: stagflation. "
Federal Reserve Lowers GDP, Raises Unemployment And Inflation Projections
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/federal-reserve-lowers-gdp-raises-unemployment-and-inflation-projections
I'm going to continue to holler for printing more money to fuel more projects (2 trillion) and pump the economy through the increase velocity of money throughout the economy. After all, the hoarders (tax cheats and upper %3 incomers) won't loosen up their purse strings.
Nice to see the fed is starting to come clean.
Recycled keyword you mean.
Same thing happened with Carter, just didn't take as long.
I have a feeling we will learn this lesson again, and again, and again until we either embrace socialism or throw the chains from our backs.
Help me out here. Wouldn't more dire economic projections affect our debt rating if we print more money?
Not being a smartass, I'm curious what sort of correlation there might be. Again, you know I have a tendency to apply micro concepts with macro reality. Just seems like going to the bank and telling them you need to borrow a million dollars when your pay just slipped from $200K to $50K per year and it's going to remain that way for years to come.
In addition, wouldn't printing $2 trillion more devalue the dollar which will also increase the price of oil which will in turn lead to more inflation, since the price of just about every consumer product and durable good is relative to the price of oil?
I am not sure that printing more money will have the desired effect. Cash hoarders are far broader than the 2 you mention but the end result is ther is NO velocity of money in our system. The primary mechanism for monetary velocity in our economy, the fractional banking system, is still fundementally broken and as such, additional money printing will do nothing but add to an already highly liquified system. We have never in our history had a banking system with the level of free reserves evident today. Monetarists are rightfully fearful of the potential inflationary impact of all this liquidity but in the absence of velocity we continue to suffer the effects of deflation...not inflation.
What the Fed is acknowledging in their statement is that in fact, they have done just about all they can and it will be fiscal policies from here that chart the future course.
In another thread WevsUs quoted a portion of Bill Gross' most recent monthly newsletter. The snippet quoted indicated a support of further govermental stimulus. As I read the entire piece though the interesting part, to me, was the type of additional "stimulus" Bill was calling for. To whit, "put a shovel in every man's (and woman's I suppose) hand that needs a job from 8 am to noon and then have them study in a classroom from 1 to 5 pm". I wonder how our populace would react to the requirement to do something good for society in order to recieve society's largesse?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 22, 2011, 02:29:55 PM
Help me out here. Wouldn't more dire economic projections affect our debt rating if we print more money?
Not being a smartass, I'm curious what sort of correlation there might be. Again, you know I have a tendency to apply micro concepts with macro reality. Just seems like going to the bank and telling them you need to borrow a million dollars when your pay just slipped from $200K to $50K per year and it's going to remain that way for years to come.
In addition, wouldn't printing $2 trillion more devalue the dollar which will also increase the price of oil which will in turn lead to more inflation, since the price of just about every consumer product and durable good is relative to the price of oil?
Tea is operating on the premise that you can prime the carburetor with cash and the engine will just take off. This is the primary flawed Keynsian concept. You have to simulate private sector confidence first. A cash bolus actually reduces confidence and the engine stalls immediately.
Compound that with a reduction in consumers (preliminary reports show that the private sector added only 83,000 jobs in May, compared with an average of 244,000 over the previous three months) and you have exactly as you predict. Devaluation with no return.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 22, 2011, 02:29:55 PM
Help me out here. Wouldn't more dire economic projections affect our debt rating if we print more money?
Not being a smartass, I'm curious what sort of correlation there might be. Again, you know I have a tendency to apply micro concepts with macro reality. Just seems like going to the bank and telling them you need to borrow a million dollars when your pay just slipped from $200K to $50K per year and it's going to remain that way for years to come.
In addition, wouldn't printing $2 trillion more devalue the dollar which will also increase the price of oil which will in turn lead to more inflation, since the price of just about every consumer product and durable good is relative to the price of oil?
bokworker, SCOTUS just took the shovel from Women's hands. >:(
NO, it wouldn't hurt the debt rating if GDP went over 4% as opposed to %1.5. You really don't get the concept or you are so politically motivated you refuse to see the consequences of stagflation which would be far worse than a gradual inflation.
More off base comparisons. Can you put a rag in that? Banks loan on their own risk oriented terms depending on the customers ability to perform. You must have a no confidence attitude towards US corporations and capitalism in general.
YES, this just might reinflate the economy. And yes, the value of the dollar would continue its moderate drop but so would every other currency at this point in the game.
btw, oil's dropping....not good.
Huh?
I can't follow that train. Hurts my head.
Continue.
Well I am not a lender so I will leave the attitude towards capitalism to those that make those decisions....but, it is of no small consequence that the banking system has a myriad of new regulations (Dodd-Frank) with little clarity on just how the rules are going to be written.
You are absolutely correct that 4% GDP would help, the question is will the plan you desire achieve that goal. From the very start of QEII the stated goal was to increase inflationary expectations to avoid deflation. A noble goal as deflation in a capitalistic economy is very bad. It was always an unknown however if this higher inflation expectation would spur a sense of urgency on the part of cash hoarders to do something with their money. To date it does not seem as though that is occcurring.
I am interested in your final comment on oil going down being bad. Higher energy and food costs have a highly regressive impact on our populace. With 70%+ of our economy based on consumption how can a reduction in this regressive "tax" be a bad thing?
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 22, 2011, 02:41:24 PM
bokworker, SCOTUS just took the shovel from Women's hands. >:(
NO, it wouldn't hurt the debt rating if GDP went over 4% as opposed to %1.5. You really don't get the concept or you are so politically motivated you refuse to see the consequences of stagflation which would be far worse than a gradual inflation.
More off base comparisons. Can you put a rag in that? Banks loan on their own risk oriented terms depending on the customers ability to perform. You must have a no confidence attitude towards US corporations and capitalism in general.
YES, this just might reinflate the economy. And yes, the value of the dollar would continue its moderate drop but so would every other currency at this point in the game.
btw, oil's dropping....not good.
But printing $2 trillion doesn't guarantee GDP will take off for the sake of taking off, unless you are suggesting that the government will simply spend as the primary consumer it on things it doesn't need as a means of creating sales and ergo jobs.
If you print the money and GDP doesn't rise as a result but remains flat or gets even worse, then what happens to our debt rating per your scenario that increased GDP would be attractive to our creditors?
Now, other problem with a 4% GDP growth rate is that it's unsustainable. Any time you have rapid growth, people get dependent on it, the bubble pops and we wind up with the pile we've been dining on for three years.
I totally understand the consequences of stagflation. I'm all about a stable, growing economy, regardless who is in the White House.
Oil decreasing is bad for our local economy here. It's happening due to the breakdown in price equivalency in Europe, the Arab cartel breaking ranks, a lousy world economy, and supply and demand factors in general. It won't drop much but I already am witnessing several major world wide expansion projects being put on hold. You see, this all becomes a viscous circle when you allow obstinacy to rule over forward thinking.
QEIII is coming....mark my words. Why do you all worry so much about our debt rating? Could it be a way to stymie every political action? Just raise the debt ceiling....kick the can down the road another 40 years unless you foresee revolution in the US.
And BOK has done a super job the last 4 years through all the mess. The SEC must love them.
"I'm all about a stable, growing economy, regardless who is in the White House" there you go dreaming again.... :P
Local economy...yes, lower oil is bad. nationally, it is not bad. Sorry, I thought we were talking national issues.
BOK has done well by avoiding much of the problems that affected many. And at the time we were called way too conservative. And while parts of the bank are overseen by the SEC, the bank overall is regulated by the OCC. And our ability to avoid major problems, and not take TARP, has not helped us one bit in avoiding the additional regulations and the requisite increase in costs to meet said regulations.
I personally feel the AAA rating is very much worth protecting. Beyond the increased debt service costs from losing it, the change would fundementally alter our perception as the safest most secure economy and society in the world. Would it be the end of the US? No. But I don't like being second best....
BOK, agreed.
As far as falling oil's impact on Tulsa's economy, it might restrict cash flow for producers, but not drastic enough to warrant layoffs. From my industry, I'm seeing an uptick in domestic oil exploration which can be sustained with oil at or above $65 to $70/bbl. The extraction methods are more expensive, but as long as oil is above $80/bbl it gets quite attractive.
What about NG....it's dismal performance is directly related to a sluggish economy....it's been a suckers bet the past two years and will be for some time. Meanwhile, the related manufacturing segment here will see....stagflation!
Be careful about assuming oil will stay high....I may just have too much memory recall from the early 80's.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 22, 2011, 03:26:02 PM
What about NG....it's dismal performance is directly related to a sluggish economy....it's been a suckers bet the past two years and will be for some time. Meanwhile, the related manufacturing segment here will see....stagflation!
Be careful about assuming oil will stay high....I may just have too much memory recall from the early 80's.
As long as speculators are allowed to trade oil on paper, it will remain high.
I still can't figure out natural gas. We saw a slow down in midstream treatment plant activity, yet companies are spending billions drilling for it right now as well as running high risks of future EPA fines for fracking disasters. I guess the idea is plough current profits from oil into having all this natural gas tapped as the price goes up in the future. I also think people like TBone are probably really unhappy no one is carrying their water for them like they'd hoped on
legislating er exploiting NG.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 22, 2011, 03:32:26 PM
I also think people like TBone are probably really unhappy no one is carrying their water for them like they'd hoped on legislating er exploiting NG.
I forgot about that. Color me surprised he hasn't gotten further.
I was around in the early 80"s...in the banking business. It was during this time that we saw the effects of deflation and why it is so imprtant to avoid it nationally. The only good thing about that period is that our deflation, from collapsing oil prices, was hugely stimulative to the rest of the nation and helped reduce inflationary pressures and spur economic growth.
NG, it would seem to me, is a victim of its own success in that we have found huge deposits so supply has outstripped our infrastructure to use the new supply.
Quote from: bokworker on June 22, 2011, 03:38:32 PM
I was around in the early 80"s...in the banking business.
Mr. Keating?
Quote from: bokworker on June 22, 2011, 02:31:30 PM
In another thread WevsUs quoted a portion of Bill Gross' most recent monthly newsletter. The snippet quoted indicated a support of further govermental stimulus. As I read the entire piece though the interesting part, to me, was the type of additional "stimulus" Bill was calling for. To whit, "put a shovel in every man's (and woman's I suppose) hand that needs a job from 8 am to noon and then have them study in a classroom from 1 to 5 pm". I wonder how our populace would react to the requirement to do something good for society in order to recieve society's largesse?
Will they get paid? Then I bet yes.
I followed you all the way up to your last sentence, where you decided to undermine your macro argument by tying it to a very specific moral assumption -- which is that the job we'd require them to do is "for their own good," or more specifically as paying a debt to society. This is one of my major problems with how the conservative formulation is built: having a moral debt is always brought up as a primary motivator, and as a policy lever (usually paired with "personal responsibility") and especially now when safety nets are strained, that moral debt idea is now rampant, and seemingly applies to individuals and voting blocs and even municipalities and states.
But that's not how capitalism is supposed to work. Moral debt is a useful motivator, but isn't the main driver. Self interest is the main driver.
So if we offer work in the morning and training in the afternoon with the implication that it's based on a societal debt to be paid -- "we're offering this to you because
you owe us." -- you've turned it into a penal system with all the freight that comes along with that. If they join up because we're specifically hiring them and then offering them free training, you have an entirely different workforce, and one that will understand it's debt in a way that encourages self interest.
No... but the bank I worked for at the time, FNB OKC did fail. Along with a lot of others. FNB OKC is now bank of America...
Quote from: Conan71 on June 22, 2011, 03:32:26 PM
As long as speculators are allowed to trade oil on paper, it will remain high.
I still can't figure out natural gas. We saw a slow down in midstream treatment plant activity, yet companies are spending billions drilling for it right now as well as running high risks of future EPA fines for fracking disasters. I guess the idea is plough current profits from oil into having all this natural gas tapped as the price goes up in the future. I also think people like TBone are probably really unhappy no one is carrying their water for them like they'd hoped on legislating er exploiting NG.
TBone is a self-serving jack-donkey....He wants to make all OTR trucks natural gas vehicles....I wonder why...???
Quote from: bokworker on June 22, 2011, 03:38:32 PM
I was around in the early 80"s...in the banking business. It was during this time that we saw the effects of deflation and why it is so imprtant to avoid it nationally. The only good thing about that period is that our deflation, from collapsing oil prices, was hugely stimulative to the rest of the nation and helped reduce inflationary pressures and spur economic growth.
NG, it would seem to me, is a victim of its own success in that we have found huge deposits so supply has outstripped our infrastructure to use the new supply.
Victimized by lack of demand....again stagflation.
Quote from: we vs us on June 22, 2011, 03:49:11 PM
Will they get paid? Then I bet yes.
I followed you all the way up to your last sentence, where you decided to undermine your macro argument by tying it to a very specific moral assumption -- which is that the job we'd require them to do is "for their own good," or more specifically as paying a debt to society. This is one of my major problems with how the conservative formulation is built: having a moral debt is always brought up as a primary motivator, and as a policy lever (usually paired with "personal responsibility") and especially now when safety nets are strained, that moral debt idea is now rampant, and seemingly applies to individuals and voting blocs and even municipalities and states. But that's not how capitalism is supposed to work. Moral debt is a useful motivator, but isn't the main driver. Self interest is the main driver.
So if we offer work in the morning and training in the afternoon with the implication that it's based on a societal debt to be paid -- "we're offering this to you because you owe us." -- you've turned it into a penal system with all the freight that comes along with that. If they join up because we're specifically hiring them and then offering them free training, you have an entirely different workforce, and one that will understand it's debt in a way that encourages self interest.
I wasn't making that assupmtion...merely asking the question as to what the response might be. Where I do have a problem is in the policies we have in place that do NOT encourage a response based on self interest. Or better put, they do, but the self interest response is to take the benefit and not work. When did society's perception of public assistance change from one where a person felt like they had to work in order to even take assistance to one where we demand assistance for no work?
We can't even agree to do drug testing for public assistance but require it to work in the private sector. So again I ask, what do you think the response would be for the type of "stimulus" Bill proposed?
And yes, I am making the assumption they would be paid.
Quote from: we vs us on June 22, 2011, 03:49:11 PM
Will they get paid? Then I bet yes.
I followed you all the way up to your last sentence, where you decided to undermine your macro argument by tying it to a very specific moral assumption -- which is that the job we'd require them to do is "for their own good," or more specifically as paying a debt to society. This is one of my major problems with how the conservative formulation is built: having a moral debt is always brought up as a primary motivator, and as a policy lever (usually paired with "personal responsibility") and especially now when safety nets are strained, that moral debt idea is now rampant, and seemingly applies to individuals and voting blocs and even municipalities and states. But that's not how capitalism is supposed to work. Moral debt is a useful motivator, but isn't the main driver. Self interest is the main driver.
So if we offer work in the morning and training in the afternoon with the implication that it's based on a societal debt to be paid -- "we're offering this to you because you owe us." -- you've turned it into a penal system with all the freight that comes along with that. If they join up because we're specifically hiring them and then offering them free training, you have an entirely different workforce, and one that will understand it's debt in a way that encourages self interest.
What's the benefit in a society or economy paying people to be un-productive?
WevsUs.... I guess I view public assistance as a penal system. Give a person a job that accompishes a goal, for them and society, and they have something that in the end is for them. Nobody has a job that they get paid for nothing, except rock band members, and while I am benefitting my employer then I am benefitting me.
Ultimately we should want as much of our society as possible to support themselves without public assistance. There will always be those that cannot and it is our collective responsibility to take care of them. But we have bastardized our support system to a point that it is no longer recognizable and a detriment to our society's long term success.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 22, 2011, 04:06:36 PM
What's the benefit in a society or economy paying people to be un-productive?
You guys are really leaning on this whole dependency thing. It's only unproductive if you don't get something from it in the end. In the Gross scenario, you pay people to work and then train them in the afternoon. They build things for the gov, they get money to spend, and get retrained into a modern workforce.
The dependency idea is really crippling, because it keeps us from preserving and improving one of our biggest national resources, which is our labor pool. If
any investment whatsoever in an idle workforce is verboten because dependency is the inevitable and only result [
because people are lazy and stupid and can't be trusted and subject only to their most venal impulses rather than logic or planning or working to better themselves or their families and to improve their positions in society] then what's to be done? Where does a conscientious policy maker turn if every societal investment immediately infantilizes its members?
Quote from: we vs us on June 22, 2011, 04:27:08 PM
You guys are really leaning on this whole dependency thing. It's only unproductive if you don't get something from it in the end. In the Gross scenario, you pay people to work and then train them in the afternoon. They build things for the gov, they get money to spend, and get retrained into a modern workforce.
The dependency idea is really crippling, because it keeps us from preserving and improving one of our biggest national resources, which is our labor pool. If any investment whatsoever in an idle workforce is verboten because dependency is the inevitable and only result [because people are lazy and stupid and can't be trusted and subject only to their most venal impulses rather than logic or planning or working to better themselves or their families and to improve their positions in society] then what's to be done? Where does a conscientious policy maker turn if every societal investment immediately infantilizes its members?
You are totally losing me here.
Either you think it's a good idea for a government to pay for idleness or you think it's a bad thing to want something in return for for those people and to expand their job skills because you somehow place a moral equivalence on it? Which is it?
There's the pragmatic issue of a government with a crumbling infrastructure, public school systems falling apart, etc. yet we spend money to keep people out of the workforce when they could be adding something of value back to the country in exchange for receiving an income from the government. Either you can put a shovel in their hand or they can help as a teacher's aide, or doing bookkeeping, being a museum guide, or a widget maker. You also offer them the benefit of expanded educational opportunities. I really fail to see what is wrong with that and really don't see why it's necessary to extract a bunch socially conceptualized mumbo-jumbo out of it.
On the contrary, free people are innovative, creative and entrepreneurial. The work to better themselves naturally. They strive to be successful and live their dreams.
Dependency is created, cultivated, and harvested in the form of votes. It is learned behavior that is difficult and in many cases impossible to escape. It creates it's own communities of slaves serving politicians willing to turn them out on the streets with messages of hope at the feet of generous and benevolent masters.
I'm OK with government programs that ask people to work in exchange for temporary wages. I'm also OK with temporary programs that improve training for victims of poor education systems, but that's not what we have.
Any mention of "work programs" for the unemployed is lashed at with violent protest. Any assertion that in tough economic times employed state workers take some responsibility for their own secondary benefits brings state governments to a halt with protest.
We are not cultivating a workforce, we are building layer upon layer of dependency that once deployed is very difficult to revoke.
WevsUs....I think we are on the same page. I wasn't trying to make any kind of moral statement, I was merely asking a question. You obviously think the people currently getting assistance will sign up immediately for a work program in which they are paid and retrained per Mr. Gross' idea. I have serious doubts as to the validity of that opinion. Not because I don't want it so, but because we have for a very long time not required any output for a government benefit. I would hope I am wrong.
Uh, what? On what basis do they suggest that there is/will be any significant inflation in the next year or two?
(http://www.nwacg.net/gallery3/var/resizes/random-stuff/inflation.png?m=1308780036) (http://www.nwacg.net/gallery3/var/albums/random-stuff/inflation.png?m=1308780034)
Including the massive runup in gasoline and corn (that seems to be reversing now), we were up 3.5% over last year. In other words, pretty normal overall. We're probably in the midst of month-on-month disinflation if you include food and energy. The volatility makes it terrible for making short-term policy.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 22, 2011, 03:01:09 PM
QEIII is coming....mark my words. Why do you all worry so much about our debt rating? Could it be a way to stymie every political action? Just raise the debt ceiling....kick the can down the road another 40 years unless you foresee revolution in the US.
And it will be as useful as QEII. As bokworker noted, it's like pushing on a string when you do it that way. We pretty much have two choices at this juncture. Live with a stagnant economy (useful for the Republicans right now, who are desperate to deny Obama even the slightest whiff of success by opposing nearly every one of his policies) or more stimulus. War spending sort of works, but is limited in its breadth. Better to have plow more money into roads, rail, bridges, flood control, and other large scale projects. It's not as if we're lacking in people to do such work or wanting for cheap money (at least if you're the federal government).
And as for the national debt, people often think of it the way they do credit card debt. The difference is that since the debtor controls the currency, and the debtor is perfectly willing to inflate the currency, the debtor won't ever pay back the full value. In a high interest rate environment where the debtor does not control the currency in which the debt is denominated, your every day experience with personal finance is actually applicable. Luckily for us, we're not in that position.
Nathan, maybe we should define inflation. Core rate, ex food and energy, not much going on but thankfully not falling anymore. the headline number is more volatile and hence not useful for policy decisions. Bottom line however is that with 9% unemployment and significant slack in the economy that inflation is not a foreseeable problem. If you think it is then you are more optimistic than I am.
And did anyone else notice the discussion around changing the CPI definition the government wants to use for COLA and benefit adjustments? The discussion is around using a measure that goes up more slowly, and down I suppose too, as a way to "save" money in the budget by limiting growth in benefits. It is comforting to see our policy makers making changes in "semantics" and claiming greater fiscal discipline.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 22, 2011, 04:38:09 PM
You are totally losing me here.
Either you think it's a good idea for a government to pay for idleness or you think it's a bad thing to want something in return for for those people and to expand their job skills because you somehow place a moral equivalence on it? Which is it?
There's the pragmatic issue of a government with a crumbling infrastructure, public school systems falling apart, etc. yet we spend money to keep people out of the workforce when they could be adding something of value back to the country in exchange for receiving an income from the government. Either you can put a shovel in their hand or they can help as a teacher's aide, or doing bookkeeping, being a museum guide, or a widget maker. You also offer them the benefit of expanded educational opportunities. I really fail to see what is wrong with that and really don't see why it's necessary to extract a bunch socially conceptualized mumbo-jumbo out of it.
We're on the same side here, I think. Yes, I'm all for asking for work in exchange . . . especially now that the unemployment situation has revealed itself to be systemic and intractable. (When the unemployment problem seemed less systemic and long term, I'd hoped that just extending unemployment benefits would've bridged folks back into the workforce; but at this point it's pretty proven that there just aren't jobs for these people to go to.) I also think that enough people have been out of the workforce for long enough that retraining is as important as just having a job, so that's another reason that the Gross scenario appeals to me.
What's pissing me off about the national dialogue right now is the dependency argument which the GOP seems to be leaning on exclusively as an excuse for inaction. ie, anything we do to help will create crippling dependency. I don't think it's nearly the problem that the GOP is making it into (it certainly hasn't been in the past), but it's turned into a fetish and is keeping us from making even small steps towards fixing the situation.
I was attempting to point out that inflation isn't at all likely in the next year or two, despite the implication of the title of the thread. Stagnation, sure. We're in for a lot more of that if we keep doing the same thing we've been doing for the last year. But the inflation half of "stagflation" isn't coming around any time soon.
Quote from: we vs us on June 22, 2011, 05:42:49 PM
We're on the same side here, I think. Yes, I'm all for asking for work in exchange . . . especially now that the unemployment situation has revealed itself to be systemic and intractable. (When the unemployment problem seemed less systemic and long term, I'd hoped that just extending unemployment benefits would've bridged folks back into the workforce; but at this point it's pretty proven that there just aren't jobs for these people to go to.) I also think that enough people have been out of the workforce for long enough that retraining is as important as just having a job, so that's another reason that the Gross scenario appeals to me.
What's pissing me off about the national dialogue right now is the dependency argument which the GOP seems to be leaning on exclusively as an excuse for inaction. ie, anything we do to help will create crippling dependency. I don't think it's nearly the problem that the GOP is making it into (it certainly hasn't been in the past), but it's turned into a fetish and is keeping us from making even small steps towards fixing the situation.
Kumbaya! Let's go split a box of wine!
We need to move beyond this as a partisan issue and take a serious look at what's happening in Europe. One reason Greece is in such deep trouble is far too much personal dependence on the government and not near enough productivity to keep an adequate flow of revenue coming back into government coffers.
It's important for people who are capable of it to be able to work both from the standpoint of what they add to the economy and also from a sense of positive self worth. It may not be the job they are suited for nor the one they want for the rest of their life, but if the government could identify areas where they need work done which they cannot do or where temporary help would save money it's a no-brainer. Considering they would essentially be using money which would have paid for idleness for productivity, it saves the government money and someone can apply for jobs showing they are currently employed. That seems to have been an issue with out of work people struggling to get hired: they aren't working now.
Conan, I can confirm the issue of being out of work hurting the job search, at least in my area. I find it interesting that the calls I receive from recruiters haven't slowed much but the referrals I give them for other candidates are met with that exact question first off..."are they currently working"..... That isn't how we are approaching candidates that we are trying to hire but it sure seems others are.
Quote from: bokworker on June 23, 2011, 10:20:18 AM
Conan, I can confirm the issue of being out of work hurting the job search, at least in my area. I find it interesting that the calls I receive from recruiters haven't slowed much but the referrals I give them for other candidates are met with that exact question first off..."are they currently working"..... That isn't how we are approaching candidates that we are trying to hire but it sure seems others are.
Almost as if you have to prove you don't need a job to be considered for one.
Kind of like credit in that way, ain't it? If you don't need it, you got it.
There are MANY companies that won't touch you if you aren't working. Last time I was out of work, spend a LOT of time talking to many companies, most local - none of which got serious, despite obvious benefits and value. After I found a job, the next 10 to 14 months was a continuous parade of headhunters for some of those same local companies, all wanting an interview. Classic case of what you don't want for a dollar, you can't live without for two. Got a really good company out of it. Huge place. Very good to their people. And they are getting extremely good value for the money...
The locals missed out on a proven commodity with a track record of productivity and creating products the brought large amounts of revenue and profit for the investment (some are still benefiting from it). Oh, well.
Obumma releases 30 mill bo from the strategic reserve? This will not help but the stuff my be getting clumpy lying in storage..... ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on June 23, 2011, 09:39:28 AM
We need to move beyond this as a partisan issue and take a serious look at what's happening in Europe. One reason Greece is in such deep trouble is far too much personal dependence on the government and not near enough productivity to keep an adequate flow of revenue coming back into government coffers.
I agree with the rest of your post, but this is just inane. As Stewart pointed out on his show last night, their national debt is (slightly) less per capita than ours. It ends up being a problem not because of dependence or whatever other blame the victim BS people are peddling these days, but because they no longer borrow in a currency they control. We should be learning lessons from the likes of the UK, Australia, Canada and Japan, or even Germany and France, who basically control the Euro. They are the similarly situated ones, not Greece.
We already have the highest productivity in the developed world. The problems are that we have the lowest effective tax rate, the largest military, and highest health care spending per capita (without the best outcomes! :(). Sadly, that last bit almost completely wipes out the advantage of the first bit.
Greece was fiscally irresponsible, as I believe running deficits in strong economic times is, but their situation is being exacerbated by Germany's insistence on monetary policy that is only really suitable for them. Spain, for example, was running a surplus prior to the meltdown, but finds itself in deep smile now that their growth industry (housing..how's that for familiar) went bust and the Germans refuse to let the Euro devalue. That asinine policy is probably already costing the Germans more in bailouts than it's saving their banks in reduced real Euro returns on their loans, and will cost them a hell of a lot more when Greece and possibly others exit the Euro.
Quote from: nathanm on June 23, 2011, 01:49:17 PM
I agree with the rest of your post, but this is just inane. As Stewart pointed out on his show last night, their national debt is (slightly) less per capita than ours. It ends up being a problem not because of dependence or whatever other blame the victim BS people are peddling these days, but because they no longer borrow in a currency they control. We should be learning lessons from the likes of the UK, Australia, Canada and Japan, or even Germany and France, who basically control the Euro. They are the similarly situated ones, not Greece.
We already have the highest productivity in the developed world. The problems are that we have the lowest effective tax rate, the largest military, and highest health care spending per capita (without the best outcomes! :(). Sadly, that last bit almost completely wipes out the advantage of the first bit.
Greece was fiscally irresponsible, as I believe running deficits in strong economic times is, but their situation is being exacerbated by Germany's insistence on monetary policy that is only really suitable for them. Spain, for example, was running a surplus prior to the meltdown, but finds itself in deep smile now that their growth industry (housing..how's that for familiar) went bust and the Germans refuse to let the Euro devalue. That asinine policy is probably already costing the Germans more in bailouts than it's saving their banks in reduced real Euro returns on their loans, and will cost them a hell of a lot more when Greece and possibly others exit the Euro.
It's not as simple as comparing metrics like debt/GDP ratios or GDP per capita or debt per capita from one nation to the next. What industries drive the economies? Off the top of my head agriculture, shipping, and tourism are all I can think of for Greece. I'm sure there are more, but I don't believe their economy is near as diverse as ours is. There are also cultural differences like public workers who expect fully-paid 6 week holidays and many other benefits people in the private sector would not dream of.
However there is one simple metric which catches up with all nations sooner or later: you simply cannot continue to spend more than you take in without there being a major cataclysm at some point.
and then sometimes you have got to invest upfront to make more down the road. BTW, at what point does implosion begin?
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 23, 2011, 04:23:32 PM
and then sometimes you have got to invest upfront to make more down the road. BTW, at what point does implosion begin?
I agree, except when it's proven the sort of investing one has been doing hasn't brought tangible results.
The Keynesian model only works well if the money the government spends isn't hoarded by those who wind up with the profits. Certainly things could have been a lot worse without TARP and the stimulus, but look at how much free cash is sitting on the sidelines waiting for better assurance than more government spending. They don't want more government spending for them to re-invest in the economy. They want more government coddling in the way of relaxed regulations, fewer mandates like Obamacare, and what they perceive as a more friendly tax code.
Our previous discussions on the old tax codes with the loopholes which created incentive to invest have not been lost on me. "Cut taxes" is the mantra small business appears to have bought into. There's merit to the concept. The business climate in America is now dominated by small businesses, not large corporations. Real or imagined, it's the perception of how business-friendly the administration and government are amongst those small business people that's counting. What's unfortunate is when this administration has discussed raising taxes, it's marketed as a way to soak the rich so they ensure keeping the middle and lower class voting bloc and it really pisses off those who can most easily create jobs when they hear rhetoric like that.
If those people most affected by tax increases thought there was something good to come from it, they would be on board. Instead it becomes a transparent attempt at wealth redistribution, or the government trying to get more money into play by confiscating it.
I think if President Obama had, from day 1, said he would extend the Bush tax cuts long enough to help get the economy moving again, he could have been seen as being far more pro-business than he's perceived. Instead, he kept talking about tax cuts and pushing his legacy issues. Just bad miscalculations on the part of his handlers and himself.
As far as an implosion? Your guess is as good as mine. I'm guessing as soon as our debt rating starts to sink. What's your guess?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 23, 2011, 04:46:15 PM
What's unfortunate is when this administration has discussed raising taxes, it's marketed as a way to soak the rich so they ensure keeping the middle and lower class voting bloc and it really pisses off those who can most easily create jobs when they hear rhetoric like that.
Asking the top 0.1% or even top 1% for a couple of percent more is not "soaking the rich". They'll still be high and dry, what with the removal of much income to capital gains over the last 30 years and the drastic decreases in tax rates for the top income earners since 1950. I would buy that argument if anyone were talking about returning to even Carter-era tax rates, which were already low by the standards of the earlier 20th century.
There was a massive shift in the tax burden to the lower income brackets when the deal on Social Security was made in the 80s allowing the payroll taxes to go to the general fund, increasing the payroll tax, and lowering further the tax rates on upper income earners. Moving tax policy slightly in the other direction is not soaking the rich.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 23, 2011, 04:46:15 PM
The Keynesian model only works well if the money the government spends isn't hoarded by those who wind up with the profits. Certainly things could have been a lot worse without TARP and the stimulus, but look at how much free cash is sitting on the sidelines waiting for better assurance than more government spending. They don't want more government spending for them to re-invest in the economy. They want more government coddling in the way of relaxed regulations, fewer mandates like Obamacare, and what they perceive as a more friendly tax code.
I've actually come to the conclusion that it's not so much waiting for a magical level of "government assurance of stability." I think it's just that the conditions are now favorable for almost anything else other than hiring more workers. It's a great time to buy new equipment or upgrade old; it's a great time to buy your competitor, or to expand your operations by entering a new market, or to invest in advanced production facilities. It's a great time to lock in prices for raw materials. It's a good time to prepare for good times because money is plentiful and cheap and there are a lot of distressed assets out there. In the past this might have automatically meant more employment, but companies are now used to doing far more with far less and as nathan mentioned, the efficiency gains we've realized in the US through the recession have been stunning.
Quote from: nathanm on June 23, 2011, 04:58:33 PM
Asking the top 0.1% or even top 1% for a couple of percent more is not "soaking the rich".
How do you know? Have you ever paid in taxes what they pay? Those little percentage points can amount to tens of thousands more for the low end 1%ers or perhaps millions to those on the higher end. I guess my beef is that talking about taxes in percentages sanitizes the discussion so folks like you can convince others that any increase is not significant. Seriously, "I'm just talking about a 4% increase on a few" may be an easier sell than, "I'm just talking about raising taxes X numbers of thousands ($10K alone on those $250K earners?) on a few" may not be. And by "few", I mean the millions of Americans, not the sanitized 3-4% of Americans, that fall in that category.
Before we start talking about raising taxes, why can't we start by first making EVERYONE pay at least
some taxes. We all know that nearly 1/2 of us pay NO federal income tax.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 23, 2011, 04:46:15 PM
If those people most affected by tax increases thought there was something good to come from it, they would be on board. Instead it becomes a transparent attempt at wealth redistribution, or the government trying to get more money into play by confiscating it.
I agree to the extent that by bungling the Joe the Plumber question (spread the wealth around), Obama left zero impression as to what his intentions were. I view all his tax policy notions with that in mind. That, coupled with the Nate's of the world that apparently believe the rich are somehow getting over, or that they are not paying their "fair share. And isn't it funny that their "fair share" is
always a lot more than they are paying now, rather what they are currently paying, and that how the middle/lower classes are paying at least or more than their "fair share". Who thinks like this?
Quote from: guido911 on June 23, 2011, 05:19:29 PM
Before we start talking about raising taxes, why can't we start by first making EVERYONE pay at least some taxes. We all know that nearly 1/2 of us pay NO federal income tax.
You must hate the poor. Did one of them scare you when you were a young rich boy?
A third of us are either minors or retirees, Guido. And I didn't say anything about fair share. If the government needs money (I don't think it needs more right now, but you do, so I'm using your frame of reference), it makes the most sense to go where the money is. As I've said before, you could take 100% of everything the bottom half of income earners earn and not even cover the deficit.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 23, 2011, 05:28:48 PM
Did one of them scare you when you were a young rich boy?
Yes.
Seriously, you have to know I started out with NOTHING. My wife with a little less than NOTHING. The both of us are completely self-made, working at the minimum wage while attending college and doing the National Guard thing--for years. It's called sacrifice, and NO, we weren't lucky or otherwise fortunate. Quite frankly, and I could be wrong, but there is a chance that a significant number of people in here had it better than I did.
And stop with the I "hate the poor" crap. You know damned well I give quite generously to very decent charities to help these people. IIRC, you and I even discussed writing checks to one common food bank charity. I don't like the idea of government telling me which charity of its choosing that I am going to involuntarily support.
Quote from: nathanm on June 23, 2011, 05:36:52 PM
A third of us are either minors or retirees, Guido.
How many of those (directly or indirectly as is the case of minors) are in the "paying federal income taxes" category? But answer the question, why shouldn't all of us at least pay SOMETHING, rather than just focusing on one tax policy solution?
Quote from: guido911 on June 23, 2011, 05:42:01 PM
How many of those (directly or indirectly as is the case of minors) are in the "paying federal income taxes" category? But answer the question, why shouldn't all of us at least pay SOMETHING, rather than just focusing on one tax policy solution?
Because at least 15% of income earning families are living below the poverty line. They don't need their situation made worse just to make you feel better, especially when it will do essentially nothing for the budget deficit.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 23, 2011, 04:46:15 PM
As far as an implosion? Your guess is as good as mine. I'm guessing as soon as our debt rating starts to sink. What's your guess?
When does the debt rating sink due to obstinate repukes being uncooperative driving down confidence? My guess? The country is not broke. If we were, the world would be upside down. Is that your desire?
Quote from: guido911 on June 23, 2011, 05:37:37 PM
Yes.
Seriously, you have to know I started out with NOTHING. My wife with a little less than NOTHING. The both of us are completely self-made, working at the minimum wage while attending college and doing the National Guard thing--for years. It's called sacrifice, and NO, we weren't lucky or otherwise fortunate. Quite frankly, and I could be wrong, but there is a chance that a significant number of people in here had it better than I did.
And stop with the I "hate the poor" crap. You know damned well I give quite generously to very decent charities to help these people. IIRC, you and I even discussed writing checks to one common food bank charity. I don't like the idea of government telling me which charity of its choosing that I am going to involuntarily support.
Well any suggestion on increasing taxes you hate the rich. So if you want anybody below that to pay a larger amount you therefore would hate that group. Following your logic. Just because you were/are something doesn't mean you don't hate it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hatred (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hatred)
Quote from: nathanm on June 23, 2011, 05:59:53 PM
Because at least 15% of income earning families are living below the poverty line. They don't need their situation made worse just to make you feel better, especially when it will do essentially nothing for the budget deficit.
It's not about what makes me "feel better", I thought this was a discussion about tax policy. If you live in this country, and partake of the entitlements of being here, you should have to pay something. And the fact that it would not raise the sort of capital you find significant exhibits the same sort of "It's just a billion dollars" mentality nonsense I cannot stand.
Quote from: guido911 on June 23, 2011, 06:09:55 PM
It's not about what makes me "feel better", I thought this was a discussion about tax policy. If you live in this country, and partake of the entitlements of being here, you should have to pay something. And the fact that it would not raise the sort of capital you find significant exhibits the same sort of "It's just a billion dollars" mentality nonsense I cannot stand.
Interestingly, I find it nonsensical that you insist on yammering on about tiny fractions of our 2,000 billion dollar budget. If you actually want to balance it, you have to look at where the big money is being spent.
And yes, your insistence that people who already don't have enough money to support themselves pay some of their not enough to the government is a pretty strong indication it's about salving your conservative ideology more than anything else. If you really wanted to balance the budget, you'd be interested in figuring out how to get health care costs down (hint: spending on private insurance has increased faster than medicare spending over the past 40 years) and reduce the size of our military.
Quote from: CharlieSheen on June 23, 2011, 06:07:17 PM
Well any suggestion on increasing taxes you hate the rich. So if you want anybody below that to pay a larger amount you therefore would hate that group. Following your logic. Just because you were/are something doesn't mean you don't hate it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hatred (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hatred)
Help me with this? If I led you to believe that I "hate" a group of people because of their financial situation, than I apologize. The point I was trying to make is that if we are going to talk about federal tax policy and people paying their "fair share", than that should mean everyone--including a massive portion of our population that pays NO share. That's it. Why is this such a big deal?
And by the way, I don't think Nate hates rich people because he wants to pop the rich only.
Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell stated, his number one goal is to ensure that Obama is a "one term president". Instead of focusing on job creation that would benefit the country, the GOP has changed the subject to the debt and the deficit seemingly unaware, or maybe perfectly aware, that jobs will improve both the deficit and the debt situation. So thanks GOP! Thanks for NO JOBS, NO MEDICARE, NO SOCIAL SECURITY and NO HOPE! Just remember, karma has a way off biting one in the a$$ and yours, Conan and Guido, are plenty big enough for a big bite!
Quote from: nathanm on June 23, 2011, 06:15:13 PM
Interestingly, I find it nonsensical that you insist on yammering on about tiny fractions of our 2,000 billion dollar budget. If you actually want to balance it, you have to look at where the big money is being spent.
And yes, your insistence that people who already don't have enough money to support themselves pay some of their not enough to the government is a pretty strong indication it's about salving your conservative ideology more than anything else. If you really wanted to balance the budget, you'd be interested in figuring out how to get health care costs down (hint: spending on private insurance has increased faster than medicare spending over the past 40 years) and reduce the size of our military.
Fine. Cut spending. Again, I thought this was a debate about tax policy and in typical Nate fashion you change the subject to something else--military spending and health care reform. I believe I heard there are 300 million people living in this country. Think about how each family of four that are paying nothing starts kicking in $10.00 a month ($2.50/week or less than 1/2 price of a pack of cigarettes). That's a significant amount, from such a low damned contribution so they can live in this great country.
I believe the topic of discussion was 'stagflation nation.' Either way, tax policy cannot be separated from spending. The point of taxes is to pay for the spending, after all.
How about this: You can have your $10/month flat tax on the least of us if we can treat all forms of income the same when tax time rolls around. Whether you get it from investment, selling a house, or earning a wage, let's tax it all using the same formula. Income is income is income.
Quote from: guido911 on June 23, 2011, 06:27:35 PM
Think about how each family of four that are paying nothing starts kicking in $10.00 a month ($2.50/week or less than 1/2 price of a pack of cigarettes). That's a significant amount...
I was wondering how significant it would be.
300,000,000 people, 1/2 do not pay Federal Income tax (notice lefties that I did not say "pay no tax"). That leaves 150,000,000. Figure an average of a family of 4. That leaves 150,000,000/4 = 37,500,000 additional tax paying units. At $10/mo, that's $120/yr x 37,000,000 = $4,500,000,000.
Only $4.5 Billion. That's not worth worrying about. Send it to me and I'll make sure it gets put to good use. ;D
Red,
Very glad to see you understand the reality of tax paying units.
guido still doesn't get it. No matter how many times it is explained to him. But that is what the hypnotic power of Republicontin will do to a person. Reality just fades away and apparently never returns.
Minimum wage? So who didn't?? I too thought I started with nothing, then found out that SWMBO started out with much less, too. (We must be twinkies...er, uh, twins...) You haven't lived until Christmas present consisted of a stick of gum. NOT a pack - ONE stick. But they did have a good solid house (very small!) that Dad built himself - literally from scratch. Cut logs, milled, nailed together, etc.
Ok, so who has the next great "how poor I was" story?? With extreme richness today, of course.
Yeah, the poorest among us DO pay taxes. At a vastly disproportionate amount to even the lower middle class among us. (Does advanced degree erase all mathematical ability?)
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 23, 2011, 07:19:43 PM
Only $4.5 Billion. That's not worth worrying about. Send it to me and I'll make sure it gets put to good use. ;D
I know you would. Bless you.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 23, 2011, 01:35:56 PM
Obumma releases 30 mill bo from the strategic reserve? This will not help but the stuff my be getting clumpy lying in storage..... ;)
It's getting close to its "Best if used by date".
Quote from: nathanm on June 23, 2011, 04:58:33 PM
Asking the top 0.1% or even top 1% for a couple of percent more is not "soaking the rich". They'll still be high and dry, what with the removal of much income to capital gains over the last 30 years and the drastic decreases in tax rates for the top income earners since 1950. I would buy that argument if anyone were talking about returning to even Carter-era tax rates, which were already low by the standards of the earlier 20th century.
There was a massive shift in the tax burden to the lower income brackets when the deal on Social Security was made in the 80s allowing the payroll taxes to go to the general fund, increasing the payroll tax, and lowering further the tax rates on upper income earners. Moving tax policy slightly in the other direction is not soaking the rich.
You missed my point entirely. It's President Obama's own message which has created the perception.
Every time President Obama has opened his mouth about higher taxes for the 1%'ers it's always been in the context of one of the following: "They aren't contributing their fair share". "They make more so they can afford to be taxed more." "They are enjoying tax breaks on the backs of the working poor." Or VP BiteMe: "It's their patriotic duty."
I'm loosely paraphrasing of course. What about comments like those doesn't sound like wealth envy, income redistribution, or that higher taxes aren't punitive?
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 23, 2011, 06:21:29 PM
Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell stated, his number one goal is to ensure that Obama is a "one term president". Instead of focusing on job creation that would benefit the country, the GOP has changed the subject to the debt and the deficit seemingly unaware, or maybe perfectly aware, that jobs will improve both the deficit and the debt situation. So thanks GOP! Thanks for NO JOBS, NO MEDICARE, NO SOCIAL SECURITY and NO HOPE! Just remember, karma has a way off biting one in the a$$ and yours, Conan and Guido, are plenty big enough for a big bite!
Ease up there Assclown.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 24, 2011, 09:48:49 AM
Ease up there Assclown.
I am sorry.Please don't take it personally, Dreamer er...loose paraphraser....er...Conan. I must have had some alcohol when I posted that. :-*
Back on topic: http://www.onepennysheet.com./2011/06/the-coming-upheaval-in-republican-economics/ (cut and paste link)
"What's the coming alternative to free-market-centered economics? Economic nationalism.
This means, for a start, turning away from the post-1948 Republican party's embrace of free trade and returning to the party's traditional protectionism.
Beyond this, it also means turning away from the private-sector-only model of economic growth and back to what Abraham Lincoln would have called "internal improvements," a term that embraced everything from subsidized railroads to the land-grant colleges that were the technical backbone of the American heartland for a century."
Quote from: Conan71 on June 24, 2011, 09:48:04 AM
You missed my point entirely. It's President Obama's own message which has created the perception.
Every time President Obama has opened his mouth about higher taxes for the 1%'ers it's always been in the context of one of the following: "They aren't contributing their fair share". "They make more so they can afford to be taxed more." "They are enjoying tax breaks on the backs of the working poor." Or VP BiteMe: "It's their patriotic duty."
This is true
Quote from: Conan71 on June 24, 2011, 09:48:04 AM
You missed my point entirely. It's President Obama's own message which has created the perception.
Every time President Obama has opened his mouth about higher taxes for the 1%'ers it's always been in the context of one of the following: "They aren't contributing their fair share". "They make more so they can afford to be taxed more." "They are enjoying tax breaks on the backs of the working poor." Or VP BiteMe: "It's their patriotic duty."
I'm loosely paraphrasing of course. What about comments like those doesn't sound like wealth envy, income redistribution, or that higher taxes aren't punitive?
The ironic thing is that certain of the wealthy and even middle class seem to have some class envy for the welfare queens. That's not class warfare, though, that's just smile rolling downhill. ::)
Quote from: nathanm on June 24, 2011, 02:54:14 PM
The ironic thing is that certain of the wealthy and even middle class seem to have some class envy for the welfare queens. That's not class warfare, though, that's just smile rolling downhill. ::)
No. . .It's not envy, it's anger. The same anger you feel when someone steals from you.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 24, 2011, 03:04:01 PM
No. . .It's not envy, it's anger. The same anger you feel when someone steals from you.
So that's what you call increasing the payroll tax so the income tax could be lowered..theft.
Quote from: nathanm on June 24, 2011, 03:35:30 PM
So that's what you call increasing the payroll tax so the income tax could be lowered..theft.
I hadn't heard that the rich were not paying the higher payroll taxes until now. Thanks for the update.
Quote from: guido911 on June 24, 2011, 03:47:32 PM
I hadn't heard that the rich were not paying the higher payroll taxes until now. Thanks for the update.
You weren't aware that there's an income limit on the Social Security component? That surprises me.
I take it you also weren't aware that a large cohort of the top 10% also has significant income not subject to payroll tax, since FICA only applies to wage income?
Quote from: nathanm on June 24, 2011, 03:50:46 PM
You weren't aware that there's an income limit on the Social Security component? That surprises me.
I take it you also weren't aware that a large cohort of the top 10% also has significant income not subject to payroll tax, since FICA only applies to wage income?
Oh I know about the limit. Should there be no limit because I always thought social security was not a pension plan. If it were, I would love to get every dollar back that I put in plus what the government contributes to my plan.
Why are so damned worried about what other people earn anyway. Just live your life and mind your business. The rich are already paying far more than you, and in some cases they pay more in one year than you will over your lifetime. The only conclusion I have over your obsession with the "rich" is, I'm sorry, wealth envy.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot help the wage-earner by tearing down the wage-payer.
You cannot further the brotherhood of mankind by encouraging class hatred.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative.
You cannot help man permanently by doing for them what they could do and should do for themselves.
The standard of living of the common man is higher in those countries which have the greatest number of wealthy entrepreneurs. – Ludwig von Mises
The root source of wealth is human ingenuity. This has no known bounds, so the amount of wealth in existence can always be increased. That's why capitalism is called "making money". – Marc Geddes
Collectivism doesn't work because it's based on a faulty economic premise. There is no such thing as a person's "fair share" of wealth. The gross national product is not a pizza that must be carefully divided because if I get too many slices, you have to eat the box. The economy is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless. – P. J. O'Rourke, "How to Explain Conservatism"
Quote from: guido911 on June 24, 2011, 04:11:38 PM
The only conclusion I have over your obsession with the "rich" is, I'm sorry, wealth envy.
I didn't bring it up, bud.
And my "obsession?" Maybe you don't like it, but tax policy is inseparable from income. As I keep pointing out, the bottom half of income earners don't make enough collectively to cover the deficit, much less the budget. Knowing that is important to figuring out how to pay for what we use.
Regardless, you and Gaspar both have a blatantly obvious double standard on this. Not surprising..most people have a double standard when it comes to themselves. Personally, I have repeatedly advocated my income cohort bearing part of the burden of any tax increase deemed necessary. I don't think families who make a quarter what mine does should share in that burden, given that they already don't have enough to get by no matter how frugally they live. (well, unless they go all Ted Kaczynski in their living arrangements)
Leaving them with a little extra money in their pockets might just give them the help they need to raise themselves up out of poverty.
Taxing individuals by a percentage of their earning is fair an equatable.
As long as their are people capable of obtaining wealth, and poor people with open hands, there will be liberal people with open mouths.
If the top tax rate was 90% and the innovators found a way to maintain and grow their wealth, the liberals would demand 95%, and the poor would still remain poor.
Poverty is not an economic state, it is a psychological one.
This is an old song
When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both. – James Dale Davidson
The government's War on Poverty has transformed poverty from a short-term misfortune into a career choice. – Harry Browne
Capitalism has created the highest standard of living ever known on earth. The evidence is incontrovertible. The contrast between West and East Berlin is the latest demonstration, like a laboratory experiment for all to see. Yet those who are loudest in proclaiming their desire to eliminate poverty are loudest in denouncing capitalism. Man's well-being is not their goal. – Ayn Rand, Theory and Practice
Yep, every single poor person is just lazy. They didn't have some bad luck in business, didn't get sick and not have insurance, didn't have a tornado blow down their house. Didn't end up disabled because of poor working conditions. It's all because they're lazy.
(http://www.demotivationalposters.org/image/demotivational-poster/0903/epic-face-palm-face-palm-demotivational-poster-1236742013.jpg)
Quote from: nathanm on June 24, 2011, 03:50:46 PM
You weren't aware that there's an income limit on the Social Security component? That surprises me.
I take it you also weren't aware that a large cohort of the top 10% also has significant income not subject to payroll tax, since FICA only applies to wage income?
You weren't aware that maximum SS benefits are based on an upper limit, presently around $106,000? That surprises me. Why should someone making $212,000 pay twice as much for the same benefit as someone making just at $106,000. (You know I don't buy into the "because they can afford it" philosophy.)
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 24, 2011, 04:53:32 PM
You weren't aware that maximum SS benefits are based on an upper limit, presently around $106,000? That surprises me. Why should someone making $212,000 pay twice as much for the same benefit as someone making just at $106,000. (You know I don't buy into the "because they can afford it" philosophy.)
That's not germane to my point. My point is that the usual suspects constantly complain about class warfare when it's the 'po folk complaining, but are constantly on their own crusade. One of their successful campaigns was to get the payroll tax increased in the 80s so that income taxes could be reduced, which disproportionately helped the wealthy thanks to the payroll tax cap. Why it's there or whether it should be there isn't relevant, only that it is.
Quote from: nathanm on June 24, 2011, 04:52:04 PM
Yep, every single poor person is just lazy. They didn't have some bad luck in business, didn't get sick and not have insurance, didn't have a tornado blow down their house. Didn't end up disabled because of poor working conditions. It's all because they're lazy.
Second stanza of the same song. No one used the word lazy except you. No one even implied it.
Poverty is a temporary state in a free society. Prolonged poverty is a result of continuing to make choices that perpetuate that state.
Good by! Have a great weekend. I'm going to St. Louis, where I used to live when I was poor. ;)
Quote from: nathanm on June 24, 2011, 04:56:56 PM
Why it's there or whether it should be there isn't relevant, only that it is.
I think it's very relevant. Unlike the general fund (at least it's supposed to be this way), you are paying for a specific benefit with a defined return.
Most welfare folks have done a fine job of making it a "lifestyle".....
Quote from: Breadburner on June 24, 2011, 05:17:24 PM
Most welfare folks have done a fine job of making it a "lifestyle".....
You got that right. Your post conjured up a memory I had about this woman.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/22/the-shut-up-white-boy-woman-is-the-slum-dweller-with-a-60-inch-tv/
Quote from: nathanm on June 24, 2011, 04:56:56 PM
That's not germane to my point. My point is that the usual suspects constantly complain about class warfare when it's the 'po folk complaining, but are constantly on their own crusade. One of their successful campaigns was to get the payroll tax increased in the 80s so that income taxes could be reduced, which disproportionately helped the wealthy thanks to the payroll tax cap. Why it's there or whether it should be there isn't relevant, only that it is.
I am engaging in "class warfare" because I think I pay enough in taxes?
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSONmivTzjiK8dfFeM_GwTWvth8WkKWKKPq3SrhmYqbFoei_NhL)
And what crusade am I on? The one where I get to choose how I spend MY money? Or the one where I want to keep more of the money I earn as a result of hard work and sacrifice? Or is it the one where I feel that everyone should have some skin in the game as Obama once said?
And about the "po' folk" complaining, what do they have to complain about? They are not paying federal income tax, and are literally living off the tax payers. Here comes the "but..but...they pay payroll taxes". Gee whiz, they actually have to pay for benefits they either receive or will receive--just like the rest of us. Personally, the last people we should be hearing from on tax policy are people who pay none.
Did you even read my post? Agitating for change in the distribution of the tax burden is either class warfare or it is not. You can't have it both ways.
Quote from: nathanm on June 24, 2011, 06:29:35 PM
Did you even read my post? Agitating for change in the distribution of the tax burden is either class warfare or it is not. You can't have it both ways.
Your post was an attack on the rich AGAIN. Period. And not wanting to pay more taxes is not "class warfare". I do not know where you got that idea, other than a pathetic attempt to establish some double standard that is no where to be found. Also, did you even read my response? Wanting all Americans pay something before we start talking about raising taxes on anyone is not class warfare.
There are several lefty posters in here that may share your view on taxing the rich to deal with the budget shortfall. You, on the other hand, have taken it to a whole other level.
I had no idea that there would be a fight between posters both claiming the other was engaging in class warfare.
I am either confused or I have no class.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 24, 2011, 07:50:42 PM
I am either confused or I have no class.
Go with the latter. :D
Quote from: guido911 on June 24, 2011, 07:46:01 PM
Your post was an attack on the rich AGAIN. Period. And not wanting to pay more taxes is not "class warfare". I do not know where you got that idea, other than a pathetic attempt to establish some double standard that is no where to be found. Also, did you even read my response? Wanting all Americans pay something before we start talking about raising taxes on anyone is not class warfare.
There are several lefty posters in here that may share your view on taxing the rich to deal with the budget shortfall. You, on the other hand, have taken it to a whole other level.
So you once again assert that you wanting someone else to pay more tax isn't class warfare, but someone else wanting you to pay more tax is class warfare? That may be the most impressive feat of mental gymnastics I've seen this month. I also fail to see how I've "taken it to a whole other level" when the only thing I've done is point out the hypocrisy inherent in your statement.
If you are engaging in the same behavior as someone else, don't be offended when your description of that other person or group's behavior is applied to you.
Quote from: nathanm on June 24, 2011, 04:52:04 PM
Yep, every single poor person is just lazy. They didn't have some bad luck in business, didn't get sick and not have insurance, didn't have a tornado blow down their house. Didn't end up disabled because of poor working conditions. It's all because they're lazy.
I certainly don't think every poor person is lazy but do you have some percentages on your claims above?
Quote from: nathanm on June 24, 2011, 10:15:21 PM
So you once again assert that you wanting someone else to pay more tax isn't class warfare, but someone else wanting you to pay more tax is class warfare? That may be the most impressive feat of mental gymnastics I've seen this month. I also fail to see how I've "taken it to a whole other level" when the only thing I've done is point out the hypocrisy inherent in your statement.
If you are engaging in the same behavior as someone else, don't be offended when your description of that other person or group's behavior is applied to you.
Oh I see. Wanting all Americans to have skin in the game by paying some tax, not a lot, some, is class warfare. Fine. I'm a class warrior then. ::) Just admit your wealth envy.
And by the way, I am going on my third cruise this year later in the summer (Bahamas), after the cruise I am going on a 4-day vacation partially by rail, I am booking my late winter 2012 ski trip to Mt. Hood, I am booking my spring break 2012 cruise (Southern Caribbean), and am generally living a more fun-filled life than you could EVER hope for. I won't tell you what I am doing over Thanksgiving or Christmas mainly because I am worried about your health.
Just so everyone else knows, by no means am I even attempting to be boastful. I think Nate's raging jealousy will push him over the edge and he'll wind up in an asylum or rehab.
Quote from: guido911 on June 25, 2011, 02:19:47 PM
And by the way, I am going on my third cruise this year later in the summer (Bahamas), ...
nathanm, Hoss, we v us, and I have booked the cabins on each side of you. I plan to play audio versions of President Obama's speeches real loud say that we can all enjoy them.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 25, 2011, 02:49:04 PM
nathanm, Hoss, we v us, and I have booked the cabins on each side of you. I plan to play audio versions of President Obama's speeches real loud say that we can all enjoy them.
Post of the week winner in my opinion.
Quote from: guido911 on June 25, 2011, 02:19:47 PM
Oh I see. Wanting all Americans to have skin in the game by paying some tax, not a lot, some, is class warfare. Fine. I'm a class warrior then. ::) Just admit your wealth envy.
And by the way, I am going on my third cruise this year later in the summer (Bahamas), after the cruise I am going on a 4-day vacation partially by rail, I am booking my late winter 2012 ski trip to Mt. Hood, I am booking my spring break 2012 cruise (Southern Caribbean), and am generally living a more fun-filled life than you could EVER hope for. I won't tell you what I am doing over Thanksgiving or Christmas mainly because I am worried about your health.
Just so everyone else knows, by no means am I even attempting to be boastful. I think Nate's raging jealousy will push him over the edge and he'll wind up in an asylum or rehab.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm still here. And not jealous. And glad you're having fun; we should all have fun.
Quote from: nathanm on June 26, 2011, 10:28:17 PM
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm still here. And not jealous. And glad you're having fun; we should all have fun.
And we should all have some skin in the game. I think it's really difficult for people to understand what their dependency on the government costs if they pay no taxes. Many of these people assume their tax refund is manna from Heaven.
If every working American had to write a check to the government once a quarter or once a year, they might take an interest in the government being more fiscally responsible and requiring less of their earnings to get by. As it is, it's always someone else's problem to deal with.
I realize it's a somewhat radical concept but, if nothing else, it would make everyone much more aware and sensitive to runaway government spending.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 27, 2011, 09:42:04 AM
And we should all have some skin in the game. I think it's really difficult for people to understand what their dependency on the government costs if they pay no taxes. Many of these people assume their tax refund is manna from Heaven.
If every working American had to write a check to the government once a quarter or once a year, they might take an interest in the government being more fiscally responsible and requiring less of their earnings to get by. As it is, it's always someone else's problem to deal with.
I realize it's a somewhat radical concept but, if nothing else, it would make everyone much more aware and sensitive to runaway government spending.
I used to have an assistant who would get all excited about her tax refund every year. One year I tried to explain to her that it was not actually a gift from the government for paying taxes, "It means you miscalculated your withholding." That conversation ended up being a 10 minute waste of my life. I might as well have been explaining string-theory to her.
We can't agree as long as we continue to be emotional about our particular died in the wool partisan stances. I'm a liberal but I'm willing to come to the middle and agree with Conan.
In order to get the debt under control, get the GOP to allow the debt ceiling to be raised, prevent austerity measures that could be crippling to growth and jobs (see Spain) we need to both cut spending and agree to ALL pay for what we ALL own.
Medicare and Medicade are out of control, there are many reasons for this (spiraling health costs, waste, lack of oversight, too many without their own health care plans, voter pandering)
National Defense is out of control (two wars that we put on the credit card (yes and NATO's war against MK), waste, lack of oversight, cronyistic defense contracts, pork, voter pandering)
We need to spend less on these big ticket items and we ALL need to agree to pay for them: ALL of us. Cutting discretionary spending feels good to some people so whack away, but believing that is the panacea is to be blind. How can you look at the budget and not see where we need to focus.
(http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//PolicyBasic_WhereOurTaxDollarsGo-f1_rev4-15-11.jpg)
Is there a connection to the rising teen unemployment to the increased minimum wage? This author thinks so.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304447804576411903821123330.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Quote from: guido911 on July 01, 2011, 02:34:01 PM
Is there a connection to the rising teen unemployment to the increased minimum wage? This author thinks so.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304447804576411903821123330.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, Just One Percent Went To Wages
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/30/258388/corporate-profits-recovery/
It's all about greed(oh!). When will you ever get it. The corporate/wall street hoarding keeps any meaningful progress from occurring. Let's figure this recovery will take 10 more years due to politics and stingy execs. Preserve and protect and here's hoping you've plenty of acorns.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 27, 2011, 09:42:04 AM
I realize it's a somewhat radical concept but, if nothing else, it would make everyone much more aware and sensitive to runaway government spending.
There is no runaway government spending. There are runaway bush tax cuts that Obama doesn't have the balls to call for a total repeal of. There is a stagnant economy that's resulting in lower tax receipts and higher expenditures on UI, Medicaid, and the like. There is the cost (both principal and interest) on two expensive wars and a much smaller amount for a few other skirmishes. But no, runaway government spending is largely a myth. Runaway debt, sure. But it's not caused mostly by spending increases. It's caused mostly by decreases in receipts. Friedmanites are celebrating.
The Bush tax cuts have finally gotten them to a point where even the Democrats are on board with savage spending cuts. It's amazing how a group of people can tell the country exactly what they're going to do, do it, get the exact result they were pushing for, and people still don't believe it.
(http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//5-10-11bud-f1.jpg)
(http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/4-7-11bud.jpg)
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 01, 2011, 02:58:51 PM
Since 2009, 88 Percent Of Income Growth Went To Corporate Profits, Just One Percent Went To Wages
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/30/258388/corporate-profits-recovery/
It's all about greed(oh!). When will you ever get it. The corporate/wall street hoarding keeps any meaningful progress from occurring. Let's figure this recovery will take 10 more years due to politics and stingy execs. Preserve and protect and here's hoping you've plenty of acorns.
Okay. So what? Where is it written that anyone is required to hire anyone else? If you don't like capitalism, there's a simple solution.
Employment is vital to capitalism here in America. Unless you favor chaos, disorder, and class warfare.
Why shouldn't profitable corporations and finance savvy individuals pay back to the system that made them rich? Why shouldn't they pay for government-funded research, national security, infrastructure, and untaxed financial speculation opportunities? Their taxes are %50 less today than in the 60's.
Quote from: guido911 on July 01, 2011, 08:35:21 PM
Okay. So what? Where is it written that anyone is required to hire anyone else? If you don't like capitalism, there's a simple solution.
Does your version of capitalism not need workers?
Quote from: we vs us on July 02, 2011, 11:46:09 AM
Does your version of capitalism not need workers?
Who gets to determine
how many workers?
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 02, 2011, 12:45:01 PM
Who gets to determine how many workers?
The market. But not completely. There's always been input from the government -- and when I say input I mean policy levers, like interest rates or tax breaks, etc. And there's no perfect or magic number of workers, but economists think 6% or so unemployment is acceptable to maintain demand in a modern economy.
Currently the market is determining how many workers it needs. Undoubtedly the unemployment rate is just right from a market standpoint based on current demand. From a societal standpoint, however, the amount of workers working is unsustainable and will create lasting --possibly decades long -- negative effects.
So, are we a nation subject to the whims of the market? Or is the market subject to the control of our nation?
And wevsus I think nails the problem. If companies do not need workers now, why have them? Seriously, pay people to stand around and do nothing? That's what our government is doing now with the extensions in UE benefits. Let's be honest here. The two-plus year ago stimulus didn't deliver, extending the Bush tax cuts six months ago appears to not be working, QE has not worked, so what's left? Punitive measures by the government for shipping jobs overseas? Increase tariffs on imported goods? I don't know. Without a demand, there is no need for supply.
Quote from: guido911 on July 02, 2011, 01:38:06 PM
And wevsus I think nails the problem. If companies do not need workers now, why have them? Seriously, pay people to stand around and do nothing? That's what our government is doing now with the extensions in UE benefits. Let's be honest here. The two-plus year ago stimulus didn't deliver, extending the Bush tax cuts six months ago appears to not be working, QE has not worked, so what's left? Punitive measures by the government for shipping jobs overseas? Increase tariffs on imported goods? I don't know. Without a demand, there is no need for supply.
QE worked (see interest rates)....there's demand, manufacturing is picking up. The past 10 days have been the best for the markets in two years. The Bush tax cuts did not work in the first place.
Looks like Apple wants to cut back on what they do for their own employees and let me guess it's designed to help their bottom line. So, for all you Macheads:
Mac Stores Tell Workers, Instead of Giving You Health Care, Working for Apple 'Should Be Looked at As An Experience'Apple tells its workers it's time to 'work different' -- and that means unfair compensation and benefits.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/151465/mac_stores_tell_workers%2C_instead_of_giving_you_health_care%2C_working_for_apple_%27should_be_looked_at_as_an_experience%27/
Your stuff lacks merit, GreedOh. And wevsus, the big boss man makes all determinations unless there's a unified employee group.
Quote from: we vs us on July 02, 2011, 01:19:27 PM
From a societal standpoint, however, the amount of workers working is unsustainable and will create lasting --possibly decades long -- negative effects.
Most especially because the excess unemployment (relative to the 6% figure) is confined mostly to minorities. I'm not talking negative economic effects, I'm talking uprising. People will only take an imbalance like that for so long before it turns into unrest.
Quote from: nathanm on July 02, 2011, 06:15:16 PM
Most especially because the excess unemployment (relative to the 6% figure) is confined mostly to minorities. I'm not talking negative economic effects, I'm talking uprising. People will only take an imbalance like that for so long before it turns into unrest.
Where will these people direct their "unrest"? Is it the government or will they start picketing homes of mega-corp CEOs that are not hiring? Or will it be anyone with a job? I just don't know if there is a discernible bogeyman.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 02, 2011, 04:03:55 PM
Your stuff lacks merit, GreedOh. And wevsus, the big boss man makes all determinations unless there's a unified employee group.
My stuff? That's what Alan Greenspan said in an article I posted. I'll call and let Mr. Greenspan know that T, the noted economic scholar, takes issue with him. I would like you to source where manufacturing and demand are up (not convinced that it is, especially since I will not take your word for it) because of QE. I can see a connection between QE and the rising stock market, mainly because the extra cash is heading there instead of getting people to work.
And last I heard, all the cash that the fed flooded our economy with was being hoarded.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-27/orders-for-u-s-capital-goods-fall-signaling-less-investment.html
Quote from: guido911 on July 02, 2011, 07:26:56 PM
Where will these people direct their "unrest"? Is it the government or will they start picketing homes of mega-corp CEOs that are not hiring? Or will it be anyone with a job? I just don't know if there is a discernible bogeyman.
Good question, which I don't have an answer to. And I'm probably wrong, it turns out. The UE rate among black people is always higher and almost always significantly higher, the exception being at the peak of the business cycle. Right now the differential is around 8%. Sadly, UE among blacks has been going up for the past few months while it drops among whites.
(http://www.nwacg.net/gallery3/var/resizes/random-stuff/ue-differential.png?m=1309654551)
(blue line is the difference between the unemployment rate between blacks and whites, while the red line is the raw unemployment rate for blacks)
Quote from: guido911 on July 02, 2011, 07:42:06 PM
My stuff? That's what Alan Greenspan said in an article I posted. I'll call and let Mr. Greenspan know that T, the noted economic scholar, takes issue with him. I would like you to source where manufacturing and demand are up (not convinced that it is, especially since I will not take your word for it) because of QE. I can see a connection between QE and the rising stock market, mainly because the extra cash is heading there instead of getting people to work.
And last I heard, all the cash that the fed flooded our economy with was being hoarded.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-27/orders-for-u-s-capital-goods-fall-signaling-less-investment.html
I read a lot of stuff, Guido. It takes me longer to process and recall.....especially on holidaze. Here:
Manufacturing Gains Stir Recovery Hopes http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304450604576419622090057588.html
"An uptick in manufacturing broke the string of weak numbers that have raised fears the U.S. economy is stalling." read it and weep...not what you want to hear. :o
Quote from: nathanm on July 02, 2011, 07:56:59 PM
Good question, which I don't have an answer to. And I'm probably wrong, it turns out. The UE rate among black people is always higher and almost always significantly higher, the exception being at the peak of the business cycle. Right now the differential is around 8%. Sadly, UE among blacks has been going up for the past few months while it drops among whites.
(http://www.nwacg.net/gallery3/var/resizes/random-stuff/ue-differential.png?m=1309654551)
(blue line is the difference between the unemployment rate between blacks and whites, while the red line is the raw unemployment rate for blacks)
I sure as schmidt hope it's not racism. That's not what your suggesting is it?
Quote from: guido911 on July 02, 2011, 08:26:31 PM
I sure as schmidt hope it's not racism. That's not what your suggesting is it?
I won't venture a guess beyond saying that, on average, black people have lower education attainment than white people, and that educational attainment has a strong negative correlation with being unemployed. I don't believe that active racism is what it used to be. I think that there is still plenty of stuff going on that is racist in effect, although not in intent, as I've written about previously.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 02, 2011, 08:25:45 PM
I read a lot of stuff, Guido. It takes me longer to process and recall.....especially on holidaze. Here:
Manufacturing Gains Stir Recovery Hopes http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304450604576419622090057588.html
"An uptick in manufacturing broke the string of weak numbers that have raised fears the U.S. economy is stalling." read it and weep...not what you want to hear. :o
Oh, there's been an "uptick" in manufacturing. Great news. Is it tied to QE as T argued? I would seriously like to know how the fed's buying up treasuries and printing money has resulted in the uptick in manufacturing almost 8 months after QE2 was undertaken. And by the way, all I see are the investors getting pretty excited by this news--which I kinda like to.
Incidentally, I especially liked how T, as expected, would with certainty say that extending the Bush tax cuts, which was after QE2, was in no way a reason for the uptick. If you want a temporal proximity for the improvement, it would be easier to argue that the repubs taking over Congress was the reason more so than QE. Of course, I have no idea, as opposed to you two geniuses.
Quote from: nathanm on July 02, 2011, 08:36:09 PM
I won't venture a guess beyond saying that, on average, black people have lower education attainment than white people, and that educational attainment has a strong negative correlation with being unemployed. I don't believe that active racism is what it used to be. I think that there is still plenty of stuff going on that is racist in effect, although not in intent, as I've written about previously.
Oh it's out there, all right. Believe me. I have been on the front lines of some of these discrimination cases--on both sides. I tell all of my clients, though, that nothing would make me happier than being out of business in this area, and I mean it. Such is not the case as I'm as busy as ever.
We Knew They Got Raises. But This?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/business/03pay.html?_r=1
Executive pay seems to be based on whatever the previous company directors once created. That's not the rule but is quite obvious there exists a wide gap between employee pay and executive pay.
Guido, how can you possibly attribute the recent uptick in manufacturing to the extension of Bush tax cuts when the only beneficiaries are yacht and corporate jet owners? The reason for the uptick in manufacturing is directly related to confidence and less fear. Low interest rates brought on by QE2 have facilitated that momentum in confidence. The wobbliness banks experienced in 07 and 08 have become settled due to quick and decisive actions taken since TARP which includes several other government actions non of which singularly cured the disruption from the housing debacle. But the fear factor of banks failing has diminished substantially. You can continue to politicize short term activity but be prepared for a long road to hoe. To place blame at Obuma's feet for the soft economy just acts as a cover-up for congress' incompetence, their unwillingness to put aside partisan politics for the people's welfare. The Clinton tax brackets need to be re instituted after Jan. 1, 2012.
It will be stagflation nation for many years especially with the widening gap between the haves and the have nots. For many years now, it's employees who have been scapegoated for the cost to wall street bottom lines. It's been taxes supposedly creating corporate hardships. Could it be there are other culprits? Executive pay, poor future planning, greed, lack of cost containment, lousy marketing, horrid decision making at the top, etc. all have a bearing on a corporation's ability to perform. This economy is a culmination of past leadership's failure to foresee the reckless ways of our corporate culture. And to top it off SCOTUS has handed wall streeters the ability to buy elections.
Don't think you can blame Obuma for what's happening right now.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 03, 2011, 02:59:35 PM
We Knew They Got Raises. But This?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/business/03pay.html?_r=1
Executive pay seems to be based on whatever the previous company directors once created. That's not the rule but is quite obvious there exists a wide gap between employee pay and executive pay.
Guido, how can you possibly attribute the recent uptick in manufacturing to the extension of Bush tax cuts when the only beneficiaries are yacht and corporate jet owners? The reason for the uptick in manufacturing is directly related to confidence and less fear. Low interest rates brought on by QE2 have facilitated that momentum in confidence. The wobbliness banks experienced in 07 and 08 have become settled due to quick and decisive actions taken since TARP which includes several other government actions non of which singularly cured the disruption from the housing debacle. But the fear factor of banks failing has diminished substantially. You can continue to politicize short term activity but be prepared for a long road to hoe. To place blame at Obuma's feet for the soft economy just acts as a cover-up for congress' incompetence, their unwillingness to put aside partisan politics for the people's welfare. The Clinton tax brackets need to be re instituted after Jan. 1, 2012.
It will be stagflation nation for many years especially with the widening gap between the haves and the have nots. For many years now, it's employees who have been scapegoated for the cost to wall street bottom lines. It's been taxes supposedly creating corporate hardships. Could it be there are other culprits? Executive pay, poor future planning, greed, lack of cost containment, lousy marketing, horrid decision making at the top, etc. all have a bearing on a corporation's ability to perform. This economy is a culmination of past leadership's failure to foresee the reckless ways of our corporate culture. And to top it off SCOTUS has handed wall streeters the ability to buy elections.
Don't think you can blame Obuma for what's happening right now.
If you took the time to think about what I wrote, you will realize that I have no idea why there is a recent uptick. There are some like T who know for certain what is not responsible--the Bush tax cuts. That's all.
At present, Obama has had the time to see whether his ideas that he and his filibuster-proof Congress implemented would work. He got his stimulus, QE, QE2, his extension of the Bush tax cuts, the numerous bailouts (Bush got his too), and each has not had the desired effect. Instead, we have the gaffer-in-chief Biden telling us about "recovery summer"
last year and Obama telling us after we spent almost $1T on shovel ready jobs that those shovel ready jobs were not shovel ready. Do blame Obama? Absolutely. Do I want to? Absolutely not. I want whatever is wrong fixed and I honestly do not care who gets the credit.
Given the timing, I the Bush tax cuts don't fit. QE fits a little better, but it probably has more to do with the weak dollar than any particular policy (although QE has kept the dollar relatively weak..I still think it's bad policy in the current environment).
(http://www.nwacg.net/gallery3/var/resizes/random-stuff/manemp.png?m=1309471024)
Clearly the first round did nothing. Maybe the second round slowed the loss of manufacturing jobs, but this graph isn't a clear indicator of that. It's also pretty clear that the "uptick" is weak at best.
Quote from: nathanm on July 01, 2011, 05:45:08 PM
There is no runaway government spending. There are runaway bush tax cuts that Obama doesn't have the balls to call for a total repeal of.
(http://compoundthinking.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/istock_000002694919xsmall.jpg)
Nate, I'll take any positive news right now. And in hindsight, I wish I hadn't posted that Greenspan stuff, or even read it to begin with, because I am tired of hearing how sucky our economy is.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 03, 2011, 06:14:31 PM
(http://compoundthinking.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/istock_000002694919xsmall.jpg)
You snark, but the vast majority of the deficit is attributable to the tax cuts and the reduced receipts due to the economy. Were it not for those two factors, we'd have a 200-300 billion gap, which is largely covered (at least as a percentage of GDP) by growth in a "normal" post WWII economy for us.
The main drivers of our projected deficits are: The tax cuts, the crappy economy (which increases costs significantly for unemployment insurance, medicaid, and all other safety net spending) , the interest on what we're projected to borrow in the next 4 years or so, and the runaway cost of health care. Baby boomer retirement is a small part of it, and other increases in expenditures aren't much relative even to the no-tax-cut deficit.
Some adjustment downward in spending is clearly necessary, even with letting the Bush tax cuts expire, but it's not anything like what Ryan wants. The reason he needs so much spending cut is the $500 billion a year in tax cuts/extra interest built in to his proposal. And yes, I think the entirety of the Bush tax cuts should be repealed, even those parts that apply to the middle class.
Today I read the cost per job created by stimulus money was $278K and this story I cannot believe is accurate:
Quotehttp://Hey buddy, can you spare a square?
The city is so hard up for cash that it's rationing toilet paper in women's public restrooms -- to the point where bathroom attendants are doling out a few measly squares per patron -- along the world-famous Coney Island boardwalk.
The Post witnessed stone-faced Parks Department employees leave toilet-paper dispensers empty last week and instead force astonished female beachgoers to form "ration lines" in the bathrooms.
Regina Ballone, 25, of Brooklyn visited a boardwalk bathroom at West 16th Street Wednesday and was "grossed out" at the thought of someone else handling her toilet paper.
"Never in my life have I experienced anything like this," she said. "I walked toward a stall, and a bathroom attendant stopped me by shouting, 'Hey, mami! There's no toilet paper here,' and she whipped out a big roll for me to grab some."
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/ed_off_over_coney_tp_ration_ZLxvCQtk7PMMJa8wPtA39J#ixzz1R91vhVQU
Take it a step closer and realize even if that number is correct, the money gets entered into the economy based on a 5 year payout on a hopefully 25 year job creation which ups the velocity of exchange. At least, that would be a theory.
As far as the local economy at Coney Island, it's obviously and literally in the sh!tter like the rest of America while congress diddles.
Quote from: guido911 on July 04, 2011, 01:13:22 PM
Today I read the cost per job created by stimulus money was $278K and this story I cannot believe is accurate:
Jobs are not the only tangible positive result of stimulus. There's things like..IDK..the bridges that are pretty nice to have, also.
Quote from: nathanm on July 04, 2011, 03:18:10 PM
Jobs are not the only tangible positive result of stimulus. There's things like..IDK..the bridges that are pretty nice to have, also.
And there are these things:
http://johnmccain.com/images/uploads/Stimulus_Report.pdf
Personally, I want a counter proposal to Ryan's budget instead of the other side just shooting arrows. Obama did present a budget earlier this year, but the Senate rejected in 97-0.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/163347-senate-votes-unanimously-against-obama-budget
Quote from: guido911 on June 23, 2011, 05:42:01 PM
How many of those (directly or indirectly as is the case of minors) are in the "paying federal income taxes" category? But answer the question, why shouldn't all of us at least pay SOMETHING, rather than just focusing on one tax policy solution?
You mean like Exxon, GE, etc?? You really think they should have to pay something?? Or how about the "entitlement babies" - the 1%'ers amongst us who currently do pay less than the rest of us??
Wow! Common cause with guido!! How did that happen??
Quote from: Gaspar on June 24, 2011, 04:47:10 PM
Taxing individuals by a percentage of their earning is fair an equatable.
Capitalism has created the highest standard of living ever known on earth. The evidence is incontrovertible. The contrast between West and East Berlin is the latest demonstration, like a laboratory experiment for all to see. Yet those who are loudest in proclaiming their desire to eliminate poverty are loudest in denouncing capitalism. Man's well-being is not their goal. – Ayn Rand, Theory and Practice[/i][/color]
Ayn didn't accept the reality that we don't have capitalism. We have capitalistic monopolism.
Gaspar,
I am very glad to hear you say that - we agree SO absolutely that it is uncanny! And the situation we have in this country is skewed so horribly toward the 1%ers with the mechanism in place that allows them to get away with paying MUCH less in percentage than everyone else (less than 18% compared to 20 to 25% and more for everyone else). It is a grotesque mockery of ALL principles of fairness!
Even the poorest among us are required to pay the 14% payroll tax regardless of circumstance, while the richest enjoy that 14% tax break along with all the others. And no, the payroll tax is not, nor has been a "separate" tax since the 80's when Social Security was "fixed". (Yeah, fixed like a male dog so it can't make puppies.)
And no, the 7 and 7 is still a 14% tax on the poorest - as every company will tell you - it is part of the "total compensation", so it is their 7% extra 'contribution'.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 24, 2011, 10:27:07 PM
I certainly don't think every poor person is lazy but do you have some percentages on your claims above?
Red,
You have been here since 1971...remember how in all those years up until about 1983, the Oklahoma unemployment rate (at least as reported...) ran in the 1 to 2% range averaged over many years. We essentially enjoyed full employment. So, the people out of work consisted of all the categories; medical, temp layoff, permanent layoff, shut down of business, etc, etc, and just too damn lazy to get a job.
I submit that if ALL those categories, plus others I have missed add up to only 2% of the Oklahoma population, then it would be extremely unlikely that the too-damn-lazy category would exceed 1%. This is a first shot at a guesstimate, and I bet it would be high.
So, 1% just too lazy to work. That means to me that first, 1% is probably to high, and second, even that means most people want to work. Think it is too high or too low? Make a case!
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 04, 2011, 08:26:43 PM
You mean like Exxon, GE, etc?? You really think they should have to pay something?? Or how about the "entitlement babies" - the 1%'ers amongst us who currently do pay less than the rest of us??
Wow! Common cause with guido!! How did that happen??
Here we go again.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 04, 2011, 08:45:52 PM
Red,
You have been here since 1971...remember how in all those years up until about 1983, the Oklahoma unemployment rate (at least as reported...) ran in the 1 to 2% range averaged over many years.
I don't remember the unemployment numbers as I was employed by the US Navy for a few years and then went back to school until 79. I found a job in 79 which I kept until 1992.
However, that was a generation ago. Are you certain nothing has changed in OK? In the USA?
Quote from: nathanm on July 04, 2011, 12:07:47 AM
You snark, but the vast majority of the deficit is attributable to the tax cuts and the reduced receipts due to the economy. Were it not for those two factors, we'd have a 200-300 billion gap, which is largely covered (at least as a percentage of GDP) by growth in a "normal" post WWII economy for us.
The main drivers of our projected deficits are: The tax cuts, the crappy economy (which increases costs significantly for unemployment insurance, medicaid, and all other safety net spending) , the interest on what we're projected to borrow in the next 4 years or so, and the runaway cost of health care. Baby boomer retirement is a small part of it, and other increases in expenditures aren't much relative even to the no-tax-cut deficit.
Some adjustment downward in spending is clearly necessary, even with letting the Bush tax cuts expire, but it's not anything like what Ryan wants. The reason he needs so much spending cut is the $500 billion a year in tax cuts/extra interest built in to his proposal. And yes, I think the entirety of the Bush tax cuts should be repealed, even those parts that apply to the middle class.
You simply cannot ignore the obvious. If we didn't spend so much damn money we would not need as much revenue. One doesn't happen without the other. Discretionary spending sky-rocketed after Bush put his tax cuts into place. President Obama uses a really poor precedent to justify even worse deficit spending. Almost every single Congressman in Washington is shifting money to pet projects and to their contributors and voting base because only a million here and a million there isn't real money anyhow. 8)
If you have ever worked as a contractor to the federal government you might actually become better aware of how much money gets wasted on virtually every single construction project, every energy savings upgrade, every emergency repair, every procurement, etc. I work with the government on multiple projects each year and it's shocking to see the waste that gets incorporated into their projects and how much their red tape artificially inflates the cost of their projects simply due to the "pain-in-the-donkey" factor of having to do it their way. There's far too much administration and bureaucracy involved in each project.
Simply raising taxes is an incredibly lazy approach to the problem. We've got to get the government interested in the far more difficult task of cutting it's outlays
along with figuring out ways to increase revenue and pay down our debt.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 05, 2011, 09:01:17 AM
You simply cannot ignore the obvious. If we didn't spend so much damn money we would not need as much revenue. One doesn't happen without the other. Discretionary spending sky-rocketed after Bush put his tax cuts into place. President Obama uses a really poor precedent to justify even worse deficit spending. Almost every single Congressman in Washington is shifting money to pet projects and to their contributors and voting base because only a million here and a million there isn't real money anyhow. 8)
If you have ever worked as a contractor to the federal government you might actually become better aware of how much money gets wasted on virtually every single construction project, every energy savings upgrade, every emergency repair, every procurement, etc. I work with the government on multiple projects each year and it's shocking to see the waste that gets incorporated into their projects and how much their red tape artificially inflates the cost of their projects simply due to the "pain-in-the-donkey" factor of having to do it their way. There's far too much administration and bureaucracy involved in each project.
Simply raising taxes is an incredibly lazy approach to the problem. We've got to get the government interested in the far more difficult task of cutting it's outlays along with figuring out ways to increase revenue and pay down our debt.
So you finally agree with Grover? "Starve the beast?"
Quote from: we vs us on July 05, 2011, 10:36:17 AM
So you finally agree with Grover? "Starve the beast?"
I don't care what Norquist thinks, he's a demagogue and he doesn't have accountability to voters. He considers ending ethanol subsidies as a tax increase, need I say more?
In addition to tax revenue increases, there needs to be an incentive for every department head within the government to look for ways to become more efficient and cut waste. Instead, when budget cuts are mentioned every single one says: "We can't function on less." The paradigm needs to shift to every supervisor and every employee figuring out how they can get by on less. That's precisely what's kept a lot of private enterprises afloat the last few years. That's also partially behind the persistent 9% unemployment, small business has thrived on sacrifice.
I think even some of the most astute conservatives are realizing there's no way out of this mess without raising taxes. Problem is, most of them are afraid of not having a job come Jan. 2013 if they agree to tax increases. The message needs to change. The message needs to be everyone sacrifices. Everyone pays in a little more and every department and entitlement gives up a little.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 05, 2011, 11:16:36 AM
I don't care what Norquist thinks, he's a demagogue and he doesn't have accountability to voters. He considers ending ethanol subsidies as a tax increase, need I say more?
In addition to tax revenue increases, there needs to be an incentive for every department head within the government to look for ways to become more efficient and cut waste. Instead, when budget cuts are mentioned every single one says: "We can't function on less." The paradigm needs to shift to every supervisor and every employee figuring out how they can get by on less. That's precisely what's kept a lot of private enterprises afloat the last few years. That's also partially behind the persistent 9% unemployment, small business has thrived on sacrifice.
I think even some of the most astute conservatives are realizing there's no way out of this mess without raising taxes. Problem is, most of them are afraid of not having a job come Jan. 2013 if they agree to tax increases. The message needs to change. The message needs to be everyone sacrifices. Everyone pays in a little more and every department and entitlement gives up a little.
You must have had a sobering 4th....Everyone sacrifices....except those that need a hand up. You're getting there. Our congressman says a deal is coming and they will get something accomplished soon. We will wait and see...
Quote from: Conan71 on July 05, 2011, 11:16:36 AM
I don't care what Norquist thinks, he's a demagogue and he doesn't have accountability to voters. He considers ending ethanol subsidies as a tax increase, need I say more?
The reason I brought him up is because you've pretty strongly advocated for his approach to taxation and government, which is to forcibly reduce government by depriving it of funding. Starving the beast. That's what I'm gathering from your posts so far. That regardless of the Bush tax cuts, government was and is far too big and so we should essentially keep those cuts permanent because government should only be using that much in revenue anyway.
Did I get that right?
Quote from: Conan71 on July 05, 2011, 11:16:36 AM
I don't care what Norquist thinks, he's a demagogue and he doesn't have accountability to voters. He considers ending ethanol subsidies as a tax increase, need I say more?
In addition to tax revenue increases, there needs to be an incentive for every department head within the government to look for ways to become more efficient and cut waste. Instead, when budget cuts are mentioned every single one says: "We can't function on less." The paradigm needs to shift to every supervisor and every employee figuring out how they can get by on less. That's precisely what's kept a lot of private enterprises afloat the last few years. That's also partially behind the persistent 9% unemployment, small business has thrived on sacrifice.
I think even some of the most astute conservatives are realizing there's no way out of this mess without raising taxes. Problem is, most of them are afraid of not having a job come Jan. 2013 if they agree to tax increases. The message needs to change. The message needs to be everyone sacrifices. Everyone pays in a little more and every department and entitlement gives up a little.
In my eyes, you have the elder Bush to thank a little for that conservative mindset...anyone remember 'read my lips'? That became the conservative mantra..until he raised taxes.
Look, I'm all for tax cuts when warranted. This sure isn't the time. Sure, we need to cut discretionary spending. But that's not going to have the same impact as also rolling back the the tax code to pre 2001, where they were with Clinton. And modify some of the 'loopholes'.
Quote from: we vs us on July 05, 2011, 11:54:00 AM
The reason I brought him up is because you've pretty strongly advocated for his approach to taxation and government, which is to forcibly reduce government by depriving it of funding. Starving the beast. That's what I'm gathering from your posts so far. That regardless of the Bush tax cuts, government was and is far too big and so we should essentially keep those cuts permanent because government should only be using that much in revenue anyway.
Did I get that right?
We need to cut spending for sure. Start with the 900 lb gorilla in the room. Defense. Then work on his little brother, Social Security.
Quote from: Hoss on July 05, 2011, 12:19:28 PM
We need to cut spending for sure. Start with the 900 lb gorilla in the room. Defense. Then work on his little brother, Social Security.
Sounds good. Send a letter to the president. Here are the actual breakdowns in spending according to current numbers (in billions) according to the Debt Clock.
Medicare/aid $820
Social Sec $714
Defense $701
Income Security $423
Fed Pensions $210
Interest $211
Within these general categories it should be relatively easy to find 1.3 trillion dollars to cut. First step would be to freeze spending at current levels for all categories until the budget is in balance. Is that agreeable? We are being eaten by interest. Currently our mandatory spending is below our revenue (I am including defense as discretionary). Within the next 20 years our mandatory spending will exceed our revenue (much sooner if Obamacare survives). By around 2040, the interest we owe will be more than any other government spending (except perhaps Obamacare if it survives).
Second, would be to identify spending that provides no reasonable or lasting benefit, and eliminate it. This will be painful for some, as that it will affect secondary social programs. Even though cuts to non-social spending, may be far greater, a single fraction of a percent in reduction to social programs will produce a thousand times more powerful demagogic reaction from liberals than a massive cut to defense.
I am of the opinion that we could cut as much at 20% of defense spending by eliminating additional theaters of war, responsibly withdrawing from existing conflicts, and scaling back our roll as world police. That comes out to about $140billion.
That's my percentage, now we only need to find 10 times more!
Quote from: we vs us on July 05, 2011, 11:54:00 AM
The reason I brought him up is because you've pretty strongly advocated for his approach to taxation and government, which is to forcibly reduce government by depriving it of funding. Starving the beast. That's what I'm gathering from your posts so far. That regardless of the Bush tax cuts, government was and is far too big and so we should essentially keep those cuts permanent because government should only be using that much in revenue anyway.
Did I get that right?
Actually you didn't. I advocate raising taxes by a like percentage on everyone. That takes away any arguments for favored treatment for any one class. I also advocate an equal percentage cut to every single government budget. That takes out the sacred cows. Everyone sacrifices and eventually we return to fiscal sanity.
It's pretty easy to manage when you say: "You are going to pay 3% more income tax. Those of you who wind up paying nothing will get 3% less back. Every single department and entitlement takes an equal percent cut in funding. Figure out how to manage on less."
I'd also invest more money in fraud prevention in entitlement programs.
For a senior drawing $2000 a month in Social Security benefits, a 3% cut would equal $5.00 a month. Not a huge sacrifice. We've bantered about the 3% increase with a corresponding 3% decrease in spending on here before. I don't recall the magic numbers but it would stanch deficit spending fairly quick as well as reduce the debt.
When the military comes along and says they don't need as much money because they want to shut down an expensive program then a few key Congresspeople weigh in on behalf of some of their
heavy hitter donors er constituents to keep building armament our own military says it no longer needs, you know something is eerily wrong with the system.
Straight cuts and simplifying the tax code will remove most of the usual politics. Not to say that gaining support for such an idea wouldn't be political in and of itself, but it takes away all favoritism and drives home the point every American needs to take part in expecting a little less and giving a little more.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 05, 2011, 07:59:45 AM
I don't remember the unemployment numbers as I was employed by the US Navy for a few years and then went back to school until 79. I found a job in 79 which I kept until 1992.
However, that was a generation ago. Are you certain nothing has changed in OK? In the USA?
Not at all. I suspect much has changed. Just not sure that so much of it is human nature changing, though...
Even today with all the kids (18 to 24) I meet in the workplace, and the things they are interested in, it looks like they are about the same. And all the teeny-bops I have met at Union this last year are also the same kind of goofballs I remember being at that same age. Except they seem to get more sex than I could EVER have dreamed of.
I used to hear that old hack about how "the more things change, the more they stay the same"... didn't really believe that very much until the last 15 years or so.
Conan,
3% of 2k is $60 per month.
Also, who gets $2,000 per month from Social Security so far?? I only have two contemporaries, one an engineer, one laborer who have started this last year at full age. The laborer is closer to $900 per month. The engineer, who for decades (since at least 1983) made the amount where the maximum contribution is required, does not get 2k - is under $1,700.
I found this - but who made the maximum for 46 years?? The notes I get from SS - well, I would love to get close to that $2,300 this place talks about....
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/5/~/maximum-social-security-retirement-benefit
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 05, 2011, 02:30:23 PM
Conan,
3% of 2k is $60 per month.
Also, who gets $2,000 per month from Social Security so far?? I only have two contemporaries, one an engineer, one laborer who have started this last year at full age. The laborer is closer to $900 per month. The engineer, who for decades (since at least 1983) made the amount where the maximum contribution is required, does not get 2k - is under $1,700.
I found this - but who made the maximum for 46 years?? The notes I get from SS - well, I would love to get close to that $2,300 this place talks about....
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/5/~/maximum-social-security-retirement-benefit
My mother barely gets $600. Used to be $700 before the medicare supplemental deduction. Not a lot, considering she was a stay at home mom until her accident, then unable to work, it is some. Her prescriptions meds also only cost her $1 for each of them for a month, so that's not too bad either.
Hoss,
Has she looked into filing under your father (or her husband??). Might be more, depending on lots of factors...
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 05, 2011, 02:30:23 PM
Conan,
3% of 2k is $60 per month.
Also, who gets $2,000 per month from Social Security so far?? I only have two contemporaries, one an engineer, one laborer who have started this last year at full age. The laborer is closer to $900 per month. The engineer, who for decades (since at least 1983) made the amount where the maximum contribution is required, does not get 2k - is under $1,700.
I found this - but who made the maximum for 46 years?? The notes I get from SS - well, I would love to get close to that $2,300 this place talks about....
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/5/~/maximum-social-security-retirement-benefit
Ooops, derp, silly math. Not sure why I divided that result by 12 my bad ;) Basically $30 a month for someone receiving $1000 in cash benefits. Never mind what they are getting in the way of health benefits.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on July 05, 2011, 02:43:10 PM
Hoss,
Has she looked into filing under your father (or her husband??). Might be more, depending on lots of factors...
That's what she's getting it from now..she didn't work enough to be able to claim SS, although she's disabled so before she was 65 (she just turned that in April) she was drawing SSI. Much to the chagrin of those chastising about 'sucking at the gubmint teat', I was glad she was able to because I wouldn't have been able to help as much as I'd like.
Conan, we've been cutting much of government for the last 30 years while increasing expense in Medicare and Social Security and increasing the size of the defense budget for the last 10. If you want even more regulatory failures, please, let's cut government spending more.
Know what's freakin hilarious? Joking about how the automaker bailouts were done for the unions.
QuoteInvestigators for the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform are asking the White House official who oversaw the government bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler whether he told the truth in recent testimony before the committee. Ron Bloom, Assistant to the President for Manufacturing Policy, is quoted in a 2009 newspaper account and a 2010 book saying of the auto bailouts that he "did this all for the unions." But when Bloom appeared before the committee on June 22, he flatly denied ever saying those words. Other White House officials have reportedly defended Bloom by suggesting that he did indeed say those words but was joking. And that has led committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa to ask what is going on.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/house-asks-did-obamas-auto-bailout-chief-say-i-did-all-unions#ixzz1ReGze3ES
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/07/house-asks-did-obamas-auto-bailout-chief-say-i-did-all-unions
Know what's even MORE freakin hilarious?
Joking about how the automaker bailouts were done by Obama!
When they actually occurred in Sept/Oct 2008. A month or two before the election even occurred.
Hilarious!! But right in line with RWRE twisting of history.
Well isn't this great news:
QuoteWASHINGTON—The U.S. labor market could stay sluggish for a while, with small-business executives reluctant to hire amid the murky economic outlook.
Almost two-thirds—64%—of small-business executives surveyed said they weren't expecting to add to their payrolls in the next year and another 12% planned to cut jobs, according to a U.S. Chamber of Commerce report to be released Monday. Just 19% said they would expand their work forces.
This comes after a Labor Department report Friday showed employers added few jobs in June, and unemployment rose to 9.2%. The bleak figures joined other data showing the recovery losing momentum in recent months, which has caused many analysts and policy makers to lower their forecasts for economic growth in the second half of the year.
The Small Business Administration says small businesses, defined as companies with fewer than 500 workers, employ about half of the workers in the private sector. In the Chamber's survey of 1,409 executives, conducted by Harris Interactive, small businesses were defined as firms with revenue of $25 million or less.
More than half of the small-business executives in the June 27-30 survey cited economic uncertainty as the main reason for holding back on hiring. About a third blamed lack of sales, while just 7% pointed to problems getting credit.
"I think it's safer to stay on hold and not hire workers," said Harold Jackson, chief executive of Buffalo Supply, a Lafayette, Colo., distributor of high-tech medical equipment used in operating rooms.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303812104576437853543049480.html
Funny, she who must be obeyed's company is hiring like mad and throwing money at existing employees to keep them around.
And the policy analysts are pretty effing stupid. The unemployment rate went up mainly because of job losses in the public sphere. Private hiring was lackluster, but not terribly low compared to the last couple of years, although it is down significantly compared to the first couple of months of this year.
Quote from: nathanm on July 11, 2011, 06:28:07 PM
Funny, she who must be obeyed's company is hiring like mad and throwing money at existing employees to keep them around.
And the policy analysts are pretty effing stupid. The unemployment rate went up mainly because of job losses in the public sphere. Private hiring was lackluster, but not terribly low compared to the last couple of years, although it is down significantly compared to the first couple of months of this year.
You are talking mostly about hindsight events. That story is discussing the future. That's is what should have all of us alarmed.
Lot's of companies hiring - we are still going strong. Over 40,000 now in last couple years. There is a sign hanging on a fence facing the interstate. That IS the future.
And the public sector being decimated? Well, isn't that what the Republicontins wanted? Yes, it is, so one would think they would be rejoicing.
It is the nattering nabobs of negativity that are nay-saying what has been going on the last two+ years.
As the RWRE has always done.
The baseball fan that caught then graciously returned Jeter's 3,000 career hit may get to pay his fair share in taxes. ::)
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpps/sports/fan-who-caught-jeter-ball-could-face-five-figure-tax-bill-dpgonc-20110712-fc_14086840
You don't think the Yankees will handle that for him or do you just believe everyone thinks like you do about taxes and the rich.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 16, 2011, 03:35:50 PM
You don't think the Yankees will handle that for him or do you just believe everyone thinks like you do about taxes and the rich.
The degree that you suck is too damned high for me to deal with today.
Quote from: guido911 on July 16, 2011, 03:30:24 PM
The baseball fan that caught then graciously returned Jeter's 3,000 career hit may get to pay his fair share in taxes. ::)
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpps/sports/fan-who-caught-jeter-ball-could-face-five-figure-tax-bill-dpgonc-20110712-fc_14086840
Thats why I would only try to get on a game show that has cash prizes, easier to set aside the taxes then if you get merchandise or cars.
Quote from: dbacks fan on July 16, 2011, 03:40:21 PM
Thats why I would only try to get on a game show that has cash prizes, easier to set aside the taxes then if you get merchandise or cars.
You got that right. But this is the way our country finances itself. Guy makes a lucky catch, guy makes a wonderful gift, guy gets rewarded, then guy gets boned.
IIRC if it's less than $10k in the form of a gift (cash or otherwise) you don't get taxed.
Quote from: guido911 on July 11, 2011, 04:09:57 PM
Well isn't this great news:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303812104576437853543049480.html
I totally agree. We should go ahead and get that debt ceiling raised so we aren't looking down the barrel of a possible double dip depression. Talk about uncertainty!
Quote from: we vs us on July 16, 2011, 07:39:06 PM
I totally agree. We should go ahead and get that debt ceiling raised so we aren't looking down the barrel of a possible double dip depression. Talk about uncertainty!
I'm just not buying the doomsday scenario if the ceiling isn't raised. I think surviving the Y2K scare has something to do with it.
O/T. I saw on Drudge that every single democrat (and 2 repubs including Coburn) voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, which is just another reason not to be afraid. If the fear was not a concern then, why should it be now?
Obluffma...??
Quote from: guido911 on July 16, 2011, 07:57:51 PM
I'm just not buying the doomsday scenario if the ceiling isn't raised. I think surviving the Y2K scare has something to do with it.
O/T. I saw on Drudge that every single democrat (and 2 repubs including Coburn) voted against raising the debt ceiling in 2006, which is just another reason not to be afraid. If the fear was not a concern then, why should it be now?
I can't tell you why the Dems voted against the ceiling in 2006 (or even if they did, considering you found this on Drudge), but there's a good chance that the context of that vote meant something . . . that it was guaranteed to pass anyway, or it was an engineered protest vote or whatever. I don't know, but I think you'll agree -- especially after listening to how O"Connell wants to structure his Plan Z for getting the celing raised -- that every vote doesn't necessarily mean what it says on the label.
Regardless of what you may personally believe, there're a host of well connected and knowledgable people around the world and in our country who are starting to act genuinely scared of this not happening. This includes some of the people who'd up till recently been howling that they'd never raise the ceiling. Y2k is another beast entirely, IMO. There were a lot of unknowns. In this case it's not hard to imagine what a default would look like. We're seeing one happen in Greece, and almost in Ireland, in Portugal, Spain, etc. Plus, we have historical records from other countries. We know that interest rates will bounce way up, that the market will crash, that we will lose our AAA rating, and we know what that means for the typical nation's borrowing. The stuff we DON'T know about include what it will do to the finances of every other nation that has pegged its investments to the dollar or to Treasury notes. There're quite a few (Israel, for instance. . .). There're good chances that muni bonds and debt will go under, that our individual states will default, and that corps with strong ties to the government will suffer and/or go under.
We're so deeply embedded into other nations that if we go down, we destabilize a whole bunch of folks right along with us.
Our debt rating will fall in the future regardless if we raise the ceiling or not. Sooner or later the interest rate goes up for irresponsible borrowers. It's an immutable fact of finance on the micro and macro levels.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 17, 2011, 07:41:09 PM
Our debt rating will fall in the future regardless if we raise the ceiling or not. Sooner or later the interest rate goes up for irresponsible borrowers. It's an immutable fact of finance on the micro and macro levels.
It sure will if we have to keep spending through a prolonged recession and then don't do anything to resolve the long term issues even after the economy picks back up.
And something else that could be impacted by the debt limit that I hadn't thought of: The FDIC. I'm not sure what the state of their insurance fund is at the moment, but given a prolonged recession, they could very well need to borrow from the Treasury to pay claims. If Treasury doesn't have it and can't borrow it, I guess people just lose their savings?
The ironic thing is that savage cuts to the government in the midst of a stagnant economy only makes the situation worse. Now is not the time to put more people out of work. Besides, if investors were clamoring for us to do something about our borrowing in the short term, the real yield on 5 year Treasuries would be more than .01 percent. This "OMG National Debt" schtick is just a stick used by the party not holding the Presidency to beat up the party that has it.
We do need to get health care costs under control, but that's something we need to do anyway. We simply can't have a healthy economy when we spend nearly twice as much (as a percentage of GDP) on health care than any other nation and get worse outcomes. Fixing health care cost growth would solve the Medicare problem as a bonus.
Quote from: we vs us on July 16, 2011, 09:45:58 PM
I can't tell you why the Dems voted against the ceiling in 2006...
I can. Bush was President.
Quote from: nathanm on July 17, 2011, 08:00:13 PM
It sure will if we have to keep spending through a prolonged recession and then don't do anything to resolve the long term issues even after the economy picks back up.
And something else that could be impacted by the debt limit that I hadn't thought of: The FDIC. I'm not sure what the state of their insurance fund is at the moment, but given a prolonged recession, they could very well need to borrow from the Treasury to pay claims. If Treasury doesn't have it and can't borrow it, I guess people just lose their savings?
The ironic thing is that savage cuts to the government in the midst of a stagnant economy only makes the situation worse. Now is not the time to put more people out of work. Besides, if investors were clamoring for us to do something about our borrowing in the short term, the real yield on 5 year Treasuries would be more than .01 percent. This "OMG National Debt" schtick is just a stick used by the party not holding the Presidency to beat up the party that has it.
We do need to get health care costs under control, but that's something we need to do anyway. We simply can't have a healthy economy when we spend nearly twice as much (as a percentage of GDP) on health care than any other nation and get worse outcomes. Fixing health care cost growth would solve the Medicare problem as a bonus.
Take a look at other countries which spend less on healthcare and you will find they have a much more proactive approach to their health and well-being. Here, we beat the smile out of our bodies and poison them then spend the rest of our lives pumped up on pills and procedures to try and un-do the damage.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 18, 2011, 12:24:42 PM
Take a look at other countries which spend less on healthcare and you will find they have a much more proactive approach to their health and well-being. Here, we beat the smile out of our bodies and poison them then spend the rest of our lives pumped up on pills and procedures to try and un-do the damage.
We do that because it costs a lot of money to go to the doctor for most of us, so we don't get the benefit of preventative medicine. Moreover, procedures cost more here. Med mal costs more here. Administrative costs are higher. Everything costs more, even if it's the same treatment. Plus we have much more expensive treatments that don't actually have better outcomes than the old way of doing things. It's got less to do with our obesity than you'd think. Our per capita GDP is higher than most nations, making the 13% we spend look that much worse.
If it was all down to us being in poorer health, you'd expect that we'd have more nurses and hospital beds per capita than other countries, but we're actually below the OECD average on both.
Additionally, when you look at things like smoking, there are fewer smokers (as a percentage of the population) in the US than there are in most other OECD countries (only Canada has fewer smokers). I'm getting more stats, but I probably won't have the time to digest it all for at least a couple of hours.
Edited to add: A cursory examination shows that we perform MRIs and CTs far more often than they're performed anywhere else in the world. It's stuff like that helping to drive up health care costs. One other thing that stands out is that we graduate fewer medical students than any other OECD nation except Israel (we're tied with Chile).
Quote from: nathanm on July 18, 2011, 08:37:22 PM
We do that because it costs a lot of money to go to the doctor for most of us, so we don't get the benefit of preventative medicine. Moreover, procedures cost more here. Med mal costs more here. Administrative costs are higher. Everything costs more, even if it's the same treatment. Plus we have much more expensive treatments that don't actually have better outcomes than the old way of doing things. It's got less to do with our obesity than you'd think. Our per capita GDP is higher than most nations, making the 13% we spend look that much worse.
If it was all down to us being in poorer health, you'd expect that we'd have more nurses and hospital beds per capita than other countries, but we're actually below the OECD average on both.
Additionally, when you look at things like smoking, there are fewer smokers (as a percentage of the population) in the US than there are in most other OECD countries (only Canada has fewer smokers). I'm getting more stats, but I probably won't have the time to digest it all for at least a couple of hours.
Edited to add: A cursory examination shows that we perform MRIs and CTs far more often than they're performed anywhere else in the world. It's stuff like that helping to drive up health care costs. One other thing that stands out is that we graduate fewer medical students than any other OECD nation except Israel (we're tied with Chile).
Seriously, Nate, is $120 per year too much money for someone to spend once a year to make sure everything is still operating correctly? The real problem is Americans have some sort of culturally-flawed thinking that makes them believe someone else either A) is or B) should be responsible for their health and well-being and that access to health care is some sort of Constitutional right. It's not.
You are trying to apply ratios of things like smokers per capita, obesity per captia, and health care spending as a percent of GDP, not realizing statistical thinking like that is not relevant when you consider that smoking and obesity are the root cause of some of the most expensive medical treatments and procedures.
Yes we do graduate fewer med students. It's because we have demanding standards for doctors. I really don't care to have a "D" student putting me under or cutting me open and it's not a supply and demand system which will determine what a doctor is paid if that's your implication about having fewer doctors.
You can ignore our general pathetic attitudes toward proactive healthcare all you like. It doesn't change the fact that Americans are lazy in their daily diets, lead sedentary lifestyles, they drink too much, they smoke too much, they eat preservative-laden crap which increases the incidence of all sorts of maladies from allergies to diabetes, to heart disease & cancer. Doctors prescribe all sorts of crazy drug cocktails to offset the negative side-effects of the primary meds someone is supposed to take which drives up the costs further and number of specialists one must see (a certain med causes CHF, great now you have a cardiologist on your team). No other country is near as addicted to fast and mass-produced food as we are. It's an immutable fact. Add all these factors up and it makes an extremely strong case as to why our life expectancy is lower here in the states.
Doctors in our country are paid what they are worth, apparently. Med-mal attorneys will tell you they are paid what they are worth as well. When the topic of med-mal has come up in debate here before, it's squarely shot down as being somewhere around 1-3% of total health care costs in the U.S.
Where I do see an upward pressure on health care costs in the U.S. is the rapid decentralization of care centers into many smaller specialty hospitals which has also allowed doctors to become a part owner in their own hospital. I do see a good need for specialties to be able to have more focused and directed care. But, look at a city like Tulsa. Do we really need far-flung campuses for heart, surgical, spine, bone and joint, cancer, etc. in a metro our size? Are the major campuses bursting at the seams so much that we could not have provided more space within existing health care infrastructures? One side-effect this has had is the rise in the number of expensive diagnostic procedures (your MRI/Cat example) required to pay for the latest state-of-the-art equipment.
It's a matter of priorities. I had an accident when I was 20 years old and broke my hand, I was just off my mother's insurance and it required surgery. Since I was young and invincible and "didn't need" health insurance, I had not gotten on my own program. I paid back every single penny to EOOC, the anesthesiologist, and St. Francis. I could have shirked my responsibility and not paid so that I could have had more money to play with dirt bikes, drink beer, buy pot, or whatever, but I realized I had a responsibility to pay for the care which was given to me. Incidentally, an MRI would have ruled out surgery in that case, but they were not widely in use at the time and were un-Godly expensive. Ironically when I've had MRI's since then, they have confirmed what I and my doc already knew: that I needed surgery.
There are plenty of people who could afford to pay for their care if they prioritized it, they simply don't. No, I'm not making the broad stroke that everyone is out to game the system, however you need to open your eyes and realize there are people who have no problem dropping in on the minor emergency center or ER and skating their tab to leave others to pick up the tab in the way of increased medical costs for everyone else and their insurer. There are also people out there who
could make insurance premiums a priority which would help manage their h/c costs, yet they don't.
You seem to live in a theoretical and statistical world which doesn't take human behavior into account. I was married to a healthcare professional for five years and saw first hand through her why we do spend so damn much on health care and it's not for a lot of the reasons you suspect.
You seem to make the assumption that all chronically or terminally ill people are in hospitals or would necessarily require an up-tick in nurses. Read up on home health care and hospice. Not all those people are locked away in nursing homes or hospitals nor do they have an RN seeing them every day.
Just wait until you have a relative in a nursing home or cancer care center who can qualify for their own home health aide AND hospice care and see how quickly the nursing home or hospital administrator tries to run off either one of those additional healthcare companies. In the waning days of your life you may well have three or four companies fighting to make money off your carcass before you finally croak. I am not exaggerating one iota. My ex worked for a large hospice after hospital, clinical, and private practice experience. If Medicare or Medicaid will pay for it, there is no shortage of people ready to collect it.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 18, 2011, 11:27:21 PM
Seriously, Nate, is $120 per year too much money for someone to spend once a year to make sure everything is still operating correctly? The real problem is Americans have some sort of culturally-flawed thinking that makes them believe someone else either A) is or B) should be responsible for their health and well-being and that access to health care is some sort of Constitutional right. It's not.
You are trying to apply ratios of things like smokers per capita, obesity per captia, and health care spending as a percent of GDP, not realizing statistical thinking like that is not relevant when you consider that smoking and obesity are the root cause of some of the most expensive medical treatments and procedures.
Yeah, smoking and obesity are the cause of a lot of health problems. That's precisely my point. Other countries have much worse statistics on both fronts, yet spend less and still manage to live longer lives than we do.
Quote
There are plenty of people who could afford to pay for their care if they prioritized it, they simply don't. No, I'm not making the broad stroke that everyone is out to game the system, however you need to open your eyes and realize there are people who have no problem dropping in on the minor emergency center or ER and skating their tab to leave others to pick up the tab in the way of increased medical costs for everyone else and their insurer. There are also people out there who could make insurance premiums a priority which would help manage their h/c costs, yet they don't.
When we had that same problem with people shirking their responsibility in car wrecks we required that all autos be insured. I seem to remember you not being particularly fond of the individual mandate.
And what are we getting for our spend? Where is the money going such that we have fewer doctors, fewer nurses, fewer hospital beds, and so on down the line? You seem to say we have fewer because we don't need as many. Great! But if the money isn't going there, where is it going?
Lastly, who said anything about D student doctors? Seems like we could use more, though, as we have (nationally) pretty long wait times for appointments.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 18, 2011, 11:27:21 PM
Seriously, Nate, is $120 per year too much money for someone to spend once a year to make sure everything is still operating correctly? The real problem is Americans have some sort of culturally-flawed thinking that makes them believe someone else either A) is or B) should be responsible for their health and well-being and that access to health care is some sort of Constitutional right. It's not.
You are trying to apply ratios of things like smokers per capita, obesity per captia, and health care spending as a percent of GDP, not realizing statistical thinking like that is not relevant when you consider that smoking and obesity are the root cause of some of the most expensive medical treatments and procedures.
This is what I don't understand. How we can base policy on the emotional observation that we've somehow become more of a corrupt or flawed or simply less personally responsible people than we used to be. Why should I trust this as part of why I support or deplore a piece of policy? It's absolutely unmeasurable. It's based entirely on what you, Conan, see, and not at all what I see. It's all your opinion, and while that's valid as far as it goes (and just as valid as mine, as far is it goes), it's a bad piece of logic.
It's reliance on conventional wisdom to legislate, and we know that as much as its right, conventional wisdom is wrong. This is why we should look to things that are fact-based rather than opinion-based. Ie. Nate's numbers and stats, which while dry, paint a more realistic picture.
Not only is personal responsibility unmeasurable, it's also unlegislatable. We can't build law around making people more responsible. Stuff like that turns into the equivalent of Prohibition and we all know how that turned out. It inherently limits freedom, which seems counter to what the GOP really wants.
Quote from: we vs us on July 19, 2011, 07:11:17 AM
Not only is personal responsibility unmeasurable, it's also unlegislatable. We can't build law around making people more responsible. Stuff like that turns into the equivalent of Prohibition and we all know how that turned out. It inherently limits freedom, which seems counter to what the GOP really wants.
I love it when your words reveal you. Here we see you have taken two non-divergent stances and attempted to clobber them together in an effort to make a point.
1. Personal Responsibility means freedom from law, regulation, or the guidance of of outside rule. It is not reliant on "building laws." People naturally become more responsible when life requires it. As long as laws exist that restrain the need for personal responsibility, some people will not rely upon it, and over time they will feel simply entitled.
2. Prohibition is an example of the exact opposite. It establishes that people have no ability to engage in activities that require Personal Responsibility. It is government regulation and prohibition of an activity. We can actually see this applied to this very subject. In many countries laws have been adopted to make the practice of medicine outside of the socialized or insurance funded programs illegal. It is also illegal for people to seek medical care outside of the state run program. Now most countries have relaxed these laws because just like alcohol prohibition, medical prohibition caused a thriving un-taxed black market.
VERY ON TOPIC. . .
From Hardcore Democrat Businessman Steve Wynn (in his quarterly company conference call):
I believe in Las Vegas. I think its best days are ahead of it. But I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States. You watch television and see what's going on on this debt ceiling issue. And what I consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President and nothing's going to get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress. But everybody is so political, so focused on holding their job for the next year that the discussion in Washington is nauseating.
And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems, that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration. And it makes you slow down and not invest your money. Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America.
You bet and until we change the tempo and the conversation from Washington, it's not going to change. And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America.
The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, their holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government and there's no need soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans. And I'm telling you that the business community in this company is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs.
http://www.businessinsider.com/wynn-ceo-steve-wynn-conference-call-transcript-obama-2011-7
Quote from: Gaspar on July 19, 2011, 09:15:41 AM
I love it when your words reveal you. Here we see you have taken two non-divergent stances and attempted to clobber them together in an effort to make a point.
1. Personal Responsibility means freedom from law, regulation, or the guidance of of outside rule. It is not reliant on "building laws." People naturally become more responsible when life requires it. As long as laws exist that restrain the need for personal responsibility, some people will not rely upon it, and over time they will feel simply entitled.
2. Prohibition is an example of the exact opposite. It establishes that people have no ability to engage in activities that require Personal Responsibility. It is government regulation and prohibition of an activity. We can actually see this applied to this very subject. In many countries laws have been adopted to make the practice of medicine outside of the socialized or insurance funded programs illegal. It is also illegal for people to seek medical care outside of the state run program. Now most countries have relaxed these laws because just like alcohol prohibition, medical prohibition caused a thriving un-taxed black market.
Um, yes. That's what I said, minus all that strawman stuff about illegal healthcare yadda-yadda. Prohibition is an example of legislating personal responsibility. It did not work, and by and large does not work. This is because "personal responsibility" is a nebulous term that means separate things to each person.
This doesn't mean that we shouldn't ask for accountability for some things, both from entities and individuals that interface with the government. We should do so for practical reasons (ie. encourage people on welfare to search for jobs in exchange for help; ask corporate America to pay a fair share of taxes for use of our infrastructure, laws, and enforcement structure), rather than to encourage people to be "personally accountable." Accountability and responsibility are qualities that come from within. Encouraging that is not government's job.
Quote from: Gaspar on July 19, 2011, 09:15:41 AM
1. Personal Responsibility means freedom from law, regulation, or the guidance of of outside rule. It is not reliant on "building laws." People naturally become more responsible when life requires it. As long as laws exist that restrain the need for personal responsibility, some people will not rely upon it, and over time they will feel simply entitled.
You have a strange (and limited) definition of personal responsibility, but it's one that is very common among those on the right.
By the way, how much responsibility did we get out of the bankers when we largely deregulated the industry..oh, right. Part of personal responsibility is following the rules set forth to keep the market fair, open, and stable. It's also helping to make those rules by being informed and engaged in the political process. The Feds constantly ask for input, and often listen, yet few bother to give it. Yet, like you, they throw up their hands and declare government is the problem when rules get written based on what the corporate lobbyists who are giving their input at every opportunity desire.
The Government is just people. Nothing more, nothing less. It is all of us. Its failures are also our own failures.
Quote from: nathanm on July 19, 2011, 12:27:46 AM
Yeah, smoking and obesity are the cause of a lot of health problems. That's precisely my point. Other countries have much worse statistics on both fronts, yet spend less and still manage to live longer lives than we do.
When we had that same problem with people shirking their responsibility in car wrecks we required that all autos be insured. I seem to remember you not being particularly fond of the individual mandate.
And what are we getting for our spend? Where is the money going such that we have fewer doctors, fewer nurses, fewer hospital beds, and so on down the line? You seem to say we have fewer because we don't need as many. Great! But if the money isn't going there, where is it going?
Lastly, who said anything about D student doctors? Seems like we could use more, though, as we have (nationally) pretty long wait times for appointments.
I'm sorry, which countries were those with higher obesity rates?
The U.S. sits proudly at #1 with over 30%. Our nearest challenger for that coveted prize? Mexico at 24.2%. Canada sits at less than 1/2 the rate of the U.S. It has nothing to do with their health care system either. It sure as hell doesn't in Mexico.
Since you love graphs:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v220/misscrash/stat.jpg)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity
Here's another which claims the U.S. sits at 74%. The only others ahead of us, aside from Kuwait, are underdeveloped island nations. We are most definitely the leader in obesity amongst developed nations. FYI, the first citation is much closer in line with CDC statistics. I have no clue where this site got their stats, but figured someone would spend the time to look up some stats which show other fatter nations.
http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/obesity.html
Granted, the United States does not lead the world in smoking. However, according to a Gallup Poll 24% of Americans over 18 are smokers. 2% higher than the global median rate.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/28432/smoking-rates-around-world-how-americans-compare.aspx
According to CDC, it adds up to $96 billion per year in healthcare costs:
Quote"Smoking costs Americans in dollars and lives
All Americans—smokers and nonsmokers—pay the price for smoking. Smoking is still the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing 443,000—or nearly 1 of every 5—deaths annually. These include 46,000 heart attack deaths and 3,400 lung cancer deaths among nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke.
Smoking is also a major contributor to many chronic diseases that are driving up the nation's health care costs. Each year, diseases caused by cigarette smoking result in $96 billion in health care costs, much of which is paid by taxpayers through publicly-funded health programs."
http://www.cdc.gov/Features/TobaccoControlData/
Quote"The CDC Vital Signs report, titled "State-Specific Obesity Prevalence Among Adults – United States, 2009," points out that people who are obese incurred $1,429 per person extra in medical costs compared to people of normal weight, and that the nation's total medical costs of obesity were $147 billion in 2008.
Obesity is a contributing cause of many other health problems, including heart disease stroke, diabetes, and some types of cancer. These are some of the leading causes of death in the U.S. Obesity can cause sleep apnea and breathing problems as well as limit mobility. Obesity can also causes problems during pregnancy or make it more difficult for a woman to become pregnant.
Obesity is a complex problem that requires both personal and community action. People in all communities should be able to make healthy choices. To reverse this epidemic, we need to change our communities into places that strongly support healthy eating and active living."
http://www.cdc.gov/Features/VitalSigns/AdultObesity/
Neither report even gets into the issue of lost productivity or increased dependence on Social Security disability or other social programs. There have been studies done in the past on the lost productivity issue due to smoking and as I recall it was around $100 billion per year.
The final two sources are CDC, but feel free to keep cobbling together your own reality.
/edited to add:
QuoteChronic disease – The nature of health care in the U.S. has changed dramatically over the past century with longer life spans and greater prevalence of chronic illnesses. This has placed tremendous demands on the health care system, particularly an increased need for treatment of ongoing illnesses and long-term care services such as nursing homes; it is estimated that health care costs for chronic disease treatment account for over 75% of national health expenditures.
QuotePrevention - The burden of chronic diseases, such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease, has risen dramatically; both of these chronic conditions are known to be correlated with obesity, smoking, and diet, and are very expensive to treat over long periods of time.
http://www.kaiseredu.org/Issue-Modules/US-Health-Care-Costs/Background-Brief.aspx
Quote from: we vs us on July 19, 2011, 09:54:40 AM
Um, yes. That's what I said, minus all that strawman stuff about illegal healthcare yadda-yadda. Prohibition is an example of legislating personal responsibility. It did not work, and by and large does not work. This is because "personal responsibility" is a nebulous term that means separate things to each person.
This doesn't mean that we shouldn't ask for accountability for some things, both from entities and individuals that interface with the government. We should do so for practical reasons (ie. encourage people on welfare to search for jobs in exchange for help; ask corporate America to pay a fair share of taxes for use of our infrastructure, laws, and enforcement structure), rather than to encourage people to be "personally accountable." Accountability and responsibility are qualities that come from within. Encouraging that is not government's job.
It's not that difficult. Personal responsibility is what a reasonable person does to be self-reliant and to minimize their burden on others. That goes from taking better care of one's self to buying auto liability insurance, to not throwing a gum wrapper on the ground.
Explain why it is incumbent on those of us who make better better choices to pick up the trash and slack from those who know better but refuse to do anything about being more responsible to themselves and others.
It's not a matter of legislating anything, though Democrats have used the idea of taxation to modify personal behavior for years. What do you think "sin taxes" on alcohol, tobacco, and tanning (and eventually fat or fast food) are all about? It's their basic belief that people are too stupid or arrogant to take care of themselves so they will raise the stakes to the point people will quit a certain behavior. In reality, it seems to hit lower income groups the worst.
Sorry, I guess I'm not wired to make excuses for people who refuse to take care of or pick up after themselves.
Quote from: Conan71 on July 19, 2011, 10:13:16 AM
I'm sorry, which countries were those with higher obesity rates?
I was citing per capita mortality from obesity. Sorry for the confusion. The point is that, all things considered, we don't actually lead significantly more unhealthy lifestyles than every other nation in the world, yet we do spend far more on health care than any other nation in the world.
Well, we are unhealthy in one respect: We always feel the need to place blame on ourselves, whether it is actually deserved or not.
Quote from: nathanm on July 19, 2011, 10:38:40 AM
I was citing per capita mortality from obesity. Sorry for the confusion. The point is that, all things considered, we don't actually lead significantly more unhealthy lifestyles than every other nation in the world, yet we do spend far more on health care than any other nation in the world.
Well, we are unhealthy in one respect: We always feel the need to place blame on ourselves, whether it is actually deserved or not.
Funeral costs are decidedly a lot cheaper than long term care costs. ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on July 19, 2011, 10:46:39 AM
Funeral costs are decidedly a lot cheaper than long term care costs. ;)
You'd think that smokers would save us health care money, then. :P
Quote from: Gaspar on July 19, 2011, 09:39:23 AM
VERY ON TOPIC. . .
From Hardcore Democrat Businessman Steve Wynn (in his quarterly company conference call):
I believe in Las Vegas. I think its best days are ahead of it. But I'm afraid to do anything in the current political environment in the United States. You watch television and see what's going on on this debt ceiling issue. And what I consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President and nothing's going to get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress. But everybody is so political, so focused on holding their job for the next year that the discussion in Washington is nauseating.
And I'm saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A President that seems, that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States of America, they are frightened of this administration. And it makes you slow down and not invest your money. Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America.
You bet and until we change the tempo and the conversation from Washington, it's not going to change. And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America.
The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, their holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government and there's no need soft peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman and I support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans. And I'm telling you that the business community in this company is frightened to death of the weird political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone, everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs.
http://www.businessinsider.com/wynn-ceo-steve-wynn-conference-call-transcript-obama-2011-7
Steve Wynn helped create this horrible economy. He's got nothing worthy of listening to. Las Vegas is a SMILE hole. He's placed some bad bets and now is pointing his finger.
The blind leading the blind.
Quote from: Teatownclown on July 19, 2011, 11:06:43 AM
Steve Wynn helped create this horrible economy. He's got nothing worthy of listening to. Las Vegas is a SMILE hole. He's placed some bad bets and now is pointing his finger.
The blind leading the blind.
I wouldn't say that. His company is one of the few to make almost 100% recovery from the recession. He's even made a ton of money.
You can't just automatically hate everyone who is rich. . .oh, wait, who am I talking to? Never mind!
Maybe this had something to do with Wynn's position.
Ol' dad at the end nailed it.....
Quote from: nathanm on July 19, 2011, 10:38:40 AM
Well, we are unhealthy in one respect: We always feel the need to place blame on ourselves, whether it is actually deserved or not.
I'm glad to know that even if I deserve the blame for some of my actions that it would be unhealth to blame myself. So I won't. Thank you for permission to blame someone else.
;D
Quote from: nathanm on July 19, 2011, 10:57:30 AM
You'd think that smokers would save us health care money, then. :P
They probably save us some Social Security money.
Quote from: Red Arrow on July 19, 2011, 11:50:22 AM
I'm glad to know that even if I deserve the blame for some of my actions that it would be unhealth to blame myself. So I won't. Thank you for permission to blame someone else.
;D
Missed that subordinate clause there at the end, I guess? ;)
But that's exactly what I was talking about. That we may be partially to blame for something does not mean that there is nothing we can do to improve our situation or that there are not other contributing factors. We say "oh, health care is expensive because we're fat," and drop it as if that's the only reason at all we spend so much more on medical care than any other country on Earth. No, it can't possibly be due to a doctor shortage. Or the cost of billing so many different insurance companies on so many different forms. Or that we are too procedure happy and figure we have to have an MRI for every ache and pain.
Nope, we're fat, and that's that.