patrick.net

Yeah, I learned a long time ago that people overwhelmingly hold the belief that anyone who disagrees with them is an idiot. This way of thinking is most prevalent amongst the poorly educated and outright stupid (see also: every book Glen Beck has ever written). Educated people, regardless of their opinion on an issue, generally acknowledge their opponents arguments and give rational reasons for disagreeing with them.

Two smart people may have wildly different conclusions on an issue, but they will at least agree on the facts.

Debt is the legal way to have indentured servants.

On a bright side I don't think any sane human thinks that debt is great, except for those who directly benefit from it.

Debt is bad, yes.

That's why the Democratic Congress passed the tax rises in 1993 that balanced the budget in Clinton's second term.

You know how the voters thanked them for that in 1994?

Then Bush was voted in in late 2000 and the first order of business was abandoning the general fiscal discipline that Clinton maintained in the 90s.

Federal Debt Held by the Public (FYGFDPUN)

Parallel to that malfeasance they also allowed a $3T debt bubble to blow, 2002-2004:

Household Sector: Liabilites: Household Credit Market Debt Outstanding (CMDEBT)

Combining the two into one chart (red is treasury debt and blue is household debt).

Yes, debt is bad. Where the fuck were you in 2002? Household debt should be around $11T now, but instead it's $14T. The entire Bush economy was built on this $6T debt bubble.

I don't like how the national debt has jumped from $5T to $9T since 2008, but the one thing we have -- and need to do -- is weaken the dollar by printing our way out of this debt hole.

But that path is also fraught with hazards.

This nation simply has to start paying its bills. We were doing so in the 90s, but then we elected idiots that failed to govern responsibly.

Kevin says

This way of thinking is most prevalent amongst the poorly educated and outright stupid (see also: every book Glen Beck has ever written).

It's called arrogance. But who knows, cut him some slack, maybe the guy keeps a tight lip most the time, and never gets a chance to express his "know it all side" to "liberals" except when does get to here, anonymously.

Naaaah, he's probably that way all the time.

By the way Shrek, nobody thinks that the deficits are sustainable. It's just not a good time to cut too much. Cutting spending excessively right now, when unemployment is 9.6 (while if you count underemployed it's closer to 20%), would be far more counterproductive to the economy than letting high incomes tax rates expire would have been.

Why is that relevant ? Because it seems hypocritical to say (as many republicans do) that economically we can't afford to let those tax rates go back to what they were, but at the same time we need to cut spending sharply right now, spending that clearly goes in to our domestic economy far more than tax cuts to the rich do. There is a balancing act going on now, but also big danger looming with States and municipalities facing serious financial risks. It seems to me that cutting spending aggressively at this moment would be like an attack by the federal government on many cities and states. Then again, maybe they are thinking sure, bring everything down, the fed will probably have to bail out states and cities at least to an extent either way, sure lets destroy the economy.

It would help make Obama less reelectable, but at what price ?

marcus says

It’s just not a good time to cut too much. Cutting spending excessively right now, when unemployment is 9.6 (while if you count underemployed it’s closer to 20%), would be far more counterproductive to the economy than letting high incomes tax rates expire would have been.

I'm actually going to disagree with that, at least partially.

I see plenty that could be cut from the current budget, particularly the incredible amount of waste in the military and in medicare.

Cutting itself isn't even what I'm arguing against.

What I'm arguing against is the idea that cutting is something that politicians can just do, or that there's some magical salve to fix it all. There are massive repercussions for any major changes in the budget, and pretending like cuts exist in a vacuum is naive at best.

I'm also arguing against the notion that just because tax revenue fell that you should immediately cut spending. Spending for spending's sake rarely works. Spending for directed, functional, productive uses most definitely helps the economy more than deficits harm it.

So, really, what I'd like to see happening right now is cutting wasteful, inefficient spending in military and health care, and direct that money towards things that boost job growth. Low interest loans for small businesses, public works programs, R&D funding, etc. These are all productive ways to inject money into the economy that businesses have removed from it because of their own fear about the economy.

That innovative, powerful, large companies aren't really spending money is the biggest problem in the economy right now. Apple is now the largest non-energy company in the world, and they're hoarding in excess of $50B in cash. Google and Microsoft are in similar positions, as are countless other companies.

We absolutely need to find ways to either force those companies to spend their money, or have the government do it instead. That is the engine that will drive growth and truly fix the economic situation.

marcus says

Why is that relevant ? Because it seems hypocritical to say (as many republicans do) that economically we can’t afford to let those tax rates go back to what they were, but at the same time we need to cut spending sharply right now, spending that clearly goes in to our domestic economy far more than tax cuts to the rich do. There is a balancing act going on now, but also big danger looming with States and municipalities facing serious financial risks. It seems to me that cutting spending aggressively at this moment would be like an attack by the federal government on many cities and states. Then again, maybe they are thinking sure, bring everything down, the fed will probably have to bail out states and cities at least to an extent either way, sure lets destroy the economy.

It would help make Obama less reelectable, but at what price ?

There are three groups with this "lower taxes, higher spending" mentality:

1. True believer Keynesians, who think that America is still capable of double-digit GDP growth despite controlling a quarter of the world economy. These people are foolish.

2. People who simply don't know the realities of the budget and think we spend more money on foreign aid than we do on the military. These people are ignorant.

3. People who are attempting a "starve the beast" strategy, because they believe that dealing major harm to America's overall prosperity is acceptable if it means that states, religion, and corporations become more powerful. These people are either ideologically naive (they ignore the reality of other powerful nations that will crush us if this comes to pass) or downright evil.

3/4ths of congress are in one of these categories, both current and incoming.

God I love quotes of quotes of quotes. The article is BS. Why not quote the original Christian Science Monitor article? Or maybe the original article which the CSM doesn't bother to footnote or attribute, nice journalism ethics. Here's an article that talks about what actually happened as opposed to what the tea baggers and rushbots would like everyone to believe happened. http://blogs.wsj.com/new-europe/2010/11/24/hungary-forces-private-pension-fund-members-back-to-state-scheme/

Yes Hungary is trying for force private pensions back into the public system. It's a return to what existed prior to 1997. However, nothing was confiscated. No one was forced to do anything. If you return to the state pension fund your private pension will be held in a separate account. If you don't you give up your right FUTURE state pensions. I have relatives in Hungary, they were very surprised to have me ask about this and were amazed to read the bs CSM article.

No one was scheming to force IRAs, 401(k)s into bonds held and managed by ss. That's also just BS as has been documented many times.

Get a life beyond Rush Limbaugh and the NRO.

shrekgrinch says

I’ve had to state a lot of things because you keep going off on unrelated tangents. So what?

The point is that you blow your whole argument right there. I may not know as much as you apparently do about economics, shrekgrinchonemanarmy, but at least I know simple logic and can follow a properly constructed argument. Or not.

Hey, give me some background on yourself: are you an accountant? An economics professor? A plumber? Whats your path to the great expanse of economics knowledge you contain?

Here's a tangent, bad me, but this is the song I imagine you singing yourself to sleep with every night:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9PiqCeLEmM

shrekgrinch says

Uh no. Smart doesn’t equate with brainwashing, which is what most of you received in lieu of true education.

Smart people disagree on the ‘facts’ all the time. In fact, they do so constantly.

Please explain about your true education and how everyone else on the planet missed out.

Yawn...

That doesn't stack up well against the Realtor Robot video last week.

The Tech bubble, was not a bubble, it was "America's brightest Business CEO's and money profesionals" that missed the boat. While Marge the receptionist was became an over night Gazillionare day trading.
It was Sabotaged, by Greenspan, under Bush.

Destroyed so that the current players, could acquire them for a tenth of a penny on the hundred dollar.

The Tech industry/market, has never been stronger. It never missed a beat. The only thing that changed is, Al used a Big greasy pole to pry all of the amateur cretins off, he hosed it off, and handed it over to the Pros that deserve that kind of status and money. CEOs on Wall Street!

Most "Keynesians" do not follow Keynes.

Just to take the simplest point, he said it was essential to save enough in the good times to pay for the bad times that are inevitable. So the stimulus spending he advocated would have been provided for. This of course does not fit the financial "innovation" mindset, so they freely lean on Keynes when needed for stimulus, yet absolutely oppose the idea of saving any acorns for winter.

What a joke. This is shreks idea of critical thinking skills? At least is was in a format (cartoon) that shrek could relate to. Dreck and bap both really need a hobby.

Name one administration democrat or republican since keynes published (1930's) that actually practiced what he advocated. Like trickle down economics it's all just a smokescreen for politicians being whores.

shrekgrinch says

Seems I touched a nerve, though. I wonder why…

The only nerve you hit is you are just tiring with all your idiot blathering keynes, keynes, keynes without a clue what he wrote. Just for the record I don't believe in Keynes because his theories will never work in real life. No politician will ever save up for a rainy day. I support a balanced budget amendment.

Critical thinking means I can separate the theory of keynes from the political whore mongering that hides behind his name. The man was a critical thinker with a well thought out but unrealistic view of economics. Something which you are totally incapable of grasping.

Did you ever graduate third grade? If you keep repeating the bs from the csm it doesn't make it true. Read the article I posted if you have the literary skills and reading comprehension to manage it.

"The assets of those who decide to return to the state scheme will be kept in individual accounts and will remain inheritable by the spouse, Mr. Matolcsy said." Motolcsy is the economic minister. Do you grasp this, even though it conflicts the the article you are so enamored with? Where is the sources for the csm article? Who are they quoting?

As per scheming to confiscate ira's did your read your own article from the "carolinajournal" (a world famous leading edge journalism source for sure, right up there with NYT and WSJ in terms of jounalistic credibility). It says that

“The testimony of Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, in hearings Oct. 7 drew the most attention and criticism. Testifying for the House Committee on Education and Labor, Ghilarducci proposed that the government eliminate tax breaks for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts, such as IRAs, and confiscate workers’ retirement plan accounts and convert them to universal Guaranteed Retirement Accounts (GRAs) managed by the Social Security Administration.”

That's your own quote. Are you capable of understanding it? One unknown professor (I have a hard time taking anyone from NY named Ghilarducci seriously anyway) from some unknown place called the new school for social research (sounds like a day care to me) proposed this plan before one congressional committee. This is your grand scheme? If you own a dictionary look up the word scheme. You do realize that many people testify before congressional committees don't you? One person throwing something out doesn't make it a done deal policy wise. Don't bother to answer you'll just embarrass yourself further.

Reputing paranoid bs isn't being a liberal shill. I did a write in vote for Ron Paul so my liberalism is pretty limited. I never said thing's like forced conversion ira's to ss bonds couldn't happen. It's just not happening now or in the way you are ranting about. Since you are not capable of providing a cognitive well reasoned discussion on the subject I won't bother arguing with you about how and when it actually could happen. That being said I have moved my ira's offshore just in case.

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

Ron Paul is a pinko tool. He is taking money from an illegal government. And takes Medicare payments for his medical practice. He is a screaming commie. A real proponent of Freedom would demand the end to ALL taxation and ALL government. But Paul hates Freedom, too, and is just another sell out to the stalinists and al qaeda operatives running this country.

I love it. This is great stuff. Very funny. Are you the guy who bought the unibombers house by any chance? Are you related to Tim McViegh?

Being a dirty harry man of action type (you're not just some internet poser who is actually a milk toast walter mitty type accountant are you? I would be very disappointed.) when do you plan on acting on your convictions by moving to somewhere that has abandoned all government and taxation. Like Somolia or Nigeria.

shrekgrinch says

Ghilarducci advocated the same thing. Oh, and you did claim (your words) “No one was scheming to force IRAs, 401(k)s into bonds held and managed by ss. That’s also just BS as has been documented many times. ” Ghilarducci exposed just how much full of shit you are on that claim.

But you can’t see that in your zeal to be a mindless whore for the liberal bandwagon, can’t you? So then you go in this tirade to assault Ghilarducci as a ‘nobody’ which has nothing to do with disproving that you are full of shit in your statement you bravely declared, does it?

Remind me again exactly what position in the Obamacrats administration Ghilarducci holds (hint none)? Actually, remind me about Ghilarducci's distingushed career accomplishments (hint none). Pretty funny to see you leaping to the defense of a Berkeley educated super liberal think tank wonk. Be careful, one is judged by the company they keep. People might think you're a Berkeley liberal kind of guy.

One person advocating their position (actually more like hawking her book) at a congressional committee meeting isn't scheming no matter what it seems like to the paranoid delusionals like you. I guess you didn't go look up what scheme and scheming mean.

Yes, others will determine that you are a complete idiot. Just think 15 years of primary school education wasted.

shrekgrinch says

But you can’t, because all you can do is lash out against the threat that your precious worldview is at stack by not ripping into me despite the fact that you only prove you’re out to lunch

can anyone translate this sentence into english?

"At stake."

What would be more accurate, the projector or the projectionist ?

I have never seen him in an argument (that I read) where he wasn't the first one to lash out, thus terminating the discussion before it could be determined who was right. An extremely consistent pattern.

When he resorts to calling you uneducated, illiterate or an idiot, you know that he is standing on very weak ground. Or that he is simply too impatient, too lazy or possessing the exact characteristics he is projecting above, to try to understand what you are saying**. Maybe just lacking the social skills to communicate in a respectful way with another person who obviously also thinks they are right.

**Note, this is a guy with a supposed degree in CS who should be able to comprehend poorly commented code.

It's absurd to say that the U.S. "FAILS MISERABLY at almost any objective test you can apply to our society."

No, clearly the U.S isn't number one in every single category that you can compare countries against one another, but to call that "FAILS MISERABLY"? Really?

"more people in prison per-capita than any despotic state"? What does that have to do with whether or not we're failing? Maybe we should aspire to be like Congo, Nigeria, Liberia, or Sudan? They have very low incarceration rates.

"regularly test near the bottom in language, science and math"? Really? TIMMS in 2007 rated the U.S. 7th in math -- not a SINGLE European mainland country was in the top 10, and Japan and the UK were the only other wealthy countries that were. (same story for science)

This is a MASSIVE improvement over the last 10 years, where we weren't even in the top 20.

And, of course, TIMMS (and various European and Asian studies with the same methodology) are widely derided as flawed for only analyzing rote math and science. Unsurprisngly, Asian and Eastern European nations do the best on these tests, and yet it's mainland European and North American (supposedly "failing" educational systems) that consistently produce the most Nobel Prize winners.

The U.S. has plenty of flaws, as do *ALL* countries. To pretend that things are meaningfully better elsewhere is absurd.

It's downright baffling that you can claim that it's the "WORST place to live if you're working class". I can name at least 170 that are definitively worse. Yes, Europe is probably better if you are very poor, but not necessarily if you're middle class (except maybe switzerland). I'm pretty sure that any of those places is better than just about anywhere in africa, south america, or mainland asia.

bob2356 says

Remind me again exactly what position in the Obamacrats administration Ghilarducci holds (hint none)? Actually, remind me about Ghilarducci’s distingushed career accomplishments (hint none). Pretty funny to see you leaping to the defense of a Berkeley educated super liberal think tank wonk. Be careful, one is judged by the company they keep. People might think you’re a Berkeley liberal kind of guy.

Bad ideas have to start somewhere. The fact that the person actually presented this to the government is enough for me to raise an eyebrow - regardless of the "presenter". Even if this never happens, it becomes the new "extreme" and pushes everything else from the kooky fringe towards the middle. Perhaps first it is an optional government "IRA" targeted at the poor (who doesn't want to help the poor?), then you can roll your private funds into it, then a portion is mandated ... It is much easier to boil a frog if you start with cold water, no?

EightBall says

bob2356 says

Remind me again exactly what position in the Obamacrats administration Ghilarducci holds (hint none)? Actually, remind me about Ghilarducci’s distingushed career accomplishments (hint none). Pretty funny to see you leaping to the defense of a Berkeley educated super liberal think tank wonk. Be careful, one is judged by the company they keep. People might think you’re a Berkeley liberal kind of guy.

Bad ideas have to start somewhere. The fact that the person actually presented this to the government is enough for me to raise an eyebrow - regardless of the “presenter”. Even if this never happens, it becomes the new “extreme” and pushes everything else from the kooky fringe towards the middle. Perhaps first it is an optional government “IRA” targeted at the poor (who doesn’t want to help the poor?), then you can roll your private funds into it, then a portion is mandated … It is much easier to boil a frog if you start with cold water, no?

A reasonable response. Read my earlier post. I think it very well could happen and have already acted on that assumption. My point was (dreckfinch hysterics aside) that I just don't think that:

A) one person's private testimony in one committee meeting rises anywhere near the level of what reasonable people would consider "scheming" by the administration to confiscate (didn't happen in Hungary either) billions of dollars in pension funds.

B) one person's private testimony in one committee meeting is "essentially the same deal" as another country, Hungary, actually changing their laws and revamping their entire pension system.

Bad idea's float around everywhere all the time. There are plenty of people out there who constantly advocate the violent overthrow of the federal government leading to anarchy and have been since the dawn of the republic. There are people who strongly advocate communism for the US. It doesn't represent anything. The kooky fringe will always be there. Many, many very bad ideas have been presented in congressional committee meetings. It's just political theatre anyway. Watch one sometime on CSPAN or worse go to some as I had to at one point in my career. Root canals have more appeal. It's all about scoring soundbites, nothing else. The deals are already done, the meetings are just a smokescreen.

marcus says

When he resorts to calling you uneducated, illiterate or an idiot, you know that he is standing on very weak ground.

I consider being called an idiot by someone like dreck a badge of honor with great distinction. Unfortunately for my pride he has called everyone on the entire forum an idiot at one time or another so I am just part of the pack. Pity, I was so hoping to be a standout.

Even if this was true which it's not clear it is , it's within the rights of the government.

If you don't like the government intruding in your life start your own movement to dissolve the current government.

Armando148 says

If you don’t like the government intruding in your life start your own movement to dissolve the current government.

The problem is not government, the problem is the corporations that OWN the government, lock, stock and barrel. If you cannot understand that, nobody can help you.

Put it this way. The best colleges and Universities in the US, which are still the best in the world, are not at a loss for extremely well prepared domestic applicants.

But yes, we need to do way better, and raise the bar for all the students who are going to junior colleges and 3rd tier schools. Part of the problem, as I see it, is that kids in this country grow up slowly. Some are still working on high school level work, after high school (in community colleges).

One other tidbit, that might get you thinking. The college counselor at my school was telling me a few years ago that kids need to take AP Calculus to get in to UCLA as an English major. Now, he was exaggerating, but not much. Meanwhile, the junior colleges and community colleges are overflowing. That is some kids have a hard time getting in to a full program.

My point being, if we start doing a way better job with elementary and HS education, it will raise the level of all those universities and colleges, but won't we also need to build a lot more higher ed facilities ? People like to say it's not a question of resources and money. I'm not so sure.

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

f you’re dying and can’t afford to buy a hospital or something you need to ask yourself why you refused to become a billionaire like so many other Americans.

Roger that. I haven't been buying lottery tickets b/c it's always been my stance that they are a tax on people who don't understand statistics. I might have to rethink that and start playing for the MegaMillions. I better start small, like with scratch offs.

artistsoul says

And infant mortality rates? Please. Our care rocks in this area. We are victims here of BETTER healthcare. Think I jest? Infant mortality stats higher here b/c we have a lot more premature births….b/c we do a lot more fertility treatments. And….what does reproductive technology result in? Multiple births (twins or more). And multiple births are at greater risk of premature delivery. Did you know that there are actually legal restrictions throughout Europe to curb use of fertility treatment. The result is this whole new “IVF Tourism” market for wealthy Europeans. Further, what about mothers who smoke, are obese or lack education. Do you think they have the same outcomes as others? Again…not a healthcare system issue. A societal issue. The other issue with the infant mortality stat is how we count a live birth. We count any sign of life in a premature birth. European nations have all these rules about size & what is counted as stillbirth v life birth. In some nations, fetus has to be over a one lb, in Switzerland, fetus has to be > 2″, etc. http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm *I will be honest here (as I always try to be) to say our healthcare system may contribute to the high infant mortality stat *a little* in this area b/c we OVER provide. We are so rich that we have too many NICU’s. Probably need to consolidate those into larger more centralized hospitals where the NICU is dealing with a higher volume and therefore has a better trained more dedicated staff.

"infant mortality rates please". The usnews story cherry picked the cdc 2008 report. The people at cdc are very smart researchers. They did look at the differences in reporting methodology and concluded that it was NOT the primary reason for the US low international ranking.

There are legal restrictions on IVF around the entire first world. If it is unlikely to succeed the state won't pay for it. Not an unreasonable stance. There are plenty of mothers who smoke, are obese, and lack education everywhere in the world. Most of Europe has much higher smoking rates and drinking during pregnancy is a lot more common.

bob2356 says

infant mortality rates please”. The usnews story cherry picked the cdc 2008 report. The people at cdc are very smart researchers. They did look at the differences in reporting methodology and concluded that it was NOT the primary reason for the US low international ranking.

There are legal restrictions on IVF around the entire first world. If it is unlikely to succeed the state won’t pay for it. Not an unreasonable stance. There are plenty of mothers who smoke, are obese, and lack education everywhere in the world. Most of Europe has much higher smoking rates and drinking during pregnancy is a lot more common.

Did you read the usnews story I linked? The story didn't cherry pick the 2008 CDC report because it was authored in 2006. Dated beyond what some may accept. I could understand that objection, had you raised it. The USnews story was authored by Dr. Bernadine Healy - Harvard & Johns Hopkins educated and former head of the National Institutes of Health in DC. She makes some points. She is a republican so perhaps you would think she has a biased agenda to keep healthcare privatized.

I did notice, in retrospect, that what I linked was a summary opinion piece. So, I googled the 2008 CDC report. http://198.246.98.21/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.pdf Here's the thing: this is all it says with respect to differences in the ways nations report births "International comparisons of infant mortality can be affected by differences in reporting of fetal and infant deaths. However, it appears unlikely that differences in reporting are the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking." It seems to be asking why is our ranking falling in the US? It concludes that it is, primarily a rise in premature births. It doesn't compare how many premature births occur in Europe v America.

You talk about legal restrictions throughout 1st world. Germany & Italy ban embroyo freezing and egg donation. Britain, Spain and Belgium do allow it. But, in Britain you can only implant one or two embroyos to prevent mulitple births. In our country we do it all. My girlfriend in Boston had 5 embroyos implanted --> two took & she has twin boys (one they are "watching" due to developmental delays). Octomom spurred a nationwide ethical debate on how far we should go.

You also point out smoking & drinking during pregnancy more prevalent in Europe. The drinking part I would accept without question. But, that doesn't matter at ALL with regard to the overall point that I was attempting to make. I was simply trying to say that you can't hold up the statistic of higher infant mortality rates & say that we need to follow the European model for healthcare. Because I firmly believe that these two particular statistics happen to measure issues (like smoking or drinking or other personal choices) that are TOTALLY out of the control of the healthcare system. That's it. That is the extent of what I was trying to bring to the discussion.

Are you trying to say that you found some kind of credible evidence (that wasn't cherry picked) that suggests that the higher infant mortality rates are due to the failure of US healthcare system over a European system? Personally, I think we need to adopt some model other than ours....but it is because I think the COSTS are crushing us....not because I believe they are doing it better. To the contrary, despite arguments that will arise, I really do think services will decline some when we finally reform care. They have to though. I wrote a bunch of other stuff about why I think are outcomes are worse on other threads. But, I'm already becoming a broken record.

marcus says

I agree. Too bad we don’t all get to have an honest unemotional debate about it.

You're right of course. But that is tough to do for a myriad of reasons.

Even in person, money & politics are topics that people get passionate and overly emotional about. Hence, the widening divide between left and right - probably the result of all the biased reporting of the 24 hour cable news. Result: more explosive debate out there at the kitchen tables.

The main point should be to help the person you are discussing things with see things in a different way. But, I think a lot of times (esp on the internet), people are so entrenched in their views that it becomes more about ripping someone else to shreds to prove their right. It the arguing that is the point sometimes.

I don't really want to be in that category of people. I have been too rude at times but it is been in response to someone saying something insulting, condescending or manipulative. Not really an excuse for my behavior but, hey, I'm human. I don't think I'll be able to stop that. In real life, I guess I would never go that far. It's dangerously easy to do it over the internet. Too easy I suppose.

bob2356 says

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

Ron Paul is a pinko tool. He is taking money from an illegal government. And takes Medicare payments for his medical practice. He is a screaming commie. A real proponent of Freedom would demand the end to ALL taxation and ALL government. But Paul hates Freedom, too, and is just another sell out to the stalinists and al qaeda operatives running this country.

I love it. This is great stuff. Very funny. Are you the guy who bought the unibombers house by any chance? Are you related to Tim McViegh?
Being a dirty harry man of action type (you’re not just some internet poser who is actually a milk toast walter mitty type accountant are you? I would be very disappointed.) when do you plan on acting on your convictions by moving to somewhere that has abandoned all government and taxation. Like Somolia or Nigeria.

Yeah, Bob, AF is on your side of the issues... simply trying to parody the "right wing" position by using extreme straw man arguments. You should cheer him on, because using such types of illogical arguments and sarcastic approaches helps you win the debate and frame the truth to your liking.

klarek says

Funny, speaking of police state, that you would attempt to compare our incarceration and infant mortality rates with countries that have absolutely zero transparency or freedom of press, and therefore publish numbers that are suspect at best and utter horseshit in all likelihood.

I can't agree with this characterization: The list of countries that do better than the US in infant mortality include pretty much every country in Western Europe. It is not honest to pick out Cuba and claim that their stats are unreliable. Look at all the other examples instead, since Cuba does not make you happy.

artistsoul says

Are you trying to say that you found some kind of credible evidence (that wasn’t cherry picked) that suggests that the higher infant mortality rates are due to the failure of US healthcare system over a European system? Personally, I think we need to adopt some model other than ours….but it is because I think the COSTS are crushing us….not because I believe they are doing it better. To the contrary, despite arguments that will arise, I really do think services will decline some when we finally reform care. They have to though. I wrote a bunch of other stuff about why I think are outcomes are worse on other threads. But, I’m already becoming a broken record.

Why are you fixated on Europe? there are public health systems all over the world, most (not all) with very good to excellent health care. I didn't notice the dates so your point on the article is a good one. The statement that the differences in rates can't be explained by reporting methodology still stands.

One thing that was not examined by the CDS is the differences in prenatal care. It would be almost impossible to quantify so I can see why it wasn't addressed. So many women in the US don't have health insurance. Many them get very poor or no prenatal care. It makes a big difference. I know this for a fact. My wife is a practicing ob/gyn who worked in the states for 10 years before we moved to NZ (because being a ob/gyn in the states just sucks, no one these days goes into ob/gyn) where prenatal care is good and universal. She still sees train wrecks in terms of prenatal care, especially since we live in the poorest most rural area of NZ, but it is much much rarer that in the states. The outcomes because of this are very markedly better based on her experiances.

I think your point about anything goes for IVF vs a cost benefit based system goes against your argument. Should IVF be pursued even in cases where there is high potential that the financial costs could be horrible in terms of premature infants that will require huge amounts of medical services sometimes for their entire life? Would that money be better spent on things like immunizations rather that supporting a person who will always be a drain on society? What about the quality life for a severely impaired child/person. I don't know, no one knows, each country has to decide what it's worth to them as a society. It seems that some statistical reasonable grounds for success should be a part of the decision to me. Who defines reasonable is always the sticking point.

Services will decline for who? Would it decline for the millions of people without healthcare at all who simply don't visit a doctor until they are very ill and difficult to treat. Then they go to the ER to use the most expensive service available. Most countries that have public health care you are free to buy private health care insurance if you so desire. If I wanted it private health insurance would be $150NZ ($120US) per month for a family of 4. I have been very satisfied with the public system and have had very good experiences. I've had to wait longer for some tests than in the US, but not $800 per month that insurance would cost me in the US longer.

bob2356 says

Why are you fixated on Europe?

I'm not. Why are you fixated on trying to make certain that you disassemble my larger point? I mention these stats of lower life expectancy and higher cost of living as measures of things largely beyond the control of the US healthcare system - therefore these stats shouldn't be thrown around as evidence that America's problems would all be magically fixed if we only revamped our system to match XXX countries. Did you read the part in my original post that I think that even if you changed models, we would not (IMO) improve our statistics in these areas. If we are obese, don't exercise, etc we will still die younger and consume more expenses of medical care because we are, in general, more ill. This is a cultural issue in America, a habits issue in America. I *think* that Marcus was also trying to make this larger point with respect to the educational system in America. Don't keep pointing to statistics that show we lag behind and naively assume you can blame the whole thing on how we deliver education in America. Some of the shortcomings are cultural. Education isn't valued in this country the way it is in others. I probably shouldn't interject that and drag him into this.

Are there ways to do things better in America? Absolutely. Can we learn from other countries successes and failures? Absolutely. I never we couldn't. To the contrary, I said we need to make changes.

As far as the statistic of high infant mortality rates, since you insist on trying to invalidate everything I say based on the fact that you think we have higher infant mortality because of worse healthcare, please show me some evidence that our healthcare isn't the among the best in the world in MOST areas.

bob2356 says

The statement that the differences in rates can’t be explained by reporting methodology still stands.

Yes, the difference in the ways things are reported isn't the primary reason why our infant mortality rates are higher. It is a reason, though....and one I ticked off near last in my stream of consciousness list of why pointing to the higher infant mortality rate shouldn't be cited by extreme liberals. To a lot of folks, they hear those statistics and probably don't even try to look beyond them.

bob2356 says

One thing that was not examined by the CDS is the differences in prenatal care. It would be almost impossible to quantify so I can see why it wasn’t addressed. So many women in the US don’t have health insurance.

I'm glad you did try to see if our higher premature term labor was due to something other than the increased amount of fertility treatments. I'm sure lack of prenatal care is part of it. Young, healthy mothers generally go to term unless there are abusing drugs, smoke, are obese, drink, etc. Again, this is a habit issue. Older, middle aged career first moms who delayed starting a family beyond the optimal timeframe (and maybe relied on fertility treatments to conceive in the first place) more often don't come to full term even if they receive excellent prenatal care and spend the last 6 wks bed ridden with their feet up.

bob2356 says

Many them get very poor or no prenatal care. It makes a big difference. I know this for a fact. My wife is a practicing ob/gyn who worked in the states for 10 years before we moved to NZ (because being a ob/gyn in the states just sucks, no one these days goes into ob/gyn) where prenatal care is good and universal.

Ok. Well then you *should* know that anyone here can get access to prenatal care...but many don't. If you are low income, there are most certainly programs to offer BOTH prenatal care and postnatal care (milk from WIC, etc). Now, is it more difficult to gain access to that prenatal care? Yes. Because you don't have the funds to pay for it (I'm sure your wife would agree she is entitled to some compensation for the care she provides), then you have to go to the established governmental agencies and show the proof necessary that you can receive these benefits. The government even has billboards in certain areas of certain cities with the places to go, the phone #'s to call. Sometimes, a person will make a choice not to care for herself or her unborne child....sounds like it is happening in NZ too per your own point.

bob2356 says

I think your point about anything goes for IVF vs a cost benefit based system goes against your argument.

I didn't make that aspect of my point very well. Medical care in America is the best. Our technology has really advanced. So by better, I meant we can offer .... and, ask any OB/GYN in America today.... we do offer it. I'm not saying it is wise to rely so heavily on it. But these are choices that women in America make - delaying motherhood, pursuing education and careers. A good thing, no?

bob2356 says

Services will decline for who? Would it decline for the millions of people without healthcare at all who simply don’t visit a doctor until they are very ill and difficult to treat. Then they go to the ER to use the most expensive service available

Let me end on a positive note: YES YOU ARE 100% CORRECT TO SAY THAT IF WE OFFERED UNIVERSAL CARE, THE POOR IN OUR SOCIETY WOULD BE BETTER OFF. I never suggested they would not be. I only suggested that we need to look at the statistics we wave around to justify how far America has fallen by the wayside. It is not that simple unfortunately. Our culture, our value system in America, our habits, our greed, etc are all contributing to some of the dysfunctions in our society that we see today.

I hope you are considering the larger point that I am trying to make. Other 1st world countries do have very good care. But they do make different choices, intervene less and have a whole different set of population (healthier, although they are catching up to us in the couch potato dept). Changing healthcare in America isn't necessarily going to change those two statistics. I have said let's look at other systems when we redesign ours. But, we also need to hold a mirror up to ourselves in America and begin to examine our habits and personal choices. We began so affluent and our standard of living is comparatively so high here that we are that we sort of victims of our own success.

Found this helpful (YMMV) in trying to understand REITs. From the Fool:
Looking at the REIT example in particular, American Capital Agency, Cypress, Chimera, and their brethren are making a killing because of the government's interest rate policy. With the government keeping rates low, these REITs have been able to borrow money very cheaply and profit from large interest rate spreads on the longer-term mortgage-backed securities they buy.
And they've been paying out almost all of these profits because, as REITs, they have to to qualify for special tax treatment. Pretty sweet deal.
Very tempting... until Ben loses control of the rates.

justme says

US has substandard infant mortality.

Yes we do. No dispute there. However, WHY we do is an entirely different issue. The important question is only: How do you suggest we improve that statistic?

artistsoul says

Let me end on a positive note: YES YOU ARE 100% CORRECT TO SAY THAT IF WE OFFERED UNIVERSAL CARE, THE POOR IN OUR SOCIETY WOULD BE BETTER OFF. I never suggested they would not be. I only suggested that we need to look at the statistics we wave around to justify how far America has fallen by the wayside. It is not that simple unfortunately. Our culture, our value system in America, our habits, our greed, etc are all contributing to some of the dysfunctions in our society that we see today.

I hope you are considering the larger point that I am trying to make. Other 1st world countries do have very good care. But they do make different choices, intervene less and have a whole different set of population (healthier, although they are catching up to us in the couch potato dept). Changing healthcare in America isn’t necessarily going to change those two statistics. I have said let’s look at other systems when we redesign ours. But, we also need to hold a mirror up to ourselves in America and begin to examine our habits and personal choices. We began so affluent and our standard of living is comparatively so high here that we are that we sort of victims of our own success.

Many good points. I'm not nitpicking. I just don't buy the argument that says other countries have good health statistics because they have such a healthy lifestyle but America has worse statistics because it is so affluent that people are just fat and lazy. The standard of living isn't very different. I've lived in France, there are plenty of unhealthy lifestyles going on. They smoke and drink a lot more for one. I've lived in Australia and NZ, there are lots of issues with obesity and binge drinking is totally out of control. The societies aren't different enough to make the argument.

America has some of the best as well as some very poor health care. It depends on who you are and where you are. Other countries have a much more consistent system. You also have to factor in the cost per person is almost double the rest of the first world. We don't seem to be getting much bang for the buck. That to me is the larger picture.

Pension-related news worth following…

Gingrich seeks bill allowing state bankruptcy (and reneging on pensions) to avert bailouts

http://www.pionline.com/article/20110110/PRINTSUB/301109976

Former House Speaker and possible GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich is pushing for federal legislation giving financially strapped states the right to file for bankruptcy and renege on pension and other benefit promises made to state employees.

Seeing that Argentina was raped by the IMF and pensions were raided, and that Obama has an allegiance to the IMF since Obama is the UN Security Council Chairman and the IMF is one of the two financial arms of the UN -- I'd have to say some of the passionate "informers" here are off a bit.

Buy silver bullion and land for growing food, but do not buy near nature corridors that may ultimately be taken by your new communitarian government, for the "greater good."

M8R-8eneeq says

Pension-related news worth following…
Gingrich seeks bill allowing state bankruptcy (and reneging on pensions) to avert bailouts
http://www.pionline.com/article/20110110/PRINTSUB/301109976
Former House Speaker and possible GOP presidential contender Newt Gingrich is pushing for federal legislation giving financially strapped states the right to file for bankruptcy and renege on pension and other benefit promises made to state employees.
Seeing that Argentina was raped by the IMF and pensions were raided, and that Obama has an allegiance to the IMF since Obama is the UN Security Council Chairman and the IMF is one of the two financial arms of the UN — I’d have to say some of the passionate “informers” here are off a bit.

Obviously I'm missing something here. I don't see how Gingrich's pushing (for what that is worth, he's a private citizen now) ties into Argentina, the IMF and Obama at all. Is there a comprehensive explanation available that brings all these disparate things together somehow?

shrekgrinch says

bob2356 says

Remind me again exactly what position in the Obamacrats administration Ghilarducci holds (hint none)?

Who cares? YOU SAID, “No one was scheming to force IRAs, 401(k)s into bonds held and managed by ss”. I just proved you were full of shit. You can’t ‘qualify’ your statement after the fact like it is some excuse to admit you fucked up. Yet, that is precisely what you are doing.
So, next time try qualifying your statements if you want said qualifications to be take into consideration by those who are determining whether what you say is valid or not, ok?
And you are one to balk about MY education? Talk about psychological projection issues on your part.

In my book one single person's opinion presented to congress isn't "scheming" no matter how many times you want to repeat it.

Oh my, of course, I didn't realize. That person must be part of the great liberal underground network thrusting it's tentacles though out the entire fabric of American society. A nefarious secretive society along the lines of Freemasons, Skull and Crossbones, Knights Templar passed down through the ages via initiates participating in secret handshakes and blood rituals all the while controlling the fate of mankind. Now I see where you are going.

I certainly don't want to denigrate all those years you spent attending podunk elementary. It has left you truly gifted with a classical education that has provided you with Jesuit like qualities of clarity, brevity, and complex analytical thinking that is unprecedented in the ebb and flow of humankind. One day the towering intellect represented by the hallowed words of shrekgrinch will be held up by future scholars as a monument to greatness in thought achievable by the human race that will be given a rightful place alongside such lesser luminary greats as Plato, Socrates, Augustus, and Aquinas. I am in awe to be here and see it happening.

APOCALYPSEFUCK says

Ron Paul is a pinko tool. He is taking money from an illegal government. And takes Medicare payments for his medical practice. He is a screaming commie. A real proponent of Freedom would demand the end to ALL taxation and ALL government. But Paul hates Freedom, too, and is just another sell out to the stalinists and al qaeda operatives running this country.

Wow, anyone who is dumb enough to poke a stick at Ron Paul when there are so many other over-ripe wonderful targets to choose from needs some re-education on reality. Ron Paul is harmless and has good intent. He is also not a pawn of the central bankers. I guarantee you your favorite politicians are, which makes you a fool, be default.