Grover Norquist and the Republicans have betrayed the US military!

[Deleted]

As for economists, they are the ones who advice on economical decision, thus they and the economical direction they advice is connected. I would have thought that self-evident.

I still don't understand how this has anything to do with that sentance. Also, the advice of most economists and the actual direction of the economy are inversely connected at best.

Anyway, I'm still gonna keep saying that the economy is the community. It's one and the same. It's the same as the actions of the people in the community.

[logintime]

Anyway, I'm still gonna keep saying that the economy is the community. It's one and the same. It's the same as the actions of the people in the community.

That doesn't mean it IS the community. It means it is a part of the community. And like all parts, it can function for good or for ill, depending on how it is used.

[Deleted]

That doesn't mean it IS the community. It means it is a part of the community. And like all parts, it can function for good or for ill, depending on how it is used.

My point is, that it's not some separate entity. All activity is economic activity - everything everyone does is part of the economy. And everything the economy reflects is just a reflection of all the choices, actions and subjective values we have.

I understand that once you define something as "everything", it loses it's meaning. But in this case it simply is the result of how we act.

[Wells]

So Wells. I remember you praising Obamacare for forcing States to let insurance companies compete across State borders to reduce costs. So, you would agree with me that not allowing health insurers to compete across State borders increases the healthcare costs?

Competing across state lines is a good thing if measures are taken. Because Ninespine is right, allowing insurers to trade across state lines creates a race to the bottom. Under ObamaCare insurers can trade across state lines if they meet certain requirements for care and such.

That way we get the best of both.

[NineSpine]

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/he...are/204694.pdf (Read the Executive Summary).

All this report says is that all of those things increase costs, but it does not propose that those things are the reason that the United States spends twice as much as any other nation on healthcare and receives garbage results.

If you truly believe this then you really should stop commenting on anything related to economics. It is in the interest of the insurer to rip off the customer just as much as it is in the interest of the baker to rip of his. If they defraud their customers, they will either face legal action or simply lose the customer.

The baker has future profits to lose by ripping off his customers. The insurer does not. If you get cancer, the insurer will likely spend more on you than you will ever pay in to them. At that point, it is in their interest for you to die. It is in their interest to find a loophole to stop covering you:

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun...s/fi-rescind17

Just because legal action can come against you doesn't mean that it isn't worth it. It is FREQUENTLY more profitable to let people get hurt or die and pay the victims or their families off than it is to produce a safe product or treat your customers correctly. The obvious example is the exploding Ford Pinto. Ford found that it was cheaper to put out a defective product that killed people than it was to recall the products. This is not uncommon at all, and to pretend that this doesn't apply to insurance is insane. In fact, it applies to insurance more than any other industry, because the actual test of the quality of your insurer doesn't come until you are seriously ill.

I don't think you can sound any more <mod snip> than this. The economy IS the society. We as a society have decided to embrace the division of labour where we specialize in a certain profession, and then trade the fruits of our own labour with eachother to get what we want. The economy is simply all the co-operation between people that exist.

Mod Warning: Please watch the flaming

All economic systems are arbitrary, man-made creations full of the same amount of flaws and problems as any other man-made creation. Economic systems are unnatural, artificial constructs. They are an imposed order.

[ishootblanks]

So your complaint is Obama's stimulus measures weren't large enough? Because that's pretty much what it sounds like.



The 1% also earns far more than 20% of the nation's wealth, and is the only income level which has seen it's share of the national wealth increase over the last several years. Forgive me for not having any sympathy for them.

I should have worded that more clearly.. FDR's programs strung out the great depression longer by allowing the government to try to steer the market by paying one person to dig a hole and another to fill it in..

and you have to keep in mind.. Obama's stimulus primarily went to large unions and wall street investors.. soooo... if we give Obama more money.. what do you think will happen? he will just further prop up the ever so hated 1%..

what's the point of raising taxes on people that are just going to have the money funneled right back to them through other channels?

[Wells]

I should have worded that more clearly.. FDR's programs strung out the great depression longer by allowing the government to try to steer the market by paying one person to dig a hole and another to fill it in..

I guess its just a hole if you're artistic about your interpretation.

what's the point of raising taxes on people that are just going to have the money funneled right back to them through other channels?

So you're saying that raising taxes on the rich has no effect on revenue?

[champ3000]

I say we just tax the rich! No one can make over $100,000. If they do, we just tax it down to $100,000. A $100,000 is more than enough to live on, right? The rights of the few mean nothing to the concerns of the many! The top 1% pays 70% of the taxes??? Who cares.. they need to pay 100%!! The 50% of Americans that pay no taxes whatsoever!! Let's get that number up to 99% and we can all have trains!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sunseeker]

I say we just tax the rich! No one can make over $100,000. If they do, we just tax it down to $100,000. A $100,000 is more than enough to live on, right? The rights of the few mean nothing to the concerns of the many! The top 1% pays 70% of the taxes??? Who cares.. they need to pay 100%!! The 50% of Americans that pay no taxes whatsoever!! Let's get that number up to 99% and we can all have trains!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The irony is that if people were simply banned(though 100% taxation on any income over 100k) from making such insane sums of money, it would more than likely be used by the business paying them to expand and invest.

[ishootblanks]

The irony is that if people were simply banned(though 100% taxation on any income over 100k) from making such insane sums of money, it would more than likely be used by the business paying them to expand and invest.

actually it would just cause all of the successful people to either leave the country or stop working.. otherwise 100k would have to be the 1%..

oh and congratulations Wells! you found one of the few kinda cool things built during the great depression! yet.. the depression still carried on.. and on.. and on..

the saddest part is that dam couldn't be built today because of environmental regulations.. EPA has is growing exponentially under Obama as well.. forgot to mention that!

[Felya]

the 1% already pay 20% of the total federal tax revenue of the USA.. how about we jack up YOUR federal tax rate by 20%? how would that affect your personal spending habits?

In 2007 the top 1% controlled 34.5% of the wealth, yet according to you, payed only 20% of the taxes. This means this despite only controlling 65.5% of the wealth, the 99% pay 80% of the taxes. To break the taxes evenly on how much US wealth an individual controls, the top 1% would have to have their taxes raised by 14.5% and the tax on the remaining 99% drooped by 14.5%. In case you are really wondering how such a slant effects personal spending habits, look at our economy. Don't forget, that the bottom 99% include people that do not earn enough to be taxed and the unemployed, meaning that those of us closer to the middle, share even a greater burden than than the cumulative bottom 99%. This is reflecting your 20% estimate...

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Of course this is all moot if you want everyone in the bottom 99% to contribute the same amount as those in the top 1%, regardless what percentage of their wealth that entails. My guess that would mean you believe all those unemployed should be on the hook for thousands of dollars.

[durza]

(replying to op) oh look at that another republican is voicing his opinions that dont match with over 60% (prolly more) of americans! come the fuck on red team get it through your head that we as americans dont want a super mega ultra 3/3/3 upgraded deathball of an army to police the world..... also i hate saying it but im glad they failed to reach an agreement as long as those automatic spending cuts happen to the military like the op's post says

[Stormcall]

In other words, the same old bullshit.

Hey, the republicans didn't cave in and go along with something, let's blame them for not going along with the liberals' demands. We already heard all this with the debt ceiling shenanigans.

LOL, not "caving in". They get fucking 90% of what they want and you act like "not caving in" and giving up 10% to the other side is a good thing? So your idea of politics is "nothing gets done unless one side gets EVERY SINGLE THING THEY WANT"? Fucking brilliant bro, you would fit right in with the other conservative fuckwits in office.

[Felya]

Because Demacrats dont do the exact same thing when republicans propose something

Democrats signing off on Republican agendas is why Clinton gets blamed for NAFTA and the deregulation of the Glass–Steagall Act. Democrats were pushed over on the Bush tax cut extension and the debt ceiling compromises this summer. Democrats are known for having no balls and bending over for everything republicans want. Universal healthcare? No, we get the republican healthcare plan from the 90s, which they now oppose. The stimulus? Bending over to republicans to get a fraction of the intended. Both while democrats controlled every branch of the government and republicans didn't really have much power. I am sorry, but it's ludicrous to assert that democrats have been blocking republican policy with another debt ceiling debate because republicans won that and another Bush tax cut debate because they also got that. For some reason republicans main course of action is to do nothing and instead push these issues into next year. Now, I wonder why that is... Has to be because it's what is best for America...

---------- Post added 2011-11-28 at 06:21 AM ----------

LOL, not "caving in". They get 90% of what they want and you act like "not caving in" and giving up 10% to the other side is a good thing? So your idea of politics is "nothing gets done unless one side gets EVERY SINGLE THING THEY WANT"? brilliant bro, you would fit right in with the other conservative wits in office.

Actually, if you listen to the majority speaker regarding the debt ceiling debate this summer, republicans got 98% of what they wanted. I am assuming that the 2% democrats won was postponing the ceiling debate for a year, instead of the 6 month republicans wanted or the democrat idea of returning to how it was when republicans were raising the ceiling and have no debate at all. You might remember those days as those when a majority equaled to anything above 50%, instead of it being 60% now. I can understand saying democrats don't do anything and just bend over to republicans, but to even assert that democrats block republicans, not only bucks against history, but also reality.

---------- Post added 2011-11-28 at 06:31 AM ----------

(replying to op) oh look at that another republican is voicing his opinions that dont match with over 60% (prolly more) of americans! come the fuck on red team get it through your head that we as americans dont want a super mega ultra 3/3/3 upgraded deathball of an army to police the world..... also i hate saying it but im glad they failed to reach an agreement as long as those automatic spending cuts happen to the military like the op's post says

If I understand this correctly, the cuts are mostly to veterans and not towards the funds contributing to the wars or overseas actions we partake in. This isn't cuts to unmanned drones or military spending on wars. This is cuts on people who payed the price, but are now having the reciprocation changed once they returned from protecting our country. It reflects an opinion that soldiers are only meaningful while they are fighting. Once they return, the benefits they were promised would be cut. I'm all for military cuts that involve cutting our world presence, but to cut benefits to those who already bravely served, seems misguided and totally missing the point.

[Deleted]

All this report says is that all of those things increase costs, but it does not propose that those things are the reason that the United States spends twice as much as any other nation on healthcare and receives garbage results.

All I'm arguing is that the reasons I stated increase the cost of the US healthcare. I even specifically mentioned that there are probably other causes the also increase costs, but the report pretty much says that they are the main culprits.

Just because legal action can come against you doesn't mean that it isn't worth it. It is FREQUENTLY more profitable to let people get hurt or die and pay the victims or their families off than it is to produce a safe product or treat your customers correctly. The obvious example is the exploding Ford Pinto. Ford found that it was cheaper to put out a defective product that killed people than it was to recall the products. This is not uncommon at all, and to pretend that this doesn't apply to insurance is insane. In fact, it applies to insurance more than any other industry, because the actual test of the quality of your insurer doesn't come until you are seriously ill.

The ford pinto is a ridiculous argument that Milton Friedman destroyed in his rather famous film clip. Some kid got owned pretty hard.

All economic systems are arbitrary, man-made creations full of the same amount of flaws and problems as any other man-made creation. Economic systems are unnatural, artificial constructs. They are an imposed order.

They're all constructs by the community yes. But you can't tear down these constructs, you can only alter them - there will always be an economy as long as there is a society. They're inseparable.

---------- Post added 2011-11-28 at 11:06 AM ----------

I guess its just a hole if you're artistic about your interpretation.

"Look it's big and it will make me look good - who cares about the costs." Politics ftl.

[NineSpine]

All I'm arguing is that the reasons I stated increase the cost of the US healthcare. I even specifically mentioned that there are probably other causes the also increase costs, but the report pretty much says that they are the main culprits.

Then your argument is really a waste of time. I'm sure at least one car accident every year is caused by someone eating french fries too quickly, but if I decided to interject that into a conversation about car accident causes, I would be wasting everyone's time.

The ford pinto is a ridiculous argument that Milton Friedman destroyed in his rather famous film clip. Some kid got owned pretty hard.

Friedman didn't destroy the argument. All he said was that infinite value can't be placed on a life, which nobody proposes. He created a strawman and destroyed that. The question is whether something as insignificant in value as $13 per car is worth 200 lives every year. The point is that the system is fundamentally broken, and life is valued too little, not that it should be valued infinitely.

They're all constructs by the community yes. But you can't tear down these constructs, you can only alter them - there will always be an economy as long as there is a society. They're inseparable.[COLOR="red"]

Sure, but that economy is arbitrary and created by the people in the society, almost always by design, regardless of whether it's capitalism or communism. Your fallacy is assuming that your ideal economic system is somehow a natural phenomenon (which is, ironically, a Marxist way to see history) when it is as equally artificial as the most extreme government regulated and dominated economic structure.

---------- Post added 2011-11-28 at 01:21 PM ----------

actually it would just cause all of the successful people to either leave the country or stop working.. otherwise 100k would have to be the 1%..

Sure, but the serious question is why the top 400 households in America should have a lower taxrate than a middle class family, which is the case right now.

oh and congratulations Wells! you found one of the few kinda cool things built during the great depression! yet.. the depression still carried on.. and on.. and on..

The depression continued in every country, no matter what they did. Every country tried different measures, and nobody was lifted at all until they dropped the gold standard and standard HEAVY investment into their economy, which for most countries was wartime investment. You have a fundamentally warped view of history that's not based on the facts. The idea of digging holes and filling them in comes from a caricature of the economist John Maynard Keynes' proposals. FDR laughed him out of the room. He told FDR the New Deal was too small, because it was, and FDR thought he was nuts. Adjusted for inflation, all New Deal programs combined, over the entire span of FDR's presidency only accounted for about $500B. Considering that we are talking about a ten year period, that's a complete joke. That's really not that much money. That's less than we spend on the military EVERY year.

The fundamental question is whether this paltry spending eased the depression for the average person, which is CERTAINLY did. The depression was FAR worse in countries that did less. In America, there were numerous programs, which were altogether very cheap, that eased the suffering. The goal wasn't to end the depression, because FDR didn't really think that was possible to do alone. The goal was to make things easier on the average person, and in that sense it was very successful.

the saddest part is that dam couldn't be built today because of environmental regulations.. EPA has is growing exponentially under Obama as well.. forgot to mention that!

The EPA has been nothing but weakened over the last 20 years, so that's just crazy conspiracy talk.

[Deleted]

Then your argument is really a waste of time. I'm sure at least one car accident every year is caused by someone eating french fries too quickly, but if I decided to interject that into a conversation about car accident causes, I would be wasting everyone's time.

You didn't really read what I wrote. Read the word: "Main culprits".

Additionally, the "problems" with health insurance you brought up have existed atleast the last 50 years. Yet the problems with healthcare costs exceeding those of your European counterparts didn't begin until relatively lately. And coincidentally that's when most of the problems I presented started to pop up.

Friedman didn't destroy the argument. All he said was that infinite value can't be placed on a life, which nobody proposes. He created a strawman and destroyed that. The question is whether something as insignificant in value as $13 per car is worth 200 lives every year. The point is that the system is fundamentally broken, and life is valued too little, not that it should be valued infinitely.

So where would you draw the line? Maybe you should let the people determine themselves what risks they take? Ofcourse, hiding a massive flaw from the customers is the same as fraud, which is illegal.

And no, he wasn't building a strawman. The fact is that decisions like these have to be done by everyone all the time.

The EPA has been nothing but weakened over the last 20 years, so that's just crazy conspiracy talk.

I don't believe this for a second. Seeing how the overall regulatory burden has increased on society within the last 20 years, I would be shocked to see any evidence that EPA has gone against this trend. I don't think claiming it has grown exponentially under Obama in particular is really correct though. (Pages in code of federal regulations , today it's 165K)

[Deleted]

It didn't really cost that much. $175 million if I believe? And I'd say that Las Vegas would like a word with you, as it became a boom city because of the stimulus put into effect in that area. That boom's still in existence btw.

No offence, while it's possible that the Hoover Dam was a great investment that the private entepreneurs simply missed, you haven't really presented anything that would suggest it is.

And you sort of proved my whole point, the dam is a huge fucking thing that people can see with their own eyes. But what they can't see is all the other production and investment that would've happened if the money had been left with the, usually, smarter private investors.

The biggest problem I have with it is that people were purposefully paid too high salaries by the government, and there were too many people hired in the first place. It was made as inefficient as possible with the purpose of "stimulating" or "putting as many people as possible" to work. And the private investors that invested in Las Vegas would've put their money somewhere else if LV wasn't viable.

P.S. $175 Million in the 30's would've been a ridiculously large sum. I think the real initial spending was around $50mil. Dunno if you're somehow factoring in all the costs of fixing the water shortages that it created?

[NineSpine]

You didn't really read what I wrote. Read the word: "Main culprits".

That report doesn't say they are the main culprits. It doesn't really address at all why the U.S. is comparatively more expensive and gets horrible results.

Additionally, the "problems" with health insurance you brought up have existed atleast the last 50 years. Yet the problems with healthcare costs exceeding those of your European counterparts didn't begin until relatively lately. And coincidentally that's when most of the problems I presented started to pop up.

Insurance companies, as with most corporations, became exceptionally vicious and involved in politics in the 70s. They hadn't developed these techniques by that point. The paperwork issue simply didn't exist yet. It's a very modern tactic to target people for rescission of coverage on a large scale, and even the techniques of really isolating reasons to charge people more for coverage are very modern. Insurance was significantly more even back in the 60s, for example. The only basis for your rate was simple facts about you, such as your age and any MAJOR medical conditions. Statistical analysis to predict issues, such as calculating the chances that someone with acne or yeast infections would develop severe illnesses, simply didn't exist yet. All of these things drove the paperwork up.

So where would you draw the line? Maybe you should let the people determine themselves what risks they take? Ofcourse, hiding a massive flaw from the customers is the same as fraud, which is illegal.

On what planet is hiding a massive flaw from the customers the same as fraud? The only reason a company would be required to disclose these issues is if the government FORCED them to ahead of time, which is regulation, which you are arguing against. Furthermore, as long as paying the victims is cheaper than fixing the problem, it's still more profitable to commit the fraud.

And no, he wasn't building a strawman. The fact is that decisions like these have to be done by everyone all the time.

Nobody argues that life should be of infinite value. His argument is EXPLICITLY against that concept. That's the definition of a strawman. The question is whether a company should be allowed to produce a product with an absolutely massive, life ending defect to save $5 per $2000 car.

I don't believe this for a second. Seeing how the overall regulatory burden has increased on society within the last 20 years, I would be shocked to see any evidence that EPA has gone against this trend. I don't think claiming it has grown exponentially under Obama in particular is really correct though. (Pages in code of federal regulations , today it's 165K)

Good old Heritage, doing their best to be intentionally misleading. It's extremely rare that a Federal regulation is actually removed, because most removals are actually nullification created by a new law. For example, if I wanted to allow corporations to dump some toxin into a river, I would not REMOVE the old law. What I would do is actually add a new regulation that provides a stipulation nullifying the old one.

The overall regulatory burden has done nothing but decrease over the last twenty years, and at best stands still.

---------- Post added 2011-11-28 at 05:30 PM ----------

No offence, while it's possible that the Hoover Dam was a great investment that the private entepreneurs simply missed, you haven't really presented anything that would suggest it is.

And you sort of proved my whole point, the dam is a huge fucking thing that people can see with their own eyes. But what they can't see is all the other production and investment that would've happened if the money had been left with the, usually, smarter private investors.

Your argument is that during the Great Depression more money needed to be in the hands of *investors*, who refused to invest in anything. Brilliant.

You've still never presented any evidence that private actors always act more efficiently than public ones. The reality is still that every major first world nation in history has had a strong public sector. This glaring flaw in your argument doesn't ever seem to phase you. If you were right, Somalia would be ready to kick our ass any day now.

The biggest problem I have with it is that people were purposefully paid too high salaries by the government, and there were too many people hired in the first place. It was made as inefficient as possible with the purpose of "stimulating" or "putting as many people as possible" to work. And the private investors that invested in Las Vegas would've put their money somewhere else if LV wasn't viable.

That's just bullshit you made up. The Hoover dam was built by private construction companies that got the lowest bid, not by government workers.

P.S. $175 Million in the 30's would've been a ridiculously large sum. I think the real initial spending was around $50mil. Dunno if you're somehow factoring in all the costs of fixing the water shortages that it created?

It cost about 1% of the total Federal budget, of ONE year.

[absynthe7]

Fed is powerless in this situation. And I don't believe he would approve of any QE.

I know this is old, but I can't let this slide. This is, literally, the exact thing I was talking about. QE was Friedman's idea. If you are against QE as being government overreach, you are going against decades of conservative economics. Monetary easing is what conservatives have called for from the Great Depression to 2008 instead of fiscal stimulus. There is no macroeconomic model which says that the government should do nothing that can explain the existence of the current recession.

I understand that this flies in the face of everything you've been told by sources of information that you trust. That is because the sources of information that you trust are blatantly lying straight to your face, while assuming that you are either too lazy or too incapable of admitting fault to actually research the issues at hand. And you are justifying their complete lack of respect for you by blindly reciting the party line while having no understanding whatsoever of what has been tried in the past and present and what the results of those efforts have been. This isn't a difference of opinion - you're simply wrong. Your positions do not match the actual data, therefore your positions are wrong.