Disagree with this notion. Im not going to change your mind, you aren't going to change my mind on a message board.
There is plenty of "economics" going either way on this as well.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Republican senator says if the wealthy don't get tax cuts, nobody else will either
- Thread starter Oblivion
- Start date
- Status
Disagree with this notion. Im not going to change your mind, you aren't going to change my mind on a message board.
There is plenty of "economics" going either way on this as well.
Sure, econ is so hard to disentangle in reality that there's very little blowback for getting it utterly wrong.
But take a look at Europe and see how well austerity in a recession works out.
Government spending IMO is not a pancea as the Democrats make it out to be. All I hear, is INFASTRUCTURE! The "middle class" is likely NOT going to go pick up a shovel unless they absolutely 100% have to. And why would they with unemployment benefits extended so far out?
Im all for this kind of spending (infastructure), but that is not the be all end all of the solution. And neither is "government spending for jobs". That smacks of inefficiency.
Which country?
Germany? or Greece/Spain?
And they have a slew of other issues with a unified currency not being able to relfect specific conditions of each country.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Forcing people to just pick any ol job they can, whether it fits their experience or monetary needs, is not healthy at all. We don't want an economy driven on underemployment and huge demands for jobs. It weakens bargaining power and puts corporations in total control to abuse the people as much as they desire.
Why do you think companies that would save millions by letting the government run healthcare for their employees don't want universal healthcare? It's all in the bargaining power, and the more companies hold the less the people hold.
If you want proof of inefficiency in the private sector, you should head on over to gaming side and read some of the articles on how major game companies work. You want inefficient, yikes!
4-step healthcare solution
Basically,
1. Cut back hard on medical licensing requirements. There are laws in many places that require a fully skilled medical practitioner to be present to perform procedures that can really be far more cheaply done by interns. This simultaneously reduces costs for existing patients and creates a better medical education system, since doctors can gain experience through internships rather than stay in college for 5 years and end up in a $100k debt hole.
2. Implement a visa program that allows doctors from Vietnam, Thailand, etc to import themselves and start providing health care at vastly cheaper prices. Bumrungrad, for example, which is based in Thailand, offers prices about 3-4x lower than those in the US.
Cut back patents. The current system does not drive companies to spend money on research and development, it drives companies to spend money on marketing. A moderate proposal would be to cut back patents to 1-3 years.
3. Take away the tax subsidies on employer-based healthcare, perhaps passing a one-time measure that requires insurers to allow individuals to transfer current employer-based plans to individual ones. Employer-based healthcare dampens free market incentives, and serves only to make people more dependent on their employers to survive - currently, if you get cancer, the guy you work for suddenly becomes a labor market monopolist to you and can basically treat you as badly as he wants.
5. Health insurance exchanges to promote clarity in pricing. Government can run them, and arguably should given the state of our current society, but theoretically any kind of trusted institution can do the job.
But that's just my take.
balladofwindfishes
Member
I don't trust either institution. Government or Corporations. EACH needs to be closely watched.
Gaming industry makes billions a year and gaining. Doesnt sound inefficient to me.
If you want proof of inefficiency in the public sector, just look at the US Postal service. Medicare, Medicade, Social Security, etc...
While I don't think all government spending is equal, I still see it as the likeliest solution to our current woes if it's put in the right areas. I think we should be spending more efficiently in some areas but we shouldn't spend less right now, but rather divert spending towards things that will have a better return for the money.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think that despite our 8% unemployment, the extended unemployment benefits is what is making people not want to work. And that if we end that, people will magically find enough jobs to drop down the unemployment rate? It's been a GOP thing to try to reign on unemployment benefits but I just don't see how it will benefit the overall economy if businesses aren't hiring. Just cutting spending and letting the market sort it out is wishful thinking.
balladofwindfishes
Member
lol the postal service. Well yea, when you're forced to pay out like 80 years of pensions almost a century before those people even exist, then yea, you're going to be in trouble.
If the post office was allowed to regulate its own pension system it would be fine. It's only because the GOP wanted to sabotage them, did this happen.
You fell hook, line, and sinker for the GOP's plan. Pass laws making government entities horribly inefficient, then point and say "look, it's horribly inefficient!"
We should eliminate Medicaid and just let 100% of Americans use Medicare. Like every single other country on this god damn planet aagsdjhsajhdsjdgash health care gets me so frustrated
Germany isn't undertaking austerity measures. They've also been fairly strong economically, though I suppose we'll see if they can hold out as exports sink.
Yes, that's the main problem in Europe. And yet we get this austerity nonsense that's doing absolutely nothing to help.
Because they didn't wildy spend early on and what they did spend, they did so in the right way. Im not against government spending, but throwing money at it is alot different than smart investing.
Government spending is the slowest in decades
The debt/deficit "problem" is a tax problem. Taxes themselves are at all time lows because of the Bush Tax Cuts, and along with that revenue is down because it's a recession, so people are unemployed and can't pay into the system, etc.
wow at the bushII years.
If are honestly arguing that government is more efficent or even equally as efficient than the private sector, then we truly have reached an impasse.
And you nailed the point actually in your disdain for the GOP. GOVERNMENT CAN NOT BE TRUSTED TO FIX THE PROBLEM. Now, you may argue that Democrats wouldn't/haven't done something like this (assuming your assumptions as to facts are 100% accurate), but its government as a whole, and yes, I believe they would.
Government cannot be trusted. At least with cororations, you know EXACTLy how they will behave. The government is more of a wild card IMO.
balladofwindfishes
Member
roflmao
Yea, I'm sure corporations aren't doing anything at all shady or unknown. We're in an age now where companies will spite their own business potential to make a politcal point (see the CFA and Papa John's thread). So no, they're not all predicatable and no, we don't know how they will behave.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Yeah, they'll behave in a way that will maximize their profits. Which is fine for some things. But sometimes the way to maximum profits involves actions that aren't socially acceptable. Like using children for labor.
Didn't say that at all. Corporations WILL maximize profits (sometimes breaking the law to do so). That said, proper and smart regulation (and proper incentives in some cases) and the corporations by in large will act predictably.
Government on the other hand, it is difficult to predict what they will do, the ends and the means.
diffusionx
Gold Member
1. Nobody ever said infrastructure spending is the be all end all.
2. The whole point is that some inefficiency is better than the alternative. It's the classic pay someone to dig a hole and then fill it up example. It's inefficient, but it gives someone a job and then they take that money and spend it in their local community. For the short term, it works.
Medicare is more efficient than private insurance. Read up, every study says it. The private insurance market spends more on overhead and administration - it's all public information. It's all out there.
Social Security is incredibly efficient as well - they send out tens of millions of checks each month every month on the dot. Ask your grandparents - my grandma gets her SS check every month without fail, usually on the same day every month. An inefficient organization would not be able to do that.
The USPS delivers to over 100 million homes 6 days a week. It charges a fraction of what UPS and Fedex charges to deliver parcels. It costs the same to mail a letter down the street as it does to mail it from New Jersey to California. It's a very efficient operation, they are getting bamboozled by a group of legislators hostile to their existence.
You don't know what you are talking about. You're spouting anti-government propaganda with little basis in fact.
Absolutely agree.
There is a place for governmental regulation. SMART governmental regulation. (IE, read not Dodds/Franks). The passing of Dodds/Franks is the biggest failure of the Obama administration. They had a chance to fundamentally change this sector in a real and meaningful way, to make sure the "big bad financial institutions" didn't have everyone by the balls, and they screwed that up. Badly.
diffusionx
Gold Member
You do realize that Dodd-Frank (and any other piece of meaningful legislation) needed 60 votes, right? The President isn't all-powerful, especially in domestic matters.
Obama admin was willing to play ball. Republican obstructionism got us Dodd-Frank.
No, their economy is fine because it already was doing well. In a unified currency, without the ability to improve competitiveness through inflating your currency, the rich countries get richer and poor countries get poorer. This can be mitigated in a political union by pumping cash from the economically stronger areas to the weaker (thus Cali, NY et al funding the South).
But yes, I agree that smart gov't spending would certainly be better than just throwing money at it, a la the 2008 stimulus.
balladofwindfishes
Member
On one hand you say the government is inefficient and unable to do its job, and the next you say we have to rely on the government to make smart regulation. Why do you think the entity you believe can't run the post office will be able to keep corporations in check.
The opinions seem to conflict each other
1. You are right, but I never hear anything else.
2. Short-term, maybe, but this is the very example of what Im getting at. Its not smart. It doesn't fix the problem.
3. Medicare: a quick google search retrieved just as many articles saying it was efficent v. inefficent than private insurance. Social Security (assuming you are a young person); do you think you will ever receive a SS check? (IE, as of now SS is LOSING money...(but of course, same this applies above). USPS, is on the verge of bankruptcy.
Thanks for the ad hominem attack. You are a credit to whatever politcal ideology you subscribed to.
Only if taken to the extreme. There is a place for government regulation of private enterprise. Not just a place. A necessity.
Its not conflicting. Lines must be drawn.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
No one thinks otherwise. But a lot of us disagree with what you seem to be saying on where that line should be drawn.
You also realize Dodd Frank was passed when the Democrats held the presidency, and both houses of congress? It came out of this administration at a time when the Democrats had about as much control as any one party will have...It was a failure....plain and simple.
(And to take another shot, though not meant to spur debate...healthcare didn't pass with 60).
diffusionx
Gold Member
It actually can, if there is a demand-side issue in the economy.
Point being: companies aren't hiring because there is no demand for their products. The government steps in, gives people a job, and then those people spend that money on private companies' goods. What happens next? There is now demand in the economy. The private companies hire people to meet the demand, etc. etc.
I would argue that we have a demand-side problem in this country and have since 2009 or so.
No ad hominen attack - I'm going by what I read from you. Your follow-up post just backs it up. There's no point in getting to the details of why USPS is in financial trouble or why SS is losing money (and why it doesn't really matter right now), since you are apparently unconcerned with the facts.
Yes, the PPACA did pass with 60 votes for heaven's sake. And not every Democrat is the same. Obama at that point in time had 53-57 sure votes and had to sway the others.
Of course. And that will always be the debate!
Hence why I didn't really want to get into this with all you guys. Not that we can't have an intelligent conversation about it all...we would just come down to that simple idea.
virtuoso88
Member
Those who had austerity measures were fucked no matter what they did, they never would have spent themselves out of that .
I will say though, about the demand-side problem, we both agree. Just disagree on how to fix it.
Your posts don't cite "facts" either. You state them as facts, I respond, you say I don't know the facts. For all of your "facts" there are other "facts" that contradict or change your "facts."
You are right, there isn't any point. For us to continue, we would have to cite all our sources, get really into it...yada yada...I don't get paid to go into that kind of detail, as I assume you aren't either.
Oh, I agree. The unified currency is the real problem. But austerity exacerbated things.
Let's be honest. In a country as big as America, that has a government as large as ours, do you really think a federally run healthcare service would be efficient and not prone to corruption?
BattleMonkey
Member
CHEEZMO;40766565 said:
Simple fix, everyone should become republicans. More money for everyone!
diffusionx
Gold Member
Why is the USPS on the verge of bankruptcy? The poison pill legislation known as: Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006. It put fiscal burdens on the USPS that no other company (public or private) is required to follow.
Why is SS losing money today?
1. Payroll tax holiday
2. slow growth and greater inequality has hurt SS tax revenue (since the SS tax is regressive)
SS is a well-designed program that has worked as designed since its inception. It won't take much to ensure its future well beyond the boomer generation. If nothing is done - NOTHING - it would be able to pay out 75% of benefits in 2041. Raise the SS tax cap a bit and it will be able to pay 100% no problem.
To answer your question, yes I do think i will get a SS check. The Social Security "crisis" is a phony one, manufactured by people who, basically, wanted to (and still want to) steal it and put it in the Wall Street casino.
Why is SS losing money today?
1. Payroll tax holiday
2. slow growth and greater inequality has hurt SS tax revenue (since the SS tax is regressive)
SS is a well-designed program that has worked as designed since its inception. It won't take much to ensure its future well beyond the boomer generation. If nothing is done - NOTHING - it would be able to pay out 75% of benefits in 2041. Raise the SS tax cap a bit and it will be able to pay 100% no problem.
To answer your question, yes I do think i will get a SS check. The Social Security "crisis" is a phony one, manufactured by people who, basically, wanted to (and still want to) steal it and put it in the Wall Street casino.
Of the $522 billion Medicare spent in 2010, 1.3% of that was administrative costs. Private insurers in the same time period had administrative costs of about 11%.
http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statist...NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf
Dr. Pangloss
Member
Don't agree with this article at all. This is almost the blaze level of reporting for the left. It totally misconstrues Graham's position. He clearly states he doesn't want taxes going up for anyone, especially the middle class, and wants a longer term solution. He is clearly advocating for a further extension of the Bush tax cuts in order to pass something like Simpson-Bowles later. For those that don't know, the Simpson-Bowles was a bipartisan commission to address the deficit. It was a more liberal plan than the one Obama was going to offer Boehner during the debt ceiling crisis. These are two policies that the President has given support to in the past when he extend the tax cuts in 2010 and making the Simpson-Bowles commission himself.
Now this could be Graham blowing smoke up my ass, and what he really wants to change is the timing on certain things. Currently the tax cuts expire before another debt ceiling argument and extending them would remove the leverage the Democrats currently enjoy. He also might not have any intention in supporting Simpson-Bowles if it came up for a vote.
What I would get mad at Graham for is advocating that defense contracts start giving out pink slips now before the sequester happens: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/30/13037718-sen-graham-contractors-should-issue-layoff-notices-before-election.
Now this could be Graham blowing smoke up my ass, and what he really wants to change is the timing on certain things. Currently the tax cuts expire before another debt ceiling argument and extending them would remove the leverage the Democrats currently enjoy. He also might not have any intention in supporting Simpson-Bowles if it came up for a vote.
What I would get mad at Graham for is advocating that defense contracts start giving out pink slips now before the sequester happens: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/30/13037718-sen-graham-contractors-should-issue-layoff-notices-before-election.
PhoenixDark
Banned
This is why I believe if Obama wins and lets the cuts expire, republicans won't come to the table to pass a middle class tax cut - at least not for awhile. They'll blame it on Obama, the economy will suffer, and they'll prepare for 2014
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/02/how-much-do-we-spend-nonworking-poor
Less than 20% of welfare spending actually goes to non-working* recipients.
*=correction
You are literally quoting an article as saying the opposite of what it actually says. Less than 20% of welfare spending goes to nonworking recipients -- the remainder goes to people who are either working or incapable of working.
Alright correction:
People who are neither elderly nor disabled — and do not live in a working household — received only 9 percent of the benefits.
Private charity also has a better record of actually delivering aid to recipients. Surprisingly little of the money being spent on federal and state social welfare programs actually reaches recipients. In 1965, 70 cents of every dollar spent by the government to fight poverty went directly to poor people. Today, 70 cents of every dollar goes, not to poor people, but to government bureaucrats and others who serve the poor. Few private charities have the bureaucratic overhead and inefficiency of government programs.
Also, http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_1.pdf.
Or at least that's what I got out of that. You're free to read the statistics in that article. Make sure the sourcing in the article is good enough, etc. I'm just playing the skeptic here.
Do you understand where the concern is though?
I'm not saying welfare is a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination. But everyone knows that politicians or bureaucrats working in the government can potentially be corrupt and misuse the funds.
There is no evidence of widespread fraud in government-run social programs. The "concern" about government misusing public funds is nothing but fear mongering with no basis in reality.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Definitely. In fact, there is one government department that is rife with mismanagement, bureaucracy, and corruption. It also happens to be the one department that a guy like Lindsay Graham would want to expand. I am, of course, talking about the DoD. The DHS ain't doing too hot on that front either.
Oh wow, this is a failure of reading comprehension of epic proportions. The article says that less than 20% of welfare benefits paid out go to the nonworking, nondisabled, nonelderly, and nonunderaged poor. It has nothing to do with how much of a government welfare agencies budget goes to it's recipients.
Well, rule #1 of accounting is that you book revenues when incurred, and expenses when earned, right?
Or in other words, if you're working, you're not likely to get welfare, regardless of whether or not the job you have pays enough for you to live on.
I encourage you all to read this article on the costs of public income redistribution.
At least for the sake of reading on a different perspective if nothing else.
At least for the sake of reading on a different perspective if nothing else.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked