well fair economics do work. it greatly increases the quality of life. some thing Americans don't even know thats why Scandinavian countries and many of the European countries have better living standards than the US. the problem with Friedman type of economics is it assumes humans are always rational and motivated only by efficiency which is untrue
well fair economics do work. it greatly increases the quality of life. some thing Americans don't even know thats why Scandinavian countries and many of the European countries have better living standards than the US. the problem with friedman type of economics is it assumes humans are always rational and motivated only by efficiency which is untrue
@rodrigorn0-i was thinking about moving to norway simply cuz i love how they get at least a year in maternity leave...even fathers get maternity leave. plus they promote breastfeeding. well uh...yea they have the time cuz they don't have to work. here in america its three months at the most. lol no but seriously even if its considered communism...i dont understand why its so frowned upon.
@rodrigorn0 -- Austrian economics also assumes [on its face at least] that all actors are good and that the risk reward for bad actors will deter same- we can see by the corpos efforts to socialize every cost possible that this is utterly untrue
capitalist free market is the most efficient way to allocate resources. but the problem is over the year most of the markets has become failures due to big corporations distorting the free markets for profits the best example s r the insurance industry and the banking industry. also a successful nation cannot only be determined by the efficiency of the government but the well being of people and i gotta say well fair policies do increase the well being of the public example Scandinavia
put it like this when republicans have a republican finger up their ass they shut up and smile, when a democrat wants to pull it out they scream and get pist off.
they rich pay a larger percent of the pie now then before the tax cuts idiots. just because you only get a couple hundred back when you only pay a couple thousand each year and the billionaire gets millions back doesn't mean its unfair. if i paid 100 dollars for something and you paid 10 dollars and there was a 10% refund would you bitch that i got ten dollars back and you only got 1?
@gibblets17 "they rich pay a larger percent of the pie now then before the tax cuts idiots"is this yet another example of your superior ability to form coherent sentences? nice lol .what a buffoon.
Finally, Health Care numbers are not a good way of judging economic efficiency. The percentage of people without healthcare has been about stable the last 30 years, but has been going up slowly. This is because of rising health care costs and is not GWs fault...
@aaasssfffdddiii again I repeat...during his 1st 5 years in office...he NEVER vetoed a spending bill...i just don't understand how anyone can call themselves a fiscal conservative...yet support this sort of record...it just doesn't make any sense...there may not be a massive movement...but your record should at least demonstrate where you were outraged....how did the republicans allow this to happen on their watch?
Yes, the rate rose under Bush, but not that dramatically. Indeed, the average poverty rate under Bush (both childhood and total) was lower than under Clinton. Now, it did go up under Bush while it went down for Clinton. But, the increase under Bush is greatle exagerated.
Under Clinton, childhood poverty fell from 22.7% to 16.3%, and regular poverty fell from 15.1% to 11.7%. However, the childhood poverty rate fell from 20.5% in 1996 to 16.2% in 2000, and regular poverty fell from 13.7% to 11.3% over the same period . What happened in 1996? Welfare Reform, followed by a capital gains tax cut in 1997. It would appear that welfare reform and capital gains tax cuts were the best poverty reducers ever.
@dundura123 First, the deficits averaged 2% of GDP under Bush. Under Obama, they have averaged 9.5% of GDP. Likewise, Bush did not socialize Health Care or pass a Trillion Dollar Stimulus. Bush actually let people keep more of their money through tax rate reduction.
Anyways, I know correlation does not equal causation. I never said it did. In fact, it is Cenk that is confusing the two.
@aaasssfffdddiii i am not really interested in defending Obama or Cenk...I just sometimes try to point out potential flaws in logic, double standards and hypocrisy (which is a complete waste of my time i know).in this case..I understand if you don't like Obama's budget in terms of spending..I get that...what I don't understand is how people defend Bush's spending record (and/or were silent for 8 years) but have a problem with Obama's budget? Where was the Tea Party in 2002 when we needed them?
@dundura123 Bush's spending record was not good. However, Bush's spending were at least sustainable. Obama is spending at a dangerous pace. Again, 2% of GDP is bad. 9.5% is dangerously high. Plus, Bush was not massively expanding the role of government in our lives and economy. Obama, for example, passed a government takeover of Health Care. Bush, on the other hand, passed tax cuts that decreased the burden of government. Tea Partiers are against massive government spending, not small deficits.
@aaasssfffdddiii can you site research that suggest that Bush's spending was sustainable...I am not trying to be augmentative...I have just never read anyone on the right or the left in retrospect say that Bush's fiscal policy was sustainable..especially considering the wars..Medicare Part D was a new massive entitlement program...there is also of list of bills in passed in the "name of homeland security" which were a huge expansion of gov't...there are others as well if you want me to send them
@aaasssfffdddiii yes Bush lowered taxes...but he did a 2nd round at a time of war...this meant the wars had to be paid for with the US's credit card...this legislation was passed through reconciliation which the Rep. now say they hate...but you might say..."ah that is national defense...we needed that"...well what about the Medicare Prescription Drug Progran which is estimated to cost as much as a Trillion dollars over the next 10 years.
@dundura123 First, a strong economy is important in a time of war. You also forget that the 2003 tax cuts largely paid for themselves. Indeed, Capital gains tax revenue was above what the CBO expected WITHOUT the tax cut. This is no surprise. The same thing happened in 1979, 1981, and 1997. So, in reality, the tax cut was mostly paid for by itself. Again, the tea party rose because of massive deficits and government takeovers. The small Bush deficits were not nearly enough to spark a movement.
@aaasssfffdddiii can you send me a report from any economists that suggest lowering taxes during a time of war is good for the economy? also...bush inheriated a surplus...by the time he left office the federal deficit was running at nearly 1/2 a trillion dollars and the national debt was at 1 trillion...bear in mind he did not include the cost of the wars...but if those are small numbers...then so be it...
@dundura123 Alot of economists agree that lower tax rates are good for the economy. In fact, almost every economist agrees on that. Those are facts, so be it. The reason he didn't veto a spending bill was because Republicans controlled congress. That meant that there were no big spending bills to veto. Bush didn't pass the $800 Stimulus, the takeover of Health Care, or the many other spending bills Obama has signed. Again, deficits averaged 2% of GDP under Bush, that is small historically.
@aaasssfffdddiii you did not answer my question...i said lowering them during a time of war...he pushed through a second round of tax cuts even though he knew we needed to pay for the 2 wars...then he didn't include the cost of the wars in the budget...all gov't spending bills are big...that is the problem i have with Obama..and that is the problem I had with Bush...Bush didn't pass HC..but he passed the Medicare Drug program..which was a massive entitlement program
@aaasssfffdddiii but I can only judge you one what you say you are going to do...Bush ran on a platform of small gov't, lower taxes and fiscal responsibility....the numbers show that gov't expanded, yes he lowered taxes...but he ballooned the debt and the deficit...those are just the numbers...now did he have good reason to do it...that will always be up for debate...but the numbers don't lie in this case.he inherited surplus...and left with deficits...and the debt was a multiple of what it was
@aaasssfffdddiii if you are going to be an ideologue...I just ask that you are consistent...then we can have a proper debate...so if you told me that you were mad at Bush...but madder at Obama...I can understand your logic...but if you didn't mind bush running up deficits and ballooning the debt...what made you convert to a fiscal hawk now? Both the dems and the cons...want big gov't...as long as it is doing what they want it to do....
@dundura123 First, the 2003 Bush tax cuts did not decrease revenues very much. Most of them were paid for by increasing economic growth and adding incentives to work, save, and invest. So, a strong economy is key to paying for a war. Second, Presidents throughout history have ran deficits of above 2% of GDP, that is relatively small. Obama is spending at a dangerous pace, Bush did not...
@aaasssfffdddiii so you should have no problem sending me the name of an relatively independent economist who says that cutting taxes during the 2 wars was a good idea....I am not trying to be argumentative...I literally have not heard anybody (other than you) support those tax cuts in the face of war....many people support tax cuts in general...but when you are facing 2 wars...it is reckless
@dundura123 Again, the right kind of tax cuts pay for themselves through strong economic growth. This was the case for 1979, 1981, 1997, and 2003 capital gains tax cuts. Labor and business tax cuts also pay for themselves over time. There is a reason that Americans work more than Europeans. Nobel Prize winner Ed Prescott did an in depth study and found that the entire difference in working hours for Europe and America is explained by taxes....
@aaasssfffdddiii there is no serving congressman in either party who has recommended cutting taxes while increasing spending...in other words...if you increase spending at a faster rate than the benefit that you receive from tax cuts...you will still run a deficit...tax cuts are not some grand panacea that solves all fiscal problems...it is unsustainable to cut taxes and create massive new entitlement programs or wage war at the same time...both of which Bush did...
@dundura123 True, I am certainly for cutting spending. I am simply pointing out that Bush and Obama were on completely different levels when it came to deficits and spending. If you want to talk about entitlements, look at Obamacare.
@aaasssfffdddiii again...if you were to tell me that you were mad at Bush...but madder at Obama...at least I could have an intelligent conversation...but if you tell me that you didn't have a problem with Bush's fiscal policies...but have an issue with Obama's...I just can't get past the hipocracy
@aaasssfffdddiii you mentioned Obamacare..what's your view on Emergency Medical Services? By law everybody has access to EMS...if you show up at the hospital with life threating injuries...you cannot be turned away regardless of your ability and/or willingness to pay. Currently..the State has to pick up the tab for the unissured...once the State runs out of money...the Federal Gov't has to pay....and as you know the State and Federal Gov't are funded by the US taxpayer...
@dundura123 You mentioned Obamacare. Our system obviously had problems before it was passed.We should have a system where the individual covers most of their medical costs. Right now, people have no incentive to find cheaper services. For example, lazer eye surgery, which is not covered by insurance, has steadily fallen in price. The point is that the market is not the problem to health care, it is the solution.
@aaasssfffdddiii you didn't attempt to answer the question... By law everybody has access to EMS...if you show up at the hospital with life threating injuries...you cannot be turned away regardless of your ability and/or willingness to pay. Currently..the State has to pick up the tab for the unissured...once the State runs out of money...the Federal Gov't has to pay....and as you know the State and Federal Gov't are funded by the US taxpayer...
@whomever is marking this as spam-- if your arguments have no merit, then accept that-- trying to shove facts & history down the memoryy hole does NOT change them-- it only hides them from view.
@aaasssfffdddiii hence we are paying the medical bills (passed to us via, taxes, lower wages and higher premiums) for people that don't have coverage..How do you solve this problem without forcing everybody to get coverage or pay a tax to cover the cost? I have thought about this a lot...don't know another way of solving it...
@aaasssfffdddiii hence we are paying the medical bills (passed to us via, taxes, lower wages and higher premiums) for people that don't have coverage..How do you solve this problem without forcing everybody to get coverage or pay a tax to cover the cost? I have thought about this a lot...don't know another way of solving it...
@aaasssfffdddiii and you keep saying " tax cuts also pay for themselves over time"...even if I agreed with you... you can't escape the ebbs and flows of the business cycle.....hence if you cut gov't revenue but increase gov't spending...you will not be prepared to deal with the inevitable downturn in the economy and subsequent loss in tax revenue...
@aaasssfffdddiii i am not qualified to challenge the findings of a Nobel Prize winner...however I live in Europe and happen to believe that there are a combination of things that contribute to the difference in working hours...I won't go into details unless you want me to...so will just list the highlights 1) different cultures 2) taxes 3) much stronger unions 4) larger public sector 5) the safety net that the higher taxes provide
@dundura123 Well, the different cultures one was one that Prescott took on. In the 1970s, The Europeans worked more than Americans. Since then, that has changed. Obviously, all of those factors played a role. However, taxees played the largest role, according to his research, as well as Raj Chetty's.
@aaasssfffdddiii so in less than 483 characters we have already established that taxes are not the "entire difference" reason that American's work more....next we should look at the fact that European immigrants who fall under the same tax law work considerable more than then their Anglo-saxon (in the case of england) counter-parts...then we should examine the labour laws...i happen to think that the taxes here do provide less of an incentive. esp. when it comes to getting a second job...
@dundura123 Part of this is because we offer less services. However, it is also largely because Americans work more and earn more income, hence we can afford more government services despire lower tax rates. Obviously, taxes are not the "entire difference". However, as Raj Chetty and Edward Prescott show, they do explain the largest part of the difference.
@aaasssfffdddiii just in...Less than a quarter of Americans support trimming Social Security or Medicare to tackle the country’s budget deficit, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll that illustrates the challenge facing lawmakers seeking voter support for altering entitlement programs....you cannot lower taxes and keep entitlements the way they are if you are going to reduce the long-term deficit...it is not mathematically possible....however the same people that are crying
@dundura123 We need to fix social security and medicare. First, we should allow people to invest their own social security dollars, and medicare should be turned into a program that people get subsidies to buy private insurance. That would fix those programs for the long term. Obviously, we have to make deep cuts to spending right now. However,raising taxes would be silly and make no sense whatsoever.
@aaasssfffdddiii just like you avoided the EMS question...you did not address what I said...any "fix" will require a cocktail of less services and/or higher taxes...you just can't spend the same dollar twice...however, the same American's who favor deficit reduction...are not in favor of cutting entitlement spending and/or raising taxes...that is unsustainable...
@aaasssfffdddiii but to your point of, "invest their own social security dollars"...again I ask..what should the policy response be towards the person that lost 30% of their savings in the market...and now doesn't have enough income to live on? if the gov't subsidizes their income, we are creating a moral hazard where people can invest in the markets knowing that the gov't will bail them out...but if we do nothing then you will see a bunch of 65 year old homeless people
@dundura123 First, you're very wrong. The tea party leaders are the ONLY ones who want to tackle entitlements. It is the Democrats who scream everytime we, Republicans, try to fix Medicare or Social Security (Remember Bush in 06). All the tea party leaders support fixing these. So it is the liberals who are against entitlement reform, not us. Furthermore, we are definetley against tax increases. Why?
Because these would just hurt the economy and ultimately bring in less revenue....
@aaasssfffdddiii you are not addressing the issues that I am raising...I will rehash
1) What do you do about EMS without some sort of mandate or insurance tax. Currently every citizen is guaranteed access to care even if they cannot or will not pay. That cost is then passed onto tax payers in the form of higher premiums, higher taxes, inflation, lower wages and higher out-of-pocket medical expenses.
Additionally, millions of uninsured (including illegal aliens) just so up at the emergency room
@dundura123 Here's whats interesting. Massachussetts implemented an individual mandate a couple of years ago. Yet, they still have the higest insurance costs in the nation. Likewise, the insurance costs increased well above the national average the past two years. Obviously. the individual mandate is not the solution. I certainly don't know how a tax would solve the problem...
@aaasssfffdddiii I didn't say that a mandate is the solution...I asked you
1) What do you do about EMS without some sort of mandate or insurance tax.
you are avoiding the question...every public policy will have problems...so you can spend all day pointing out problems in a policy...but if you don't like something that is fine...but you should be able to articulate an alternative right? you keep avoiding the question...which is typical of people who oppose a mandate..b/c it is a difficult
@dundura123 Well, you have to accept the problems that come with tings. The only real solution is to eliminate the regulation that requires hospitals to take in emergencies. However, that would be inhumane. Every other other solution proposed would make things worst.
@aaasssfffdddiii no we are getting somewhere....the problem is that this problem if left unsolved will bankrupt the country...we know that americans will never accept leaving a 10-year old gunshot victim on the side of the street because his parents didn't buy insurance....but we also know that the gov't can't continue to pay the billions of dollars that these people cost
@dundura123 Again, the best thing we can do is make insurance more affordable and flexible through free market reforms, we may have to accept some costs from EMS.
@aaasssfffdddiii see...once you really start examining the problem...you will begin to realize why America is the only advance nation without a national healthcare system...the economics of healthcare just doesn't conform to the behavior of other products...
@dundura123 Your very wrong on most of what you said about HC. Although you are very right in saying that this is a segue into Single Payer. The economics of HC are just like any other product. The problem is that we don't have a free market in health care. Medicare, Medicaid, special tax distortions, and burdensome regulations weigh down the system. In fact, HC is very far from a free market.
1) I don't know a single economist who suggest that left alone the product of HC is like any other product. Can you name one. For example...if at 80 your grandma needs expensive surgery...do you just get rid of her because she is past her "useful life"...no..that makes no sense at all...
If a little kid gets hit by a car..do you leave him there because his parents cant afford the doctor? that makes no sense..and if they can afford a doctor
@aaasssfffdddiii do they go to the nearest hospital...or the one 50 miles away because it is cheaper....and does the ambulance prioritize services based on who can pay...that makes no sense and does not happen
@aaasssfffdddiii problem to solve with out one....it is like 5 college students ordering a pizza...but payment is voluntary....the ones who pay...will also have to cover the cost of the ones who don't...that is our current situation
1) their is a flaw in your logic...all legislation is composed of thousands of provisions, policies and variables...the outcome a combination of many of them...there is no proof that the individual mandate contributed to the rise in HC cost...especially considering that the public and private HC costs are rising in states that don't have a mandate...
2) It is not surprising that MA would have higher cost in the short run...it is a basic principle of financial investment...i am not very familiar with the details of their plan...so it is hard to comment on specifics...but HC reform effectively brings the true cost of HC onto the gov't balance sheet...sort of like the 2 wars...note the cost has always been there...but we just weren't counting it
3) Taxes on those not insured are designed to a) correct the financial incentives of someone who doesn't get coverage because they know they can go to EMS and b) defray the cost of the uninsured...
2) Do agree with this finding and other similar surveys...".Less than a quarter of Americans support trimming Social Security or Medicare to tackle the country’s budget deficit, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll that illustrates the challenge facing lawmakers seeking voter support for altering entitlement programs...."
This implies that regardless of your party affiliation, the citizens who say they want to tackle the deficit don't want you to touch their
@aaasssfffdddiii entitlement programs...notice how I am not talking about the Tea Party, Democrats...Republicans...Independents...Libertarians...or any party...this is an issue that faces all lawmakers....people want low taxes...the same services...and no cuts...this is normally not sustainable.
@dundura123 Republicans have pushed deep spending cuts and are also planning to propose entitlement reform. Stop acting like both sides are equally bad on this. As far as deficit reduction goes, Republicans are proposing solutions, while Democrats continue to use straw man arguments and emotional appeal to stop any spending cuts.
@aaasssfffdddiii i think both parties spend too much..they just spend on the programs that they favour...but again you are avoiding the question....again...2) Do agree with this finding and other similar surveys...".Less than a quarter of Americans support trimming Social Security or Medicare to tackle the country’s budget deficit, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll
@aaasssfffdddiii Concerning Rep and Fiscal Policy number from 2006 report:
1) Since Bush took office, overall federal spending rose33% twice as fast as under Clinton and faster than any other president since Lyndon Johnson. The biggest growth has come in areas that Republicans, bay and large, supported: the military, domestic security and the biggest expansion of Medicare in 40 Years. The military and so-called entitlement programs account for 4/5ths of the 3 trillion budget
2) Spending on domestic discretionary programs - the ones that Congress must appropriate money for each year climbed 31% from 2001 through 2005. If House rep got their way for example, Congress would trim about 6.8 billion in entitlement spending over 5 years years, but those savings would be obliterated by the 385 billion in additional spending over the same period on Medicare part D that passed during Rep congress in 2003
@aaasssfffdddiii it is a common misconception that either party pushes for deep budget cust...80% of the budget is effectively off limits...so when Mccain talks about no earmarks...or JB talks about cutting a piece of the budget every month...there are talking about .000000001% of the problem...and to suggest otherwise would be disingenuous at best..no party is going to tackle this problem until they have no choice
@dundura123 Also, your wrong about private accounts for SS. Yes, the stock market fluctuates in the short term. However, in the long term, stocks outperform bonds 95% of the time. The longer money is in the market, the better it does. Plus, our current retirement system is not sustainable. Bureacrats have been robbing SS for years. I would never trust a bureacrat over the market with my retirement dollars.
3) Is it your position that 100% of stock investors make long term gains? And if that is not the case, what do we do about the losers? Will a loser have access to public funds? Or do we leave them on the streets? If the gov't subsidizes the income of a loser then we create a moral hazard where people are encourage to take risks in the market because they know the gov't will bail them out...again the taxpayers will pay for your risk taking (similar to the banks)
@dundura123 95% of stocks do better than bonds, the other 5% still do well. Nobody is going to be on the streets. These people have been working their entire lives. They have pensions, IRAs, and 401ks on top of SS. As far as the Moral Hazard goes, people will only be allowed to invest in relatively safe things. This elimination of SS, it is simply letting people have more power over their own dollars...
@aaasssfffdddiii [stocks outperform bonds 95% of the time] i didn't want to go here..because again you are avoiding the question...but that is factually incorrect...if that were the case every investor would be long stocks and there would never be a bond investor (looking for returns)...when you invest there is a potential for you to make losses...no matter how conservative you think you are....Enron was ranked AAA days before they went bankrupt...did you hear about the dot com boom and bust?
@aaasssfffdddiii you should read the book "Intelligent Investor"...there is a chapter that deals with this matter...I agree that is a common misconception...but putting that aside...even if that was the case...that has nothing to do with the fact that if you invest...you can potentially lose your money...it happens all the time
@aaasssfffdddiii those are just republican talking points which of course have some merit...but by know means will "fix" hc...when I speak to people that are passionately against something...I prefer to hear their alternative to solving a very specific problem...like in the case of the EMS services...once you drill down a bit deeper...we both tend to agree that most of the talking points on either side are not really "solutions"...they really just "prioritize" the limited resources that we have
@aaasssfffdddiii moreover...if it were that easy...why didn't republicans (who by their own admission agree that we have a HC crisis) not draft a bill with those point during the 6 years that they controlled the white house and both sides of congress...this is a digression because I try not to get too partisan because it just makes people defensive which hinders constructive discussion
@dundura123 Those things would be much better than the government takeover that Democrats are proposing. Those things would all lower costs, which is the goal of reform. If you remember, the Republicans tried to tackle tough issues, but Democrats obstructed. Bush proposed a solution to SS, but Democrats obstructed. Likewise, we were in the early phases of the war on terror. It is hard to run a war and reform HC at the same time.
@aaasssfffdddiii i have commented on the notion that "Republicans tried to tackle tough issues"...but again..they control Congress and the White House for 6 years..but spending skyrocketed with the creation of a new entitlement program....and Obama managed to get HC done while conducting 2 wars...it is about priorities..not capability...finally a privatized SS program would have been a disaster..thank god we didn't adopt it..
@dundura123 Obama ruined HC. Likewise, Obama is weak on foreign policy. BTW, privatization is an excellent idea. It allows retirees to have individual freedom. They actually own their retirement, they are not slaves to SS. As I explained earlier, stocks almost always outperform bonds in the long run. I suppose wealth and freedom are things you oppose??
@aaasssfffdddiii you are still refusing to answer my question...
What should the gov't do for the person that invest and loses a substantial amount of their SS in the "market". Again, assume u have 2 investors A and B. A plays it safe and invest in a diversified set of securities that generates 5% return...B takes a little more risk and goes for a strategy that yields 7%...if B's fund loses substantial value like many in the dot com...and recent housing crisis did..does the gov't bail out B?
@dundura123 So let's recap and tell me which point you disagree with (cont'd)
5) Currently, the gov't provides automatic stabilizers for people below a certain income (ie food stamp, income support, tax exempt status, housing benefits etc)
So I assume that you would get people to sign a disclaimer saying that the forgo that if they have a private SS account? And the disclaimer would obviously need to be signed early in life...before they could predict how their investments will turn out...
@aaasssfffdddiii and if they bail out B...isn't that unfair to investor A who gave up yield for 30 years to better protect assets....if you have freedom to invest in the market..you also have freedom to lose money correct?
Also i don't "like" Obama...I consider myself a rational and pragmatic liberal...all of our candidates died after drafting the constitution...we have no representation now...Obama was the least frightening option
@aaasssfffdddiii So let's recap and tell me which point you disagree with (cont'd)
but the problem is that these benefits provided to the poor, are not just altruistic..they help support aggregate demand during a recession...
Another issue is that we know that even if you are diversified...you equity values can be influenced by the macro economy...so imagine if 2 years ago..we not only had a housing crisis (which at the time seemed like sound investments)...we had a SS crisis as well...
@dundura123 Yes, anti-poverty programs can be good in terms of helping people. However, they DO NOT help the economy. I can tell that you have fallen for the Keynesian Lie. Heres a fact: Keynesian Economics has failed everytime it has been tried. The New Deal did NOT end the GD. For Japan in the 1990s, Keynesian economics brought nothing but debt and a lost decade.
@dundura123 The Reason Keynesian Economics fails is that it only moves money around, it doesn't create new wealth or demand. You see, every dollar that governments puts into the economy, it must first take out.
@dundura123 If, for example, government finances Food Stamps. It would have to take it out through borrowing or taxing, no new wealth is created. But wait, there is more. Government actually hurts the economy. If government finances food stamps, it provides a disentive to work. Hence, GDP is lowered. If they finance this with higher tax rates, work is even more disincentivized. Government also has no price signals. So Government has no way of investing in things that create wealth.
@dundura123 In the end, government spending hurts an economy. This is not just a theory. There is a reason that big government France has performed so badly over the past 30 years, with high levels of spending and taxation. pre-Obama America, Chile, Hong Kong, and Singapore have all performed strongly over these 30 years, while big government Europe has stagnated.
@dundura123 This is also supported by academic studies. Many academic studies from left leaning sources have found that larger government hurts the economy. Harvard's Robert Barro found that spending is a major drag on the economy, only putting $.80 in for every $1 spent. Another Harvard Study found that government spending consistently reduces business spending and expansion, without even taking the crowding out effect into account.
@aaasssfffdddiii history and modern global economics has proven you wrong, deregulation of wall street destroyed 5% of the total number of jobs.
your theories on the Great depression, if true, would mean that Herbert Hoover got us out of the great depression, but no, it was FDR and the government spending money on the one thing that people are consistently willing to allow the gov to spend money on, war (other things work, though). Face it, FDR was the greatest thing to happen to our country.
@InfamousArmstrong I am shocked by your ignorance. History 101 tells you that Herbert Hoover was NOT a free market advocate. He raised the top tax rate from 25% to 63%, he advocated wage controls, he slapped tarriffs on trade. Most economists agree that the New Deal extended the Great Depression by 7 years. FDR was, in fact, an economic disaster.
@aaasssfffdddiii personal income taxes are NOT a per se 'free markets' issue--but tariffs, regulation & G spending are-- and frankly your representation of the economists' consensus is at best disingenuous-- of those who believe that the Great Depression may have been extended, there is a substantial body of celebrated economists who maintain that it was FDR's kowtowing to deficit hawks that was the cause, and that is was his UNDERSPENDING that was the problem-- thus Keynesianism not at fault
@androydnyc Not spending per say, but Roosevelt's policies in general. The great depression was extended by Roosevelt keeping wages artificially high, thus lowering employment. To make matters worse, Roosevelt's administration was very anti-business, creating a great amount of uncertainty among investors. This is why private investment did not recover in the 1930s. Overall, Roosevelt's policies have been found to extend the depression by about 7 years.
@aaasssfffdddiii reiterating your prior claims almost verbatim does not strengthen them-- you are incorrect in your claims as to a consensus on either that FDR policies DID extend the Depression or as to WHY those econs who agree to that v.general statement believe that to be so.
Krugman has posted on precisely this multiple times in the very recent past.
@dundura123 I'm not cherry picking studies. Economic studies are in pretty strong agreement that higher levels of government spending reduce economic ouput. In other words, keynesian economics doesn't work, it never will, and it never has.
@aaasssfffdddiii your claim that OB "ruined" HC when almost none of ObamaCare will go into effect until 2014 is silly-- and whether or not OB is "weak on foreign policy" is irrelevant to your back and forth on the economy.
finally, as to SS privatization-- what do you think the outcome would have been when the DJIA lost nearly 40% of it's "value" in the year before OB was even elected [14,093 w/e Oct 8, 2007 v 8378 w/e Oct20, 2008]?
do you actually have any concept of the purpose of "insurance"?
@androydnyc I said obamacare WILL ruin health care, not that it already has. I made this point about the stock market earlier. You keep on making anecdotal references to stock market crashes, but you ignore that, over time, the stock market always goes up. As I said earlier, stocks outperform bonds 95% of the time over 20 years. I think insurance is for people who truly need it. If stocks are more practical, I don't see the problem.
@aaasssfffdddiii i used YOU tense-- your lack of proofing is your problem
the purpose of requiring pension funds generally to be in certain instruments and not in others is to prevent the precise volatility issues that i illustrated in my post-- losing near 50% of valuation in one year negates the value of the S&P's consistent growth over time for those that need their money in that year-- and i mention 'insurance' only because that is what SSI was conceived as-- NOT an investment acct
@androydnyc I don't care what social security was supposed to be or not be. We should look at the facts and just see what is most practical. Stocks outperform bonds 95% of the time!!!!
Over 20 years, short term fluctuations are always smoothed out...
1) These are talking points...the problem with "talking points" is that they are normally lofty ideals that nobody really disagrees with...Reform the FDA...ok cool..but what does that mean? Make all HC Plans tax equal...again we know that not all plans are created equal..and that most americans don't agree with a flat tax...so what does that mean?
@aaasssfffdddiii cont'd...should Bill Gate's HC plan which represents .00000000000000000000000000000000000001% of his income be taxed at the same level as the person making 10 dollars an hour with 2 kids....whose HC cost may be 10 to 15% of their income...Fix medicare and medicaid...again sounds great in theory..but what does that mean? and how do you do it...especially when the recipients don't want any reduction in the level of benefits...food for thought
@aaasssfffdddiii does 1929 ring any bells...just a few years ago..people were saying the same thing you just said about the housing market..."you can't lose money in real estate in the long term"...the point is...when you put your money in any financial security...there is the potential for heavy loses...that is a fact...there is no way around it...so again I ask the question...3) Is it your position that 100% of stock investors make long term gains? and what happens to the losers?
@aaasssfffdddiii for "lower taxes", "smaller gov't", "less spending"..are the same people (as the poll and several others like it) that don't want you to touch their benefits...
@aaasssfffdddiii but the problem in America is that the people expect the same public services that you get in Europe while paying much less for them....that my friend is unsustainable...
@dundura123 Well, that is not true. America's Debt to GDP ratio is 59%. That is lower than most Western European countries, including the UK, France, Ireland, Iceland, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Hungary, Austria, Netherlands, and Spain. Those include most Western European welfare states. Americans actually have smaller debt than most European countries. Obviously, we are having less trouble paying for our services than Europe.
Respond to this video...send me any economists or any think tank that suggest that Bush's fiscal policy was sustainable...I support Obama for the most part...but am not an ideologue...so I can honestly say that I would struggle to find any economist who suggest that the spending is tenable....they will espouse the theory that the short-term huge spending is necessary to pull us out of the recession...but shortly thereafter we have to reduce the debt and deficits
@aaasssfffdddiii now if you want to debate that strategy...that is fine...and I completely understand why people would disagree...because it is risky and relies on theory and forecast...but if you are telling me that with hindsight you believe that Bush's combination of increased spending, tax cuts and wars was sustainable...then we have to agree to disagree...because I have to conclude that you are an ideologue who will support republicans regardless of their actions
@dundura123 Actually, there were 250 economists who signed a letter in support of tax cuts in 2003. Likewise, there 450 economists who signed a letter against them. The point is that you can always find significant support for either side of any argument among economists. Bush's spending was big, but not unsustainable. An average deficit of 2% of GDP is BELOW the historic average. Obama's deficits, on the other hand, are massive and unsustainabe, at 9.5% of GDP.
@aaasssfffdddiii to get that one through he let PAYGO lapse. Huge entitlement program..again where was the Tea Party then? But that was not all...during his 1st 5 years in office...he NEVER vetoed a spending bill...NEVER...the deficits soared...but again where was the Tea Party Express? The gov't grew as well..
@aaasssfffdddiii - hmm-- sadly there has been NO socialization of medicine whatsoever, and [sadly too] OB extended the the very tax cuts that you vaunt-- in fact he has embraced precisely the GOP policies that landed us in this mess-- what are you rambling on about?
or are you just flinging fecal matter through the cage bars on spec?
I also want to adress the poverty statistics. There were many problems with this. First, Cenk said that childhood poverty went up under Reagan. However, he used nominal numbers. What matters is percentage of the population, because population growth matters. Under Reagan, it fell from 20% to 19.6%. Total poverty fell from 14% to 12.8%. This is not a huge fall given the strong economic growth of the time, but it did fall.
Indeed, Jimmy Carter has the worst income record by far. George Bush, after two terms, saw a decline of 2%. Thats bad, but not terrible. And he saw 2 wars, a housing crash, and he inherited a recession from Clinton. Carter, in just one term, saw a decline of 7%, that really is terrible. He didn't have near the problems that Bush had.
I conclude that this video is greatly skewed and misleading. Cenk, you're a smart guy, but you need to check your facts...
@aaasssfffdddiii but surely you are not disputing the fact that Bush was a relatively huge spender yet there were no Tea Party movements at that time?
Finally, median household income isn't really an entirely accurate way of judging income growth because household size changes over time. Therefore, personal median income is the best way to judge income changes. Here are the numbers for that, straight from the census:
Bush 43: -2%
Clinton: +18%
Bush 41: -3%
Reagan: +20%
Carter: -7%
As you can see, Reagan has the best record, even better than Clinton. Carter, in just 4 years, saw a much bigger decline than Bush did in 8 years.
The median household income statistics have recorded 10 full presidential terms. Over these 10 terms, 5 have seen a rise in median income and 5 have seen a fall. Half of the presidential terms have seen a fall since it has been recorded. So Bush's fall is not nearly as rare as Cenk implies.
Finally, Cenk also said that Bush was the only two term president to see a decline in median income since they started recording numbers. This is technically true, but it is very misleading. They have only been keeping this number since 1967, this means that there have only been three 2-term presidents since then. That means that the only presidents Bush is competing against are Reagan and Clinton, who both presided over major economic booms. So this is a very misleading claim.
Clinton also raised taxes, but he also cut the capital gains tax from 28% to 20%. Even though I disagree with his analysis of Clinton, it is fair to give Clinton credit for the rise in incomes because he did raise taxes. But you can't say that tax cuts caused the fall in incomes under George HW Bush, because he actually raised taxes and never cut them.
This video plays loose with the facts. Here are the real numbers for Median Household Income, straight from the census:
Bush 43: -3%
Clinton: +12%
Bush 41: -5%
Reagan: +12%
Carter: -1% Now, as I have said before this whole analysis is flawed. First, this video told a blatant lie. He claims that George HW Bush cut taxes for the rich. Indeed, he actuallr raised them. Bush raised the top tax rate from 28% to 31%.
Obama walked out of a press conference because his wife and not the American people are the boss of him. Clinton is still a leader. Barry is just our first illegal immigrant President.
Around half of Americans don't pay the federal income tax, the top 10% of earners pay around 90% of the federal income tax. Where do you think tax breaks will go?
Tax breaks do not cost money. Saying they cost money is like saying that money never belonged to those who earned it.
The tax cuts did help me, even though I'm not in those 250k+ category. Maybe someday I'll earn that much cash moneys.
@stoodgey yeah every dollar given away through tax cuts to the rich is at a rate of 1 dollar cut from taxes = .30 dollars back into the economy, so yeah it costs 70cents per dollar to make a tax break. do your research before you speak
@MrSwannyboy You're missing my point. By having a job, you earn money. The income tax is established so that a percent of the dollars you earned go to the government. That money belongs to you but you are paying it to the government for their services. The way you are commenting is that the money never belonged to you ever, it always belonged to the government. "Given away" is not the proper term to describe a tax cut, a "refundable tax credit" would be giving money away that may not belong
I'll for the hell of it give my personal situation when I was younger before a variety of things happened which luckily moved me into a decent waged home. But I lived with my Grandma who supported me and, one other family member and we were all being supported on a Burger King fast food wage. There are so many actual examples of people living like I did growing up its not even funny, everyone on my block was in a similar situation. No real healthcare, awful unhealthy food, awful living standards
None of these will necessarily help anyone who cant help themselves in the lower or middle class. In fact we would probably have to raise funding just so these poor students could have the same opportunity to go to the "good schools". The difference between if we did it and if Sweden did it is Sweden has a very low income inequality and large tax funding. There isn't a huge variation in who can afford and who cant.
Even School choice could have a point where everyone wants into "that" school and only those with a preferable background get in. Something like Vouchers may produce a very wide quality of schools in which then your stuck in either a good school or a shitty one. Private Schools and Parochial Schools are already focused on the rich who can afford them.
@WiseJ123 The middle class is NOT shrinking. Any shrinkage that has taken place is because they are getting richer. Liberals said that Reagan oversaw a shrinking middle class. He did. But it was because the upper middle and upper class were growing. For example, when Reagan took office only 25% made over $50,000, when he left office, that was 31%. Those are in 1990 dollars, so that would be much more today.
@aaasssfffdddiii Include some statistics about the distribution of wealth and its pretty obvious. The rich cant keep making more and more money while the other classes barely grow in comparison. If one group is making more another group has to be making less, and the simple fact that the Middle class has obviously been hit hardest by this recession is a pretty big clue as well.
@WiseJ123 Wow, there was alot of bull in your last set of comments. First off, you mistake the economy as a zero-sum gain system. In reality, when the economy grows, everyone gets richer. Median Personal Income has been growing at record high since Reagan took office. Again, all the new technology is benefiting middle class families. Average families can afford ipods, flat screens, iphones, nice cars, computers, and nice homes.
@WiseJ123 This is not counting the poor European Countries. Only the rich ones. So the average Poor person in America lives better than the average European.
@aaasssfffdddiii Your trying to displace the argument by trying to get into foreign politics which have no hold in how our economy runs, our policies, our debt, our inequality of income. They have different living standards, costs of housing, social programs etc.. etc.. Second, I don't believe that crap for a minute. Credible source please? Since Sweden for instance their middle class makes about 20% less than ours, yet don't forget they have all the social programs like healthcare as well.
@aaasssfffdddiii@aaasssfffdddiii I have to question if you've ever lived in poverty in this country. You seem all for defending the rich getting every break you can, and that oh those in poverty their living conditions are fine.... psh they dont need any help. They have their TV's and iPods they must be living ok right? Because it isn't some magical living standard where oh "they're fine".
@aaasssfffdddiii No, in fact they aren't. look into some studies done on the living conditions of the lower class. Many have to work countless hours, multiple jobs, can barely afford housing, food, utilities. Education? Psh thats a laugh. Healthcare? Another laugh, many don't even run a positive income, savings for the future? All fairly non-existant.
@aaasssfffdddiii You can "think" that its fine living in poverty in the U.S. you can think that all you want. Doesn't make it true for a second. But once again foreign living has no hold in our politics. Because you know... European families don't have access to iPods or TV's either right? (Sarcasm) In fact if their making any less of a wage its because their putting much of their potential earnings into social programs which if you poll many of these countries they're quite happy to have.
@WiseJ123 We have higher quality healthcare. Our poor live in bigger houses than the average European. They also have more stuff. BTW: we have medicaid and SCHIP for the poor. So they have Healthcare. Your making up stuff to make the poor seem worse off than they are. You can't deny facts. Well, I guess you are a liberal, so facts are really irrelevant...
@aaasssfffdddiii Correction, we have healthcare thats high quality which the lower class cant afford. If you seriously think we have good healthcare system for everyone I'm sorry you are delusional. Highest GDP capital spent, with the among the least access to it. Also I'm making stuff up? Thats a laugh, just shows how right wing idiots cant see from any viewpoint but their own. Go look up some studies, scientific journals, or take a few sociology classes, you could use some perspective
@WiseJ123 As could you, Ill admit that I see the world from too much of a business pespectie. I may have trouble understanding real world situations. I rely on stats too much. There is some kind of middle ground, where we can have a prosperous free market economy and a safety net to insure that everyone is taken care of. Like most people, we could both use perspective. I could use more human perspective. But I also think you could use more business perspective.
@aaasssfffdddiii I'll take this as a final stopping point to this very long debate lol. It was interesting. Thats the main problem with politics though there are so many factors to take into account, it doesn't necessarily mean one person's "wrong" there may be business benefits for instance but is there social benefits as well. Who does it effect and in what way? The stuff I listed below however I will say I did not make up. Its from studies and personal experience. Lower class isnt a picnic .
@WiseJ123 Me too, lol. I didn't make anything up either. I know being poor is very hard for many. I do think it is occassionally exaggerated however. Ya, everything needs multiple perspectives. Everything needs multiple perspectives...
@aaasssfffdddiii Facts... You mean like the fact your "higher quality healthcare" has led to the United States becoming 37th on the list of life expectancy according to the World Health Organization? Yeah, it's "liberals" that have a problem with facts. I guess that's why your talking about health care instead of rebutting ANYTHING from the video... LOL
You are right. That's the impact of a heavy Recession and 2 Wars.
Debt Spending is more for President Obama's 2 years that for President Bush 4 years. Do we need more Debt Spending?
bkuehlhorn 5 months ago
your not being totally fair, reagans marginal tax rate of 70% was only in his first year. it went to 50% for a while then in the last 2 years was 29%
rellik1945 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
well fair economics do work. it greatly increases the quality of life. some thing Americans don't even know thats why Scandinavian countries and many of the European countries have better living standards than the US. the problem with Friedman type of economics is it assumes humans are always rational and motivated only by efficiency which is untrue
rodrigorn0 11 months ago 2
@whomever dings this post as spam-- kind of a weak response to a post that you disagree with.
androydnyc 8 months ago
well fair economics do work. it greatly increases the quality of life. some thing Americans don't even know thats why Scandinavian countries and many of the European countries have better living standards than the US. the problem with friedman type of economics is it assumes humans are always rational and motivated only by efficiency which is untrue
rodrigorn0 11 months ago 2
@rodrigorn0-i was thinking about moving to norway simply cuz i love how they get at least a year in maternity leave...even fathers get maternity leave. plus they promote breastfeeding. well uh...yea they have the time cuz they don't have to work. here in america its three months at the most. lol no but seriously even if its considered communism...i dont understand why its so frowned upon.
terrelya83 8 months ago
@rodrigorn0 -- Austrian economics also assumes [on its face at least] that all actors are good and that the risk reward for bad actors will deter same- we can see by the corpos efforts to socialize every cost possible that this is utterly untrue
androydnyc 8 months ago
capitalist free market is the most efficient way to allocate resources. but the problem is over the year most of the markets has become failures due to big corporations distorting the free markets for profits the best example s r the insurance industry and the banking industry. also a successful nation cannot only be determined by the efficiency of the government but the well being of people and i gotta say well fair policies do increase the well being of the public example Scandinavia
rodrigorn0 11 months ago
put it like this when republicans have a republican finger up their ass they shut up and smile, when a democrat wants to pull it out they scream and get pist off.
cisco2804 1 year ago
message me best videos
qwert338 1 year ago
ya the recession hit at the end of bushes term...
yaimsquiz 1 year ago
they rich pay a larger percent of the pie now then before the tax cuts idiots. just because you only get a couple hundred back when you only pay a couple thousand each year and the billionaire gets millions back doesn't mean its unfair. if i paid 100 dollars for something and you paid 10 dollars and there was a 10% refund would you bitch that i got ten dollars back and you only got 1?
gibblets17 1 year ago
@gibblets17 "they rich pay a larger percent of the pie now then before the tax cuts idiots"is this yet another example of your superior ability to form coherent sentences? nice lol .what a buffoon.
MUDSHARK111 1 year ago
Finally, Health Care numbers are not a good way of judging economic efficiency. The percentage of people without healthcare has been about stable the last 30 years, but has been going up slowly. This is because of rising health care costs and is not GWs fault...
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii again I repeat...during his 1st 5 years in office...he NEVER vetoed a spending bill...i just don't understand how anyone can call themselves a fiscal conservative...yet support this sort of record...it just doesn't make any sense...there may not be a massive movement...but your record should at least demonstrate where you were outraged....how did the republicans allow this to happen on their watch?
dundura123 1 year ago 2
Yes, the rate rose under Bush, but not that dramatically. Indeed, the average poverty rate under Bush (both childhood and total) was lower than under Clinton. Now, it did go up under Bush while it went down for Clinton. But, the increase under Bush is greatle exagerated.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
Under Clinton, childhood poverty fell from 22.7% to 16.3%, and regular poverty fell from 15.1% to 11.7%. However, the childhood poverty rate fell from 20.5% in 1996 to 16.2% in 2000, and regular poverty fell from 13.7% to 11.3% over the same period . What happened in 1996? Welfare Reform, followed by a capital gains tax cut in 1997. It would appear that welfare reform and capital gains tax cuts were the best poverty reducers ever.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii you are confusing correlation with causation...
dundura123 1 year ago
@dundura123 First, the deficits averaged 2% of GDP under Bush. Under Obama, they have averaged 9.5% of GDP. Likewise, Bush did not socialize Health Care or pass a Trillion Dollar Stimulus. Bush actually let people keep more of their money through tax rate reduction.
Anyways, I know correlation does not equal causation. I never said it did. In fact, it is Cenk that is confusing the two.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii i am not really interested in defending Obama or Cenk...I just sometimes try to point out potential flaws in logic, double standards and hypocrisy (which is a complete waste of my time i know).in this case..I understand if you don't like Obama's budget in terms of spending..I get that...what I don't understand is how people defend Bush's spending record (and/or were silent for 8 years) but have a problem with Obama's budget? Where was the Tea Party in 2002 when we needed them?
dundura123 1 year ago
@dundura123 Bush's spending record was not good. However, Bush's spending were at least sustainable. Obama is spending at a dangerous pace. Again, 2% of GDP is bad. 9.5% is dangerously high. Plus, Bush was not massively expanding the role of government in our lives and economy. Obama, for example, passed a government takeover of Health Care. Bush, on the other hand, passed tax cuts that decreased the burden of government. Tea Partiers are against massive government spending, not small deficits.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii can you site research that suggest that Bush's spending was sustainable...I am not trying to be augmentative...I have just never read anyone on the right or the left in retrospect say that Bush's fiscal policy was sustainable..especially considering the wars..Medicare Part D was a new massive entitlement program...there is also of list of bills in passed in the "name of homeland security" which were a huge expansion of gov't...there are others as well if you want me to send them
dundura123 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii yes Bush lowered taxes...but he did a 2nd round at a time of war...this meant the wars had to be paid for with the US's credit card...this legislation was passed through reconciliation which the Rep. now say they hate...but you might say..."ah that is national defense...we needed that"...well what about the Medicare Prescription Drug Progran which is estimated to cost as much as a Trillion dollars over the next 10 years.
dundura123 1 year ago
@dundura123 First, a strong economy is important in a time of war. You also forget that the 2003 tax cuts largely paid for themselves. Indeed, Capital gains tax revenue was above what the CBO expected WITHOUT the tax cut. This is no surprise. The same thing happened in 1979, 1981, and 1997. So, in reality, the tax cut was mostly paid for by itself. Again, the tea party rose because of massive deficits and government takeovers. The small Bush deficits were not nearly enough to spark a movement.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii can you send me a report from any economists that suggest lowering taxes during a time of war is good for the economy? also...bush inheriated a surplus...by the time he left office the federal deficit was running at nearly 1/2 a trillion dollars and the national debt was at 1 trillion...bear in mind he did not include the cost of the wars...but if those are small numbers...then so be it...
dundura123 1 year ago
@dundura123 Alot of economists agree that lower tax rates are good for the economy. In fact, almost every economist agrees on that. Those are facts, so be it. The reason he didn't veto a spending bill was because Republicans controlled congress. That meant that there were no big spending bills to veto. Bush didn't pass the $800 Stimulus, the takeover of Health Care, or the many other spending bills Obama has signed. Again, deficits averaged 2% of GDP under Bush, that is small historically.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii you did not answer my question...i said lowering them during a time of war...he pushed through a second round of tax cuts even though he knew we needed to pay for the 2 wars...then he didn't include the cost of the wars in the budget...all gov't spending bills are big...that is the problem i have with Obama..and that is the problem I had with Bush...Bush didn't pass HC..but he passed the Medicare Drug program..which was a massive entitlement program
dundura123 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii but I can only judge you one what you say you are going to do...Bush ran on a platform of small gov't, lower taxes and fiscal responsibility....the numbers show that gov't expanded, yes he lowered taxes...but he ballooned the debt and the deficit...those are just the numbers...now did he have good reason to do it...that will always be up for debate...but the numbers don't lie in this case.he inherited surplus...and left with deficits...and the debt was a multiple of what it was
dundura123 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii if you are going to be an ideologue...I just ask that you are consistent...then we can have a proper debate...so if you told me that you were mad at Bush...but madder at Obama...I can understand your logic...but if you didn't mind bush running up deficits and ballooning the debt...what made you convert to a fiscal hawk now? Both the dems and the cons...want big gov't...as long as it is doing what they want it to do....
dundura123 1 year ago
@dundura123 First, the 2003 Bush tax cuts did not decrease revenues very much. Most of them were paid for by increasing economic growth and adding incentives to work, save, and invest. So, a strong economy is key to paying for a war. Second, Presidents throughout history have ran deficits of above 2% of GDP, that is relatively small. Obama is spending at a dangerous pace, Bush did not...
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii so you should have no problem sending me the name of an relatively independent economist who says that cutting taxes during the 2 wars was a good idea....I am not trying to be argumentative...I literally have not heard anybody (other than you) support those tax cuts in the face of war....many people support tax cuts in general...but when you are facing 2 wars...it is reckless
dundura123 1 year ago
@dundura123 Again, the right kind of tax cuts pay for themselves through strong economic growth. This was the case for 1979, 1981, 1997, and 2003 capital gains tax cuts. Labor and business tax cuts also pay for themselves over time. There is a reason that Americans work more than Europeans. Nobel Prize winner Ed Prescott did an in depth study and found that the entire difference in working hours for Europe and America is explained by taxes....
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii there is no serving congressman in either party who has recommended cutting taxes while increasing spending...in other words...if you increase spending at a faster rate than the benefit that you receive from tax cuts...you will still run a deficit...tax cuts are not some grand panacea that solves all fiscal problems...it is unsustainable to cut taxes and create massive new entitlement programs or wage war at the same time...both of which Bush did...
dundura123 1 year ago
@dundura123 True, I am certainly for cutting spending. I am simply pointing out that Bush and Obama were on completely different levels when it came to deficits and spending. If you want to talk about entitlements, look at Obamacare.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii again...if you were to tell me that you were mad at Bush...but madder at Obama...at least I could have an intelligent conversation...but if you tell me that you didn't have a problem with Bush's fiscal policies...but have an issue with Obama's...I just can't get past the hipocracy
dundura123 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii you mentioned Obamacare..what's your view on Emergency Medical Services? By law everybody has access to EMS...if you show up at the hospital with life threating injuries...you cannot be turned away regardless of your ability and/or willingness to pay. Currently..the State has to pick up the tab for the unissured...once the State runs out of money...the Federal Gov't has to pay....and as you know the State and Federal Gov't are funded by the US taxpayer...
dundura123 1 year ago
@dundura123 You mentioned Obamacare. Our system obviously had problems before it was passed.We should have a system where the individual covers most of their medical costs. Right now, people have no incentive to find cheaper services. For example, lazer eye surgery, which is not covered by insurance, has steadily fallen in price. The point is that the market is not the problem to health care, it is the solution.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aaasssfffdddiii you didn't attempt to answer the question... By law everybody has access to EMS...if you show up at the hospital with life threating injuries...you cannot be turned away regardless of your ability and/or willingness to pay. Currently..the State has to pick up the tab for the unissured...once the State runs out of money...the Federal Gov't has to pay....and as you know the State and Federal Gov't are funded by the US taxpayer...
dundura123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whomever is marking this as spam-- if your arguments have no merit, then accept that-- trying to shove facts & history down the memoryy hole does NOT change them-- it only hides them from view.
Weak tea.
androydnyc 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aaasssfffdddiii hence we are paying the medical bills (passed to us via, taxes, lower wages and higher premiums) for people that don't have coverage..How do you solve this problem without forcing everybody to get coverage or pay a tax to cover the cost? I have thought about this a lot...don't know another way of solving it...
you thoughts would be appreciated?
dundura123 1 year ago
@weak teahadist-- stop bogus spam flags-- either back your sh!t up or go hom
androydnyc 8 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii hence we are paying the medical bills (passed to us via, taxes, lower wages and higher premiums) for people that don't have coverage..How do you solve this problem without forcing everybody to get coverage or pay a tax to cover the cost? I have thought about this a lot...don't know another way of solving it...
you thoughts would be appreciated?
dundura123 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii and you keep saying " tax cuts also pay for themselves over time"...even if I agreed with you... you can't escape the ebbs and flows of the business cycle.....hence if you cut gov't revenue but increase gov't spending...you will not be prepared to deal with the inevitable downturn in the economy and subsequent loss in tax revenue...
dundura123 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii i am not qualified to challenge the findings of a Nobel Prize winner...however I live in Europe and happen to believe that there are a combination of things that contribute to the difference in working hours...I won't go into details unless you want me to...so will just list the highlights 1) different cultures 2) taxes 3) much stronger unions 4) larger public sector 5) the safety net that the higher taxes provide
dundura123 1 year ago
@dundura123 Well, the different cultures one was one that Prescott took on. In the 1970s, The Europeans worked more than Americans. Since then, that has changed. Obviously, all of those factors played a role. However, taxees played the largest role, according to his research, as well as Raj Chetty's.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii so in less than 483 characters we have already established that taxes are not the "entire difference" reason that American's work more....next we should look at the fact that European immigrants who fall under the same tax law work considerable more than then their Anglo-saxon (in the case of england) counter-parts...then we should examine the labour laws...i happen to think that the taxes here do provide less of an incentive. esp. when it comes to getting a second job...
dundura123 1 year ago
@dundura123 Part of this is because we offer less services. However, it is also largely because Americans work more and earn more income, hence we can afford more government services despire lower tax rates. Obviously, taxes are not the "entire difference". However, as Raj Chetty and Edward Prescott show, they do explain the largest part of the difference.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii just in...Less than a quarter of Americans support trimming Social Security or Medicare to tackle the country’s budget deficit, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll that illustrates the challenge facing lawmakers seeking voter support for altering entitlement programs....you cannot lower taxes and keep entitlements the way they are if you are going to reduce the long-term deficit...it is not mathematically possible....however the same people that are crying
dundura123 1 year ago
@dundura123 We need to fix social security and medicare. First, we should allow people to invest their own social security dollars, and medicare should be turned into a program that people get subsidies to buy private insurance. That would fix those programs for the long term. Obviously, we have to make deep cuts to spending right now. However,raising taxes would be silly and make no sense whatsoever.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii just like you avoided the EMS question...you did not address what I said...any "fix" will require a cocktail of less services and/or higher taxes...you just can't spend the same dollar twice...however, the same American's who favor deficit reduction...are not in favor of cutting entitlement spending and/or raising taxes...that is unsustainable...
dundura123 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii but to your point of, "invest their own social security dollars"...again I ask..what should the policy response be towards the person that lost 30% of their savings in the market...and now doesn't have enough income to live on? if the gov't subsidizes their income, we are creating a moral hazard where people can invest in the markets knowing that the gov't will bail them out...but if we do nothing then you will see a bunch of 65 year old homeless people
dundura123 11 months ago
@dundura123 First, you're very wrong. The tea party leaders are the ONLY ones who want to tackle entitlements. It is the Democrats who scream everytime we, Republicans, try to fix Medicare or Social Security (Remember Bush in 06). All the tea party leaders support fixing these. So it is the liberals who are against entitlement reform, not us. Furthermore, we are definetley against tax increases. Why?
Because these would just hurt the economy and ultimately bring in less revenue....
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii you are not addressing the issues that I am raising...I will rehash
1) What do you do about EMS without some sort of mandate or insurance tax. Currently every citizen is guaranteed access to care even if they cannot or will not pay. That cost is then passed onto tax payers in the form of higher premiums, higher taxes, inflation, lower wages and higher out-of-pocket medical expenses.
Additionally, millions of uninsured (including illegal aliens) just so up at the emergency room
dundura123 11 months ago
@dundura123 Here's whats interesting. Massachussetts implemented an individual mandate a couple of years ago. Yet, they still have the higest insurance costs in the nation. Likewise, the insurance costs increased well above the national average the past two years. Obviously. the individual mandate is not the solution. I certainly don't know how a tax would solve the problem...
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii I didn't say that a mandate is the solution...I asked you
1) What do you do about EMS without some sort of mandate or insurance tax.
you are avoiding the question...every public policy will have problems...so you can spend all day pointing out problems in a policy...but if you don't like something that is fine...but you should be able to articulate an alternative right? you keep avoiding the question...which is typical of people who oppose a mandate..b/c it is a difficult
dundura123 11 months ago
@dundura123 Well, you have to accept the problems that come with tings. The only real solution is to eliminate the regulation that requires hospitals to take in emergencies. However, that would be inhumane. Every other other solution proposed would make things worst.
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii no we are getting somewhere....the problem is that this problem if left unsolved will bankrupt the country...we know that americans will never accept leaving a 10-year old gunshot victim on the side of the street because his parents didn't buy insurance....but we also know that the gov't can't continue to pay the billions of dollars that these people cost
dundura123 11 months ago
@dundura123 Again, the best thing we can do is make insurance more affordable and flexible through free market reforms, we may have to accept some costs from EMS.
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii i don't view the hc bill that is on the table to be the final product...I think that Obama has made the following calculation.
1) A republican congress will never ever...ever pass any bill that expands coverage
2) You can't solve the cost issue until you get everybody that is benefiting from the system to pay into the system
3) The gov't will make the necessary cuts over time but more stealthily
4) This is the best segue into a national health system
dundura123 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii see...once you really start examining the problem...you will begin to realize why America is the only advance nation without a national healthcare system...the economics of healthcare just doesn't conform to the behavior of other products...
dundura123 11 months ago
@dundura123 Your very wrong on most of what you said about HC. Although you are very right in saying that this is a segue into Single Payer. The economics of HC are just like any other product. The problem is that we don't have a free market in health care. Medicare, Medicaid, special tax distortions, and burdensome regulations weigh down the system. In fact, HC is very far from a free market.
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii Concerning the Economics of HC
1) I don't know a single economist who suggest that left alone the product of HC is like any other product. Can you name one. For example...if at 80 your grandma needs expensive surgery...do you just get rid of her because she is past her "useful life"...no..that makes no sense at all...
If a little kid gets hit by a car..do you leave him there because his parents cant afford the doctor? that makes no sense..and if they can afford a doctor
dundura123 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii do they go to the nearest hospital...or the one 50 miles away because it is cheaper....and does the ambulance prioritize services based on who can pay...that makes no sense and does not happen
dundura123 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii problem to solve with out one....it is like 5 college students ordering a pizza...but payment is voluntary....the ones who pay...will also have to cover the cost of the ones who don't...that is our current situation
dundura123 11 months ago
@dundura123 Again, the whole idea of SS is flawed. Since it is here, we have to deal with a flawed solution.
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii Concerning Massachussetts
1) their is a flaw in your logic...all legislation is composed of thousands of provisions, policies and variables...the outcome a combination of many of them...there is no proof that the individual mandate contributed to the rise in HC cost...especially considering that the public and private HC costs are rising in states that don't have a mandate...
dundura123 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii Concerning Massachusetts
2) It is not surprising that MA would have higher cost in the short run...it is a basic principle of financial investment...i am not very familiar with the details of their plan...so it is hard to comment on specifics...but HC reform effectively brings the true cost of HC onto the gov't balance sheet...sort of like the 2 wars...note the cost has always been there...but we just weren't counting it
dundura123 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii Concerning Mass.
3) Taxes on those not insured are designed to a) correct the financial incentives of someone who doesn't get coverage because they know they can go to EMS and b) defray the cost of the uninsured...
dundura123 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aaasssfffdddiii
2) Do agree with this finding and other similar surveys...".Less than a quarter of Americans support trimming Social Security or Medicare to tackle the country’s budget deficit, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll that illustrates the challenge facing lawmakers seeking voter support for altering entitlement programs...."
This implies that regardless of your party affiliation, the citizens who say they want to tackle the deficit don't want you to touch their
dundura123 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii entitlement programs...notice how I am not talking about the Tea Party, Democrats...Republicans...Independents...Libertarians...or any party...this is an issue that faces all lawmakers....people want low taxes...the same services...and no cuts...this is normally not sustainable.
dundura123 11 months ago
@dundura123 Republicans have pushed deep spending cuts and are also planning to propose entitlement reform. Stop acting like both sides are equally bad on this. As far as deficit reduction goes, Republicans are proposing solutions, while Democrats continue to use straw man arguments and emotional appeal to stop any spending cuts.
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aaasssfffdddiii i think both parties spend too much..they just spend on the programs that they favour...but again you are avoiding the question....again...2) Do agree with this finding and other similar surveys...".Less than a quarter of Americans support trimming Social Security or Medicare to tackle the country’s budget deficit, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll
dundura123 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii Concerning Rep and Fiscal Policy number from 2006 report:
1) Since Bush took office, overall federal spending rose33% twice as fast as under Clinton and faster than any other president since Lyndon Johnson. The biggest growth has come in areas that Republicans, bay and large, supported: the military, domestic security and the biggest expansion of Medicare in 40 Years. The military and so-called entitlement programs account for 4/5ths of the 3 trillion budget
dundura123 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii Concerning Rep fiscal policy:
2) Spending on domestic discretionary programs - the ones that Congress must appropriate money for each year climbed 31% from 2001 through 2005. If House rep got their way for example, Congress would trim about 6.8 billion in entitlement spending over 5 years years, but those savings would be obliterated by the 385 billion in additional spending over the same period on Medicare part D that passed during Rep congress in 2003
dundura123 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii it is a common misconception that either party pushes for deep budget cust...80% of the budget is effectively off limits...so when Mccain talks about no earmarks...or JB talks about cutting a piece of the budget every month...there are talking about .000000001% of the problem...and to suggest otherwise would be disingenuous at best..no party is going to tackle this problem until they have no choice
dundura123 11 months ago
@dundura123 Also, your wrong about private accounts for SS. Yes, the stock market fluctuates in the short term. However, in the long term, stocks outperform bonds 95% of the time. The longer money is in the market, the better it does. Plus, our current retirement system is not sustainable. Bureacrats have been robbing SS for years. I would never trust a bureacrat over the market with my retirement dollars.
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii
3) Is it your position that 100% of stock investors make long term gains? And if that is not the case, what do we do about the losers? Will a loser have access to public funds? Or do we leave them on the streets? If the gov't subsidizes the income of a loser then we create a moral hazard where people are encourage to take risks in the market because they know the gov't will bail them out...again the taxpayers will pay for your risk taking (similar to the banks)
dundura123 11 months ago
@dundura123 95% of stocks do better than bonds, the other 5% still do well. Nobody is going to be on the streets. These people have been working their entire lives. They have pensions, IRAs, and 401ks on top of SS. As far as the Moral Hazard goes, people will only be allowed to invest in relatively safe things. This elimination of SS, it is simply letting people have more power over their own dollars...
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii [stocks outperform bonds 95% of the time] i didn't want to go here..because again you are avoiding the question...but that is factually incorrect...if that were the case every investor would be long stocks and there would never be a bond investor (looking for returns)...when you invest there is a potential for you to make losses...no matter how conservative you think you are....Enron was ranked AAA days before they went bankrupt...did you hear about the dot com boom and bust?
dundura123 11 months ago
@dundura123 It is an objective fact that 95% of stocks outperform bonds in the long run.
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii you should read the book "Intelligent Investor"...there is a chapter that deals with this matter...I agree that is a common misconception...but putting that aside...even if that was the case...that has nothing to do with the fact that if you invest...you can potentially lose your money...it happens all the time
dundura123 11 months ago
@dundura123 There is a way to fix HC:
1) Make all HC Plans tax equal
2) Promote Heath Savings Accounts
3) Tort Reform
4) Let Insurers Compete over State Lines
5) Fix Medicare and Medicaid
6) Reform the FDA
7) Give States Freedom and Resources to insure the uninsurable
8) Electronic Health Records
These reforms would fix the system, while maintaining its quality. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be huge improvement.
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii those are just republican talking points which of course have some merit...but by know means will "fix" hc...when I speak to people that are passionately against something...I prefer to hear their alternative to solving a very specific problem...like in the case of the EMS services...once you drill down a bit deeper...we both tend to agree that most of the talking points on either side are not really "solutions"...they really just "prioritize" the limited resources that we have
dundura123 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii moreover...if it were that easy...why didn't republicans (who by their own admission agree that we have a HC crisis) not draft a bill with those point during the 6 years that they controlled the white house and both sides of congress...this is a digression because I try not to get too partisan because it just makes people defensive which hinders constructive discussion
dundura123 11 months ago
@dundura123 Those things would be much better than the government takeover that Democrats are proposing. Those things would all lower costs, which is the goal of reform. If you remember, the Republicans tried to tackle tough issues, but Democrats obstructed. Bush proposed a solution to SS, but Democrats obstructed. Likewise, we were in the early phases of the war on terror. It is hard to run a war and reform HC at the same time.
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii i have commented on the notion that "Republicans tried to tackle tough issues"...but again..they control Congress and the White House for 6 years..but spending skyrocketed with the creation of a new entitlement program....and Obama managed to get HC done while conducting 2 wars...it is about priorities..not capability...finally a privatized SS program would have been a disaster..thank god we didn't adopt it..
dundura123 11 months ago
@dundura123 Obama ruined HC. Likewise, Obama is weak on foreign policy. BTW, privatization is an excellent idea. It allows retirees to have individual freedom. They actually own their retirement, they are not slaves to SS. As I explained earlier, stocks almost always outperform bonds in the long run. I suppose wealth and freedom are things you oppose??
After all, you did say you like Obama.
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii you are still refusing to answer my question...
What should the gov't do for the person that invest and loses a substantial amount of their SS in the "market". Again, assume u have 2 investors A and B. A plays it safe and invest in a diversified set of securities that generates 5% return...B takes a little more risk and goes for a strategy that yields 7%...if B's fund loses substantial value like many in the dot com...and recent housing crisis did..does the gov't bail out B?
dundura123 11 months ago
@dundura123 No, government should not bail him out. I am against SS to begin with, I am only suggesting the only way to fix SS.
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii So let's recap and tell me which point you disagree with
1) Any investment in the market creates the potential to make substantial loses
2) Millions of American currently depend on SS income to live
3) All investors cannot possibly take the same level of risk [if they were forced to..it wouldn't be a free market]
4) Losing a substantial amount of SS value/income, without time to recoup (let's say in your 60's) could result in a person falling into poverty.
dundura123 11 months ago
@dundura123 I have explained to you how:
1.) Almost all stocks outperform bonds in the long run
2.) Many Americans would save more during their life if SS was not there
3.) This point is irrelevant to our debate
4.) Yes, it could. However, we shouldn't incentivize risky investments.
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@dundura123 Also, many economists believe in free market health care. The free market works better in every sector (exp. military).
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii again...avoiding the questions which I try and lay out clearly
[I repeat]
1) I don't know a single economist who suggest that left alone the product of HC is like any other product. Can you name one?
dundura123 11 months ago
@dundura123 So let's recap and tell me which point you disagree with (cont'd)
5) Currently, the gov't provides automatic stabilizers for people below a certain income (ie food stamp, income support, tax exempt status, housing benefits etc)
So I assume that you would get people to sign a disclaimer saying that the forgo that if they have a private SS account? And the disclaimer would obviously need to be signed early in life...before they could predict how their investments will turn out...
dundura123 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii and if they bail out B...isn't that unfair to investor A who gave up yield for 30 years to better protect assets....if you have freedom to invest in the market..you also have freedom to lose money correct?
Also i don't "like" Obama...I consider myself a rational and pragmatic liberal...all of our candidates died after drafting the constitution...we have no representation now...Obama was the least frightening option
dundura123 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dundura123 BTW: Stop pretending to be for the constitution, Obama has been at war with that from the beginning.
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii utter nonsense
androydnyc 8 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii So let's recap and tell me which point you disagree with (cont'd)
but the problem is that these benefits provided to the poor, are not just altruistic..they help support aggregate demand during a recession...
Another issue is that we know that even if you are diversified...you equity values can be influenced by the macro economy...so imagine if 2 years ago..we not only had a housing crisis (which at the time seemed like sound investments)...we had a SS crisis as well...
dundura123 11 months ago
@dundura123 Yes, anti-poverty programs can be good in terms of helping people. However, they DO NOT help the economy. I can tell that you have fallen for the Keynesian Lie. Heres a fact: Keynesian Economics has failed everytime it has been tried. The New Deal did NOT end the GD. For Japan in the 1990s, Keynesian economics brought nothing but debt and a lost decade.
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@dundura123 The Reason Keynesian Economics fails is that it only moves money around, it doesn't create new wealth or demand. You see, every dollar that governments puts into the economy, it must first take out.
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@dundura123 If, for example, government finances Food Stamps. It would have to take it out through borrowing or taxing, no new wealth is created. But wait, there is more. Government actually hurts the economy. If government finances food stamps, it provides a disentive to work. Hence, GDP is lowered. If they finance this with higher tax rates, work is even more disincentivized. Government also has no price signals. So Government has no way of investing in things that create wealth.
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@dundura123 In the end, government spending hurts an economy. This is not just a theory. There is a reason that big government France has performed so badly over the past 30 years, with high levels of spending and taxation. pre-Obama America, Chile, Hong Kong, and Singapore have all performed strongly over these 30 years, while big government Europe has stagnated.
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@dundura123 This is also supported by academic studies. Many academic studies from left leaning sources have found that larger government hurts the economy. Harvard's Robert Barro found that spending is a major drag on the economy, only putting $.80 in for every $1 spent. Another Harvard Study found that government spending consistently reduces business spending and expansion, without even taking the crowding out effect into account.
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii history and modern global economics has proven you wrong, deregulation of wall street destroyed 5% of the total number of jobs.
your theories on the Great depression, if true, would mean that Herbert Hoover got us out of the great depression, but no, it was FDR and the government spending money on the one thing that people are consistently willing to allow the gov to spend money on, war (other things work, though). Face it, FDR was the greatest thing to happen to our country.
InfamousArmstrong 11 months ago
@InfamousArmstrong I am shocked by your ignorance. History 101 tells you that Herbert Hoover was NOT a free market advocate. He raised the top tax rate from 25% to 63%, he advocated wage controls, he slapped tarriffs on trade. Most economists agree that the New Deal extended the Great Depression by 7 years. FDR was, in fact, an economic disaster.
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii Coolidge and Harding were awesome
RonocDondra352 11 months ago
@RonocDondra352 agreed
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii personal income taxes are NOT a per se 'free markets' issue--but tariffs, regulation & G spending are-- and frankly your representation of the economists' consensus is at best disingenuous-- of those who believe that the Great Depression may have been extended, there is a substantial body of celebrated economists who maintain that it was FDR's kowtowing to deficit hawks that was the cause, and that is was his UNDERSPENDING that was the problem-- thus Keynesianism not at fault
androydnyc 8 months ago
@androydnyc Not spending per say, but Roosevelt's policies in general. The great depression was extended by Roosevelt keeping wages artificially high, thus lowering employment. To make matters worse, Roosevelt's administration was very anti-business, creating a great amount of uncertainty among investors. This is why private investment did not recover in the 1930s. Overall, Roosevelt's policies have been found to extend the depression by about 7 years.
aaasssfffdddiii 8 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii reiterating your prior claims almost verbatim does not strengthen them-- you are incorrect in your claims as to a consensus on either that FDR policies DID extend the Depression or as to WHY those econs who agree to that v.general statement believe that to be so.
Krugman has posted on precisely this multiple times in the very recent past.
androydnyc 8 months ago
@dundura123 I'm not cherry picking studies. Economic studies are in pretty strong agreement that higher levels of government spending reduce economic ouput. In other words, keynesian economics doesn't work, it never will, and it never has.
aaasssfffdddiii 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii your claim that OB "ruined" HC when almost none of ObamaCare will go into effect until 2014 is silly-- and whether or not OB is "weak on foreign policy" is irrelevant to your back and forth on the economy.
finally, as to SS privatization-- what do you think the outcome would have been when the DJIA lost nearly 40% of it's "value" in the year before OB was even elected [14,093 w/e Oct 8, 2007 v 8378 w/e Oct20, 2008]?
do you actually have any concept of the purpose of "insurance"?
androydnyc 8 months ago
@androydnyc I said obamacare WILL ruin health care, not that it already has. I made this point about the stock market earlier. You keep on making anecdotal references to stock market crashes, but you ignore that, over time, the stock market always goes up. As I said earlier, stocks outperform bonds 95% of the time over 20 years. I think insurance is for people who truly need it. If stocks are more practical, I don't see the problem.
aaasssfffdddiii 8 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii i used YOU tense-- your lack of proofing is your problem
the purpose of requiring pension funds generally to be in certain instruments and not in others is to prevent the precise volatility issues that i illustrated in my post-- losing near 50% of valuation in one year negates the value of the S&P's consistent growth over time for those that need their money in that year-- and i mention 'insurance' only because that is what SSI was conceived as-- NOT an investment acct
androydnyc 8 months ago
@androydnyc I don't care what social security was supposed to be or not be. We should look at the facts and just see what is most practical. Stocks outperform bonds 95% of the time!!!!
Over 20 years, short term fluctuations are always smoothed out...
aaasssfffdddiii 8 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii Concerning "There is a way to fix HC:"
1) These are talking points...the problem with "talking points" is that they are normally lofty ideals that nobody really disagrees with...Reform the FDA...ok cool..but what does that mean? Make all HC Plans tax equal...again we know that not all plans are created equal..and that most americans don't agree with a flat tax...so what does that mean?
dundura123 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii cont'd...should Bill Gate's HC plan which represents .00000000000000000000000000000000000001% of his income be taxed at the same level as the person making 10 dollars an hour with 2 kids....whose HC cost may be 10 to 15% of their income...Fix medicare and medicaid...again sounds great in theory..but what does that mean? and how do you do it...especially when the recipients don't want any reduction in the level of benefits...food for thought
dundura123 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii does 1929 ring any bells...just a few years ago..people were saying the same thing you just said about the housing market..."you can't lose money in real estate in the long term"...the point is...when you put your money in any financial security...there is the potential for heavy loses...that is a fact...there is no way around it...so again I ask the question...3) Is it your position that 100% of stock investors make long term gains? and what happens to the losers?
dundura123 11 months ago
@aaasssfffdddiii for "lower taxes", "smaller gov't", "less spending"..are the same people (as the poll and several others like it) that don't want you to touch their benefits...
dundura123 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii but the problem in America is that the people expect the same public services that you get in Europe while paying much less for them....that my friend is unsustainable...
dundura123 1 year ago
@dundura123 Well, that is not true. America's Debt to GDP ratio is 59%. That is lower than most Western European countries, including the UK, France, Ireland, Iceland, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Hungary, Austria, Netherlands, and Spain. Those include most Western European welfare states. Americans actually have smaller debt than most European countries. Obviously, we are having less trouble paying for our services than Europe.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
Respond to this video...send me any economists or any think tank that suggest that Bush's fiscal policy was sustainable...I support Obama for the most part...but am not an ideologue...so I can honestly say that I would struggle to find any economist who suggest that the spending is tenable....they will espouse the theory that the short-term huge spending is necessary to pull us out of the recession...but shortly thereafter we have to reduce the debt and deficits
dundura123 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii now if you want to debate that strategy...that is fine...and I completely understand why people would disagree...because it is risky and relies on theory and forecast...but if you are telling me that with hindsight you believe that Bush's combination of increased spending, tax cuts and wars was sustainable...then we have to agree to disagree...because I have to conclude that you are an ideologue who will support republicans regardless of their actions
dundura123 1 year ago
@dundura123 Actually, there were 250 economists who signed a letter in support of tax cuts in 2003. Likewise, there 450 economists who signed a letter against them. The point is that you can always find significant support for either side of any argument among economists. Bush's spending was big, but not unsustainable. An average deficit of 2% of GDP is BELOW the historic average. Obama's deficits, on the other hand, are massive and unsustainabe, at 9.5% of GDP.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii to get that one through he let PAYGO lapse. Huge entitlement program..again where was the Tea Party then? But that was not all...during his 1st 5 years in office...he NEVER vetoed a spending bill...NEVER...the deficits soared...but again where was the Tea Party Express? The gov't grew as well..
dundura123 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii - hmm-- sadly there has been NO socialization of medicine whatsoever, and [sadly too] OB extended the the very tax cuts that you vaunt-- in fact he has embraced precisely the GOP policies that landed us in this mess-- what are you rambling on about?
or are you just flinging fecal matter through the cage bars on spec?
androydnyc 8 months ago
I also want to adress the poverty statistics. There were many problems with this. First, Cenk said that childhood poverty went up under Reagan. However, he used nominal numbers. What matters is percentage of the population, because population growth matters. Under Reagan, it fell from 20% to 19.6%. Total poverty fell from 14% to 12.8%. This is not a huge fall given the strong economic growth of the time, but it did fall.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
Indeed, Jimmy Carter has the worst income record by far. George Bush, after two terms, saw a decline of 2%. Thats bad, but not terrible. And he saw 2 wars, a housing crash, and he inherited a recession from Clinton. Carter, in just one term, saw a decline of 7%, that really is terrible. He didn't have near the problems that Bush had.
I conclude that this video is greatly skewed and misleading. Cenk, you're a smart guy, but you need to check your facts...
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii but surely you are not disputing the fact that Bush was a relatively huge spender yet there were no Tea Party movements at that time?
dundura123 1 year ago
Finally, median household income isn't really an entirely accurate way of judging income growth because household size changes over time. Therefore, personal median income is the best way to judge income changes. Here are the numbers for that, straight from the census:
Bush 43: -2%
Clinton: +18%
Bush 41: -3%
Reagan: +20%
Carter: -7%
As you can see, Reagan has the best record, even better than Clinton. Carter, in just 4 years, saw a much bigger decline than Bush did in 8 years.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
The median household income statistics have recorded 10 full presidential terms. Over these 10 terms, 5 have seen a rise in median income and 5 have seen a fall. Half of the presidential terms have seen a fall since it has been recorded. So Bush's fall is not nearly as rare as Cenk implies.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
Finally, Cenk also said that Bush was the only two term president to see a decline in median income since they started recording numbers. This is technically true, but it is very misleading. They have only been keeping this number since 1967, this means that there have only been three 2-term presidents since then. That means that the only presidents Bush is competing against are Reagan and Clinton, who both presided over major economic booms. So this is a very misleading claim.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
Clinton also raised taxes, but he also cut the capital gains tax from 28% to 20%. Even though I disagree with his analysis of Clinton, it is fair to give Clinton credit for the rise in incomes because he did raise taxes. But you can't say that tax cuts caused the fall in incomes under George HW Bush, because he actually raised taxes and never cut them.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
This video plays loose with the facts. Here are the real numbers for Median Household Income, straight from the census:
Bush 43: -3%
Clinton: +12%
Bush 41: -5%
Reagan: +12%
Carter: -1% Now, as I have said before this whole analysis is flawed. First, this video told a blatant lie. He claims that George HW Bush cut taxes for the rich. Indeed, he actuallr raised them. Bush raised the top tax rate from 28% to 31%.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
Obama walked out of a press conference because his wife and not the American people are the boss of him. Clinton is still a leader. Barry is just our first illegal immigrant President.
ToxicOdiousOne 1 year ago
Around half of Americans don't pay the federal income tax, the top 10% of earners pay around 90% of the federal income tax. Where do you think tax breaks will go?
Tax breaks do not cost money. Saying they cost money is like saying that money never belonged to those who earned it.
The tax cuts did help me, even though I'm not in those 250k+ category. Maybe someday I'll earn that much cash moneys.
stoodgey 1 year ago
@stoodgey yeah every dollar given away through tax cuts to the rich is at a rate of 1 dollar cut from taxes = .30 dollars back into the economy, so yeah it costs 70cents per dollar to make a tax break. do your research before you speak
MrSwannyboy 1 year ago
@MrSwannyboy You're missing my point. By having a job, you earn money. The income tax is established so that a percent of the dollars you earned go to the government. That money belongs to you but you are paying it to the government for their services. The way you are commenting is that the money never belonged to you ever, it always belonged to the government. "Given away" is not the proper term to describe a tax cut, a "refundable tax credit" would be giving money away that may not belong
stoodgey 1 year ago
I'll for the hell of it give my personal situation when I was younger before a variety of things happened which luckily moved me into a decent waged home. But I lived with my Grandma who supported me and, one other family member and we were all being supported on a Burger King fast food wage. There are so many actual examples of people living like I did growing up its not even funny, everyone on my block was in a similar situation. No real healthcare, awful unhealthy food, awful living standards
WiseJ123 1 year ago
None of these will necessarily help anyone who cant help themselves in the lower or middle class. In fact we would probably have to raise funding just so these poor students could have the same opportunity to go to the "good schools". The difference between if we did it and if Sweden did it is Sweden has a very low income inequality and large tax funding. There isn't a huge variation in who can afford and who cant.
WiseJ123 1 year ago
Even School choice could have a point where everyone wants into "that" school and only those with a preferable background get in. Something like Vouchers may produce a very wide quality of schools in which then your stuck in either a good school or a shitty one. Private Schools and Parochial Schools are already focused on the rich who can afford them.
WiseJ123 1 year ago
@WiseJ123 The middle class is NOT shrinking. Any shrinkage that has taken place is because they are getting richer. Liberals said that Reagan oversaw a shrinking middle class. He did. But it was because the upper middle and upper class were growing. For example, when Reagan took office only 25% made over $50,000, when he left office, that was 31%. Those are in 1990 dollars, so that would be much more today.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii Include some statistics about the distribution of wealth and its pretty obvious. The rich cant keep making more and more money while the other classes barely grow in comparison. If one group is making more another group has to be making less, and the simple fact that the Middle class has obviously been hit hardest by this recession is a pretty big clue as well.
WiseJ123 1 year ago
@WiseJ123 Wow, there was alot of bull in your last set of comments. First off, you mistake the economy as a zero-sum gain system. In reality, when the economy grows, everyone gets richer. Median Personal Income has been growing at record high since Reagan took office. Again, all the new technology is benefiting middle class families. Average families can afford ipods, flat screens, iphones, nice cars, computers, and nice homes.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@WiseJ123 This is not counting the poor European Countries. Only the rich ones. So the average Poor person in America lives better than the average European.
Go Figure...
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii Your trying to displace the argument by trying to get into foreign politics which have no hold in how our economy runs, our policies, our debt, our inequality of income. They have different living standards, costs of housing, social programs etc.. etc.. Second, I don't believe that crap for a minute. Credible source please? Since Sweden for instance their middle class makes about 20% less than ours, yet don't forget they have all the social programs like healthcare as well.
WiseJ123 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii @aaasssfffdddiii I have to question if you've ever lived in poverty in this country. You seem all for defending the rich getting every break you can, and that oh those in poverty their living conditions are fine.... psh they dont need any help. They have their TV's and iPods they must be living ok right? Because it isn't some magical living standard where oh "they're fine".
WiseJ123 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii No, in fact they aren't. look into some studies done on the living conditions of the lower class. Many have to work countless hours, multiple jobs, can barely afford housing, food, utilities. Education? Psh thats a laugh. Healthcare? Another laugh, many don't even run a positive income, savings for the future? All fairly non-existant.
WiseJ123 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii You can "think" that its fine living in poverty in the U.S. you can think that all you want. Doesn't make it true for a second. But once again foreign living has no hold in our politics. Because you know... European families don't have access to iPods or TV's either right? (Sarcasm) In fact if their making any less of a wage its because their putting much of their potential earnings into social programs which if you poll many of these countries they're quite happy to have.
WiseJ123 1 year ago
@WiseJ123 We have higher quality healthcare. Our poor live in bigger houses than the average European. They also have more stuff. BTW: we have medicaid and SCHIP for the poor. So they have Healthcare. Your making up stuff to make the poor seem worse off than they are. You can't deny facts. Well, I guess you are a liberal, so facts are really irrelevant...
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii Correction, we have healthcare thats high quality which the lower class cant afford. If you seriously think we have good healthcare system for everyone I'm sorry you are delusional. Highest GDP capital spent, with the among the least access to it. Also I'm making stuff up? Thats a laugh, just shows how right wing idiots cant see from any viewpoint but their own. Go look up some studies, scientific journals, or take a few sociology classes, you could use some perspective
WiseJ123 1 year ago
@WiseJ123 As could you, Ill admit that I see the world from too much of a business pespectie. I may have trouble understanding real world situations. I rely on stats too much. There is some kind of middle ground, where we can have a prosperous free market economy and a safety net to insure that everyone is taken care of. Like most people, we could both use perspective. I could use more human perspective. But I also think you could use more business perspective.
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii I'll take this as a final stopping point to this very long debate lol. It was interesting. Thats the main problem with politics though there are so many factors to take into account, it doesn't necessarily mean one person's "wrong" there may be business benefits for instance but is there social benefits as well. Who does it effect and in what way? The stuff I listed below however I will say I did not make up. Its from studies and personal experience. Lower class isnt a picnic .
WiseJ123 1 year ago
@WiseJ123 Me too, lol. I didn't make anything up either. I know being poor is very hard for many. I do think it is occassionally exaggerated however. Ya, everything needs multiple perspectives. Everything needs multiple perspectives...
aaasssfffdddiii 1 year ago
@aaasssfffdddiii Facts... You mean like the fact your "higher quality healthcare" has led to the United States becoming 37th on the list of life expectancy according to the World Health Organization? Yeah, it's "liberals" that have a problem with facts. I guess that's why your talking about health care instead of rebutting ANYTHING from the video... LOL
bigge525 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Forgot to add, getting the economy on track is the short term issue but dealing with our deficit is the long term to clarify
WiseJ123 1 year ago
Comment removed
WiseJ123 1 year ago
But back to the actual current T