Pages: 1 2 3

 

2010-03-23 19:14:36
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Diesel_dyk wrote:

PBO is fairing well considering he started in a giant fiscal hole which would have had a GOP president and congress crying the necessity for austerity programs and saying that they would have to cut entitlements to the bone. If you consider that the PBO alternative, then just holding the line is a huge success... unless of course you're in the group that wants to see austerity measures.


Its an old conservative trick to tie the hands of future govts by running up the debt so that the other party takes over only to find that the only prudent course of action is austerity. The party breaks all their election promises and finds themself ousted int he next election (hmmm sounds like a script the GOP are trying to follow, fancy that)... but in this case, the economy is so bad and the situtaion for the middle class is so dire that a dose of keynes is required and any savings that the middle class can see, such as a deflection in the rise of health insurance costs will also help the economy recover. and God help us if we had Reagan right now... that old man would be trickling down incontinent urine all over us and have us all in pauper prisons owned by a resurrected ENRON and run by Cheney.

In context... PBO is doing pretty good
Keynes is never the answer.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-03-23 19:21:42
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina
New Keynesians wield a lot of power right now, both in government and in economic academia.

In all honesty, I can't blame them, because clearly...  free market economics don't typically account for market failures properly.

A certain amount of regulation is necessary for market stability.  Of course, regulation itself can also cause instability.
2010-03-23 19:25:51
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

New Keynesians wield a lot of power right now, both in government and in economic academia.

In all honesty, I can't blame them, because clearly...  free market economics don't typically account for market failures properly.

A certain amount of regulation is necessary for market stability.  Of course, regulation itself can also cause instability.
Regulation DOES cause instability and creates nothing more than opportunities for crony capitalism to flourish. Keynes has been adopted by the statists simply because he believed in state control over all markets to one extent or another. Invoking Keynes gives them cover for their socialist long term plans.

The insurance companies are no longer insurance companies but a bastardized single payer system and Diesel seems like he's creaming in his pants out of joy at the proposition. The next time he rants about freedom on this board he'll get one of his own page long dissertations thrown back in his face, trust me.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-03-23 19:29:50
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6280|Truthistan

JohnG@lt wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

PBO is fairing well considering he started in a giant fiscal hole which would have had a GOP president and congress crying the necessity for austerity programs and saying that they would have to cut entitlements to the bone. If you consider that the PBO alternative, then just holding the line is a huge success... unless of course you're in the group that wants to see austerity measures.


Its an old conservative trick to tie the hands of future govts by running up the debt so that the other party takes over only to find that the only prudent course of action is austerity. The party breaks all their election promises and finds themself ousted int he next election (hmmm sounds like a script the GOP are trying to follow, fancy that)... but in this case, the economy is so bad and the situtaion for the middle class is so dire that a dose of keynes is required and any savings that the middle class can see, such as a deflection in the rise of health insurance costs will also help the economy recover. and God help us if we had Reagan right now... that old man would be trickling down incontinent urine all over us and have us all in pauper prisons owned by a resurrected ENRON and run by Cheney.

In context... PBO is doing pretty good
Keynes is never the answer.
I'm not so sure given the way our system runs. Right now its Keynes versus middle class disintegration.

But if the govt would run surpluses in good times and actually save that money for the bad times then Keynes would be unnecessary.
But since as a nation we spend everything we make and live off of a national credit card and have no national savings, the Keynes brand of credit card gets used in the bad times to keep everything running. Its interesting how the micro mirrors the macro. Talk about an area where leadership by example would be great.

Point is either we are fiscally responsible all the time or we aren't.... its not the solution to cry fiscal responsability and austerity only during the bad times and then party likes its 1999 in the good times....

So I would agree that being fiscally responsible all the time is the right solution, but since we aren't and we have no savings, we need to blunt the economic trough with Keynes.
2010-03-23 19:31:39
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

New Keynesians wield a lot of power right now, both in government and in economic academia.

In all honesty, I can't blame them, because clearly...  free market economics don't typically account for market failures properly.

A certain amount of regulation is necessary for market stability.  Of course, regulation itself can also cause instability.
Regulation DOES cause instability and creates nothing more than opportunities for crony capitalism to flourish. Keynes has been adopted by the statists simply because he believed in state control over all markets to one extent or another. Invoking Keynes gives them cover for their socialist long term plans.

The insurance companies are no longer insurance companies but a bastardized single payer system and Diesel seems like he's creaming in his pants out of joy at the proposition. The next time he rants about freedom on this board he'll get one of his own page long dissertations thrown back in his face, trust me.
Well, I prefer balance over all other things.  Sometimes, regulation is needed.  Sometimes, freeing things up is needed.

I don't attach myself to any specific ideology, because circumstances mean more to me than dogma.
2010-03-23 19:43:08
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

New Keynesians wield a lot of power right now, both in government and in economic academia.

In all honesty, I can't blame them, because clearly...  free market economics don't typically account for market failures properly.

A certain amount of regulation is necessary for market stability.  Of course, regulation itself can also cause instability.
Regulation DOES cause instability and creates nothing more than opportunities for crony capitalism to flourish. Keynes has been adopted by the statists simply because he believed in state control over all markets to one extent or another. Invoking Keynes gives them cover for their socialist long term plans.

The insurance companies are no longer insurance companies but a bastardized single payer system and Diesel seems like he's creaming in his pants out of joy at the proposition. The next time he rants about freedom on this board he'll get one of his own page long dissertations thrown back in his face, trust me.
Well, I prefer balance over all other things.  Sometimes, regulation is needed.  Sometimes, freeing things up is needed.

I don't attach myself to any specific ideology, because circumstances mean more to me than dogma.
Fair enough. I'm not blind. I know that regulation is required under certain circumstances, especially when there is a natural monopoly.

The only way I can see the health care bill working out in the long run (and this is strictly from a progressive point of view) is that it will drive up the cost of health care so astronomically that they would then be free to implement a NHS system. Fuck up the system on purpose and then 'fix' it later with what they wanted originally. But that's just the devious/paranoid side of me. That couldn't be the real plan now could it?

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-03-23 19:43:41)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-03-23 19:43:48
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France

ghettoperson wrote:

Has he achieved what he said he was going to do, and if he has has it benefited the country?
On the second part, we have to wait until the new law goes into effect a few years from now.

No doubt there will be benefit, but I think it could have been way, way better.
2010-03-23 19:49:49
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

JohnG@lt wrote:

Fair enough. I'm not blind. I know that regulation is required under certain circumstances, especially when there is a natural monopoly.

The only way I can see the health care bill working out in the long run (and this is strictly from a progressive point of view) is that it will drive up the cost of health care so astronomically that they would then be free to implement a NHS system. Fuck up the system on purpose and then 'fix' it later with what they wanted originally. But that's just the devious/paranoid side of me. That couldn't be the real plan now could it?
I think we may end up a lot like Brazil, but not specifically because of this bill.  I think a lot of things are hitting us at once right now, and it's all going to come crashing down in the near future.

We have rapidly rising debts, shifting economic power to the developing world, and a border security issue that is pretty much insurmountable.

I don't think we're going to have much choice other than to grant all illegals amnesty, hand out visas without any limit, and slowly cut government spending to the bare essentials.  For those of you that prefer smaller government, you'll get your wish, but not probably in the way that you hope for.

Granted, a lot of this is just the inevitable leveling out that comes with globalization.  Healthcare is no exception to the rule, so the market will clear one way or another.  It's just going to be very expensive and rough in the short run.

Brazil, by the way, has socialized medicine, but the quality of care isn't exactly what we're used to.
2010-03-23 19:58:41
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5644|London, England

Diesel_dyk wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

PBO is fairing well considering he started in a giant fiscal hole which would have had a GOP president and congress crying the necessity for austerity programs and saying that they would have to cut entitlements to the bone. If you consider that the PBO alternative, then just holding the line is a huge success... unless of course you're in the group that wants to see austerity measures.


Its an old conservative trick to tie the hands of future govts by running up the debt so that the other party takes over only to find that the only prudent course of action is austerity. The party breaks all their election promises and finds themself ousted int he next election (hmmm sounds like a script the GOP are trying to follow, fancy that)... but in this case, the economy is so bad and the situtaion for the middle class is so dire that a dose of keynes is required and any savings that the middle class can see, such as a deflection in the rise of health insurance costs will also help the economy recover. and God help us if we had Reagan right now... that old man would be trickling down incontinent urine all over us and have us all in pauper prisons owned by a resurrected ENRON and run by Cheney.

In context... PBO is doing pretty good
Keynes is never the answer.
I'm not so sure given the way our system runs. Right now its Keynes versus middle class disintegration.

But if the govt would run surpluses in good times and actually save that money for the bad times then Keynes would be unnecessary.
But since as a nation we spend everything we make and live off of a national credit card and have no national savings, the Keynes brand of credit card gets used in the bad times to keep everything running. Its interesting how the micro mirrors the macro. Talk about an area where leadership by example would be great.

Point is either we are fiscally responsible all the time or we aren't.... its not the solution to cry fiscal responsability and austerity only during the bad times and then party likes its 1999 in the good times....

So I would agree that being fiscally responsible all the time is the right solution, but since we aren't and we have no savings, we need to blunt the economic trough with Keynes.
Throwing terrible at bad produces terrible. Spending large amounts of money when you're already in serious debt would get your average person locked up in a mental institution. But yet when it's government doing it you think it's a real solution? Please. The government can not create a single job without destroying a job in another sector via taxation.

I didn't start touting fiscal responsibility only when Obama was elected, I've been saying the same thing for as long as I've understood macroeconomics. Bush was a fiscal idiot and using him as an excuse to spend just makes those in power now look even worse by comparison.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-03-23 19:59:20)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-03-23 20:20:17
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6280|Truthistan

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Regulation DOES cause instability and creates nothing more than opportunities for crony capitalism to flourish. Keynes has been adopted by the statists simply because he believed in state control over all markets to one extent or another. Invoking Keynes gives them cover for their socialist long term plans.

The insurance companies are no longer insurance companies but a bastardized single payer system and Diesel seems like he's creaming in his pants out of joy at the proposition. The next time he rants about freedom on this board he'll get one of his own page long dissertations thrown back in his face, trust me.
Well, I prefer balance over all other things.  Sometimes, regulation is needed.  Sometimes, freeing things up is needed.

I don't attach myself to any specific ideology, because circumstances mean more to me than dogma.
Fair enough. I'm not blind. I know that regulation is required under certain circumstances, especially when there is a natural monopoly.

The only way I can see the health care bill working out in the long run (and this is strictly from a progressive point of view) is that it will drive up the cost of health care so astronomically that they would then be free to implement a NHS system. Fuck up the system on purpose and then 'fix' it later with what they wanted originally. But that's just the devious/paranoid side of me. That couldn't be the real plan now could it?
Creaming in my pants.....

Galt, you're presupposing the system isn't fuck up now.

From a purely economic standpoint, its pretty tough to deny the economic efficiencies of a single payer or NHS style system. You get the immediate benefit of reducing the costs multiple sets of administration. There is a real effciencies that can be gained there. And real cost controls.

Remember when it comes to freedom I'm on the side of the individual, not insurance or corporations. I know that those elements in our society can bring great economic benefit, but I'm under no illusion that those entities would have us in chinese factory style work-houses in a flash if they were allowed to do it. The will/do kill people because they can throw people off of insurance or deny coverage. I don't see any freedom or liberty there when a person is denied access to a market because a corporation or insurance company won't profit as much.... I think you posted earlier that health insurance companies were becoming utilities, imo that would be a more appropriate role given the way the health market actually looks and finctions like.

Even in a NHS system you still get to choose your doctor.... So I guess I just miss the point about being able to choose which insurance company gouges me as equating to liberty or the loss thereof.

IMO the freedom from the piece of mind knowing that medical care won't bankrupt you, or in knowing that you can switch jobs so medical care is not a barrier to the movement of labor, I guess I just think of the liberalizing effect those those things have on a individual person. IMO in a free market system health and education are two necessities that can't be entrusted to corporations. Its like they say, the constitution is not a suicide pact and cetain things a national necessities..... either regulate the hellout them or set up a monopoly like a CPL or Ma Bell.

Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2010-03-23 20:39:52)

2010-03-23 20:38:42
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6280|Truthistan

JohnG@lt wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Keynes is never the answer.
I'm not so sure given the way our system runs. Right now its Keynes versus middle class disintegration.

But if the govt would run surpluses in good times and actually save that money for the bad times then Keynes would be unnecessary.
But since as a nation we spend everything we make and live off of a national credit card and have no national savings, the Keynes brand of credit card gets used in the bad times to keep everything running. Its interesting how the micro mirrors the macro. Talk about an area where leadership by example would be great.

Point is either we are fiscally responsible all the time or we aren't.... its not the solution to cry fiscal responsability and austerity only during the bad times and then party likes its 1999 in the good times....

So I would agree that being fiscally responsible all the time is the right solution, but since we aren't and we have no savings, we need to blunt the economic trough with Keynes.
Throwing terrible at bad produces terrible. Spending large amounts of money when you're already in serious debt would get your average person locked up in a mental institution. But yet when it's government doing it you think it's a real solution? Please. The government can not create a single job without destroying a job in another sector via taxation.

I didn't start touting fiscal responsibility only when Obama was elected, I've been saying the same thing for as long as I've understood macroeconomics. Bush was a fiscal idiot and using him as an excuse to spend just makes those in power now look even worse by comparison.
Don't take things personally I was taking generally... Point was that if the govt were to be fiscally responsible in the good times ans save tax money for the bad times, then Keynes wouldn't be necessary as we would already have the money to keep things running. Unfortunately in good times there is always the push for more spending and for tax cuts, instead of saving for the rainy days. Just look at the so called insolvency of social security, its not insolvent when you account for all the govt IOUs, that money was spent on programs and tax breaks... The govt has liabilities and the leaders should be responsible enough to plan, ie save, for the future... but they don't. And people should be willing to pay taxes for programs they deem necessary... or else you get a train wreck like California.

Now who I would call disingenuous on the issue are the GOP who spent like crazy and gave out tax cuts during the 8 years of Bush... and then expect to get back on the fiscal track during the bad times and at the expense of the middle class. On that I cry BS. The only thing austerity would do during the bad times is make the economic trough deeper. The time to discuss true fiscal responsibiity when the next economic boom occurs when we can actually start the savings for the next downturn.... but I won't hold my breath on that one
2010-03-25 00:55:14
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,056|7057|PNW

ghettoperson wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Ignoring your personal politics on the matter, out of the things he said he'd do whilst campaigning and the things he has accomplished whilst in office, do you think that his presidency has been successful? I guess to make things fair, who would be the last president that you'd consider to be successful?
How do you ignore your personal politics when giving your opinion of a president. Successful could mean a lot of things: a) he helped himself, b) he helped his party, c) he helped his constituents, d) he helped the country.

Does a politician do the wrong thing and succeed or is the accolade reserved for the right things only?
Has he achieved what he said he was going to do, and if he has has it benefited the country?
Then no. Even if I try to look at it from a neutral perspective, it seems like some part of him is still grasping for the more familiar ground of senatorial politics. Outside of his fan rallies, there seems to be a lot of resentment pointed his way, even from people I've talked to who voted for the guy.

Otherwise, it's too early to answer your question, even with the appended 'so far.' We have yet to see if this health care thing will float after all. If it does and the economy tanks even further, he'll be discredited. If it doesn't, he'll be a failure.  If a bunch of states reject it out of hand, he'll be the great divider. He's gambled a lot of his executive umph on the legislative branch of government.
2010-03-25 01:17:36
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6960|Canberra, AUS
Could've done better. I still don't agree with him using such extraordinary amounts of political capital on healthcare so early.

If it doesn't, he'll be a failure.
Eh? How does the economy NOT tanking imply failure?

Last edited by Spark (2010-03-25 01:18:33)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-03-26 05:12:03
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5523|Cleveland, Ohio
lol even bin laden agrees with me.  obama is the same as bush.
2010-03-26 06:20:38
Chou
Member
+737|7077
I saw in the newspaper today that Obama asked the congress 2 billion dollars for Haiti.
This is a motherfucking joke right? The dude has lost it, innit?

Where's Harvey when you need him?

Last edited by Chou (2010-03-26 06:21:14)

2010-03-26 06:25:46
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|6285|Vortex Ring State

11 Bravo wrote:

lol even bin laden agrees with me.  obama is the same as bush.
And iran.
2010-03-26 08:08:26
BigmacK
Back from the Dead.
+628|7037|Chicago.

Trotskygrad wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

lol even bin laden agrees with me.  obama is the same as bush.
And iran.
qft.
2010-03-26 08:10:35
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7002

Chou wrote:

I saw in the newspaper today that Obama asked the congress 2 billion dollars for Haiti.
This is a motherfucking joke right? The dude has lost it, innit?

Where's Harvey when you need him?
More proof he's the same as bush.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-03-26 17:03:00
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Cybargs wrote:

Chou wrote:

I saw in the newspaper today that Obama asked the congress 2 billion dollars for Haiti.
This is a motherfucking joke right? The dude has lost it, innit?

Where's Harvey when you need him?
More proof he's the same as bush.
A lot of the policies are the same, but he's certainly a more capable leader than Bush.
2010-03-27 02:30:50
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7002

Turquoise wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Chou wrote:

I saw in the newspaper today that Obama asked the congress 2 billion dollars for Haiti.
This is a motherfucking joke right? The dude has lost it, innit?

Where's Harvey when you need him?
More proof he's the same as bush.
A lot of the policies are the same, but he's certainly a more capable leader than Bush.
That I can agree with. And the international community likes him a lot as well.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-03-27 02:32:47
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5523|Cleveland, Ohio

Cybargs wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

More proof he's the same as bush.
A lot of the policies are the same, but he's certainly a more capable leader than Bush.
That I can agree with. And the international community likes him a lot as well.
id like to know how you guys figure that.......not the international crap, but the leader part.

Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-03-27 02:33:01)

2010-03-27 05:24:21
loubot
O' HAL naw!
+470|6864|Columbus, OH
Health Care will be like Social Security, another way to tax or fleece more money out of the people's pockets.
It starts out as good intentions and people believe it's a good idea but in the long run, probably not.
The effects will not be known (good or bad) utnil it is too late and we have to deal with it....like it or not.
Most people do not like change.  I, for one, do not like bigger government and bureacratic waste of money.
If this new health care finally passes, I hope it is not like our social security program where the Feds take our money
and leave us with I.O.U's (social security case)
2010-03-27 05:24:46
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX
At least he can string a sentence together, and it seems he can outwit a pretzel.
Fuck Israel
2010-03-27 05:29:06
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5523|Cleveland, Ohio

Dilbert_X wrote:

At least he can string a sentence together, and it seems he can outwit a pretzel.
hmmm.. not sure about that.
2010-03-27 05:35:49
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6392|eXtreme to the maX
Oh christ, he's black, give him a break FFS....

Anyway, no major terrorist attacks on the US mainland apart from that Fort Hood thing under Obama.
Fuck Israel

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard