The Austerity Agenda - Krugman

[Blart]

Good editorial that gets to the heart of this fake "debt panic" happening in the UK, and the right that wants to implement it here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/opinion/krugman-the-austerity-agenda.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

“The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity.” So declared John Maynard Keynes 75 years ago, and he was right. Even if you have a long-run deficit problem — and who doesn’t? — slashing spending while the economy is deeply depressed is a self-defeating strategy, because it just deepens the depression.

So why is Britain doing exactly what it shouldn’t? Unlike the governments of, say, Spain or California, the British government can borrow freely, at historically low interest rates. So why is that government sharply reducing investment and eliminating hundreds of thousands of public-sector jobs, rather than waiting until the economy is stronger?

Over the past few days, I’ve posed that question to a number of supporters of the government of Prime Minister David Cameron, sometimes in private, sometimes on TV. And all these conversations followed the same arc: They began with a bad metaphor and ended with the revelation of ulterior motives.

The bad metaphor — which you’ve surely heard many times — equates the debt problems of a national economy with the debt problems of an individual family. A family that has run up too much debt, the story goes, must tighten its belt. So if Britain, as a whole, has run up too much debt — which it has, although it’s mostly private rather than public debt — shouldn’t it do the same? What’s wrong with this comparison?

The answer is that an economy is not like an indebted family. Our debt is mostly money we owe to each other; even more important, our income mostly comes from selling things to each other. Your spending is my income, and my spending is your income.

So what happens if everyone simultaneously slashes spending in an attempt to pay down debt? The answer is that everyone’s income falls — my income falls because you’re spending less, and your income falls because I’m spending less. And, as our incomes plunge, our debt problem gets worse, not better.

This isn’t a new insight. The great American economist Irving Fisher explained it all the way back in 1933, summarizing what he called “debt deflation” with the pithy slogan “the more the debtors pay, the more they owe.” Recent events, above all the austerity death spiral in Europe, have dramatically illustrated the truth of Fisher’s insight.

And there’s a clear moral to this story: When the private sector is frantically trying to pay down debt, the public sector should do the opposite, spending when the private sector can’t or won’t. By all means, let’s balance our budget once the economy has recovered — but not now. The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity.

As I said, this isn’t a new insight. So why have so many politicians insisted on pursuing austerity in slump? And why won’t they change course even as experience confirms the lessons of theory and history?

Well, that’s where it gets interesting. For when you push “austerians” on the badness of their metaphor, they almost always retreat to assertions along the lines of: “But it’s essential that we shrink the size of the state.”

Now, these assertions often go along with claims that the economic crisis itself demonstrates the need to shrink government. But that’s manifestly not true. Look at the countries in Europe that have weathered the storm best, and near the top of the list you’ll find big-government nations like Sweden and Austria.

And if you look, on the other hand, at the nations conservatives admired before the crisis, you’ll find George Osborne, Britain’s chancellor of the Exchequer and the architect of the country’s current economic policy, describing Ireland as “a shining example of the art of the possible.” Meanwhile, the Cato Institute was praising Iceland’s low taxes and hoping that other industrial nations “will learn from Iceland’s success.”

So the austerity drive in Britain isn’t really about debt and deficits at all; it’s about using deficit panic as an excuse to dismantle social programs. And this is, of course, exactly the same thing that has been happening in America.

In fairness to Britain’s conservatives, they aren’t quite as crude as their American counterparts. They don’t rail against the evils of deficits in one breath, then demand huge tax cuts for the wealthy in the next (although the Cameron government has, in fact, significantly cut the top tax rate). And, in general, they seem less determined than America’s right to aid the rich and punish the poor. Still, the direction of policy is the same — and so is the fundamental insincerity of the calls for austerity.

The big question here is whether the evident failure of austerity to produce an economic recovery will lead to a “Plan B.” Maybe. But my guess is that even if such a plan is announced, it won’t amount to much. For economic recovery was never the point; the drive for austerity was about using the crisis, not solving it. And it still is.

[Blart]

Oh what's this? Another Nobel Prize winning Economist saying pretty much the same thing:

Joseph Stiglitz on America's increasing inequality,

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/olKOPrRqdH4" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>


I like how Stiglitz paints this not as a morality issue - but an economic one. Our economy will suffer without social programs.

[Kaylore]

So it's fake! It's pretty cool how Republicans managed to convince several European countries to fail just to fool everyone. A clever ruse indeed. Someone should tell Greece to lower the retirement age to forty and build a monorail to the moon; That'll fix their problems!

[baja]

So it's fake! It's pretty cool how Republicans managed to convince several European countries to fail just to fool everyone. A clever ruse indeed. Someone should tell Greece to lower the retirement age to forty and build a monorail to the moon; That'll fix their problems!

Or they could do what Iceland did and just refuse to pay the banksters - that country is just fine now and they were facing a similar situation to Greece.

Large continued deficit spending does not work but nor does trying to absorb derivative debt of the "too big to fail" investment banks.

..and we thought Berney Madoff ripped people off, he's small potatoes compared to the banksters.

[Kaylore]

I'm in complete agreement on the zombie banks, Baja; Let 'em die.

[baja]

I'm in complete agreement on the zombie banks, Baja; Let 'em die.

Yep. Unfortunately the banksters control the government.

[pricejj]

Only in Blart's world would $1.3T in annual U.S. deficit spending be considered "austerity".

"Austerity" is a word put into use by the European Socialists to make everyone believe that they were actually cutting spending, when in fact they are only cutting spending increases.

Tell me blart, where in this U.K. spending graph do you see any spending cuts? There aren't any. Only spending increases. "Austerity" is a lie, and you continue to propagate it.

[SoCalBronco]

Yeah...I stopped reading at Krugman.


Deficits do indeed matter. Our budget path is unsustainable just as it is for many European countries. Yes, making cuts will likely lead to a hampered recovery, but I'm willing to accept that in order to obtain the long term benefits. I would also be willing to pump prime it short term (again) in exchange for locked in, difficult to reverse serious long term structural reforms of SS and Medicare (yes, this may include serious cost shifting back to the elderly, that's fine, we'll provide a benefit, but we can't afford the current benefit, if they have to fork out another 8k a year from their pocket, thats not an unreasonable request). Yes, social programs will be gored, thats right Paul you heard it right. No one is saying they have no value. They do...they provide great services to a great many people. But like everything, else you have to make your cuts, especially when the projections for the mandatory domestic spending (SS, Med, Interest on debt) in the budget will soon eat up just about everything. Defense will also need to make their cuts and the administration has already started this (props). I think a distrinction there is you should cut from a quantitative perspective, but not a qualitative one, keep the cash in R&D and black projects, but the overall procurement of goods can be reduced, so is tax cuts (let Bush cuts expire, the "fiscal cliff" be damned, the savings are simply more important, I'm more than willing to accept a 2013 recession if thats the cost). Everyone's ox is going to get gored. Everyone.

[Blart]

So it's fake! It's pretty cool how Republicans managed to convince several European countries to fail just to fool everyone.

Despite what Glenn Beck tells you, the EU is crumbling due to austerity, not social programs. Consider a less biased source (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/455/continental-breakup).

Only in Blart's world would $1.3T in annual U.S. deficit spending be considered "austerity".

"Austerity" is a word put into use by the European Socialists to make everyone believe that they were actually cutting spending, when in fact they are only cutting spending increases.

Tell me blart, where in this U.K. spending graph do you see any spending cuts? There aren't any. Only spending increases. "Austerity" is a lie, and you continue to propagate it.

Ha! Try to tell that to any public servant in the UK. Spending rose because Cameron's *historic* spending-cuts caused mass unemployment.

This is why it's stupid to cut spending in a recession, you actually increase spending by doing so.

Also, this article was written just for you:
http://verdict.justia.com/2012/05/24/denying-the-failure-of-austerity-policies-by-claiming-that-they-were-never-enacted

Yeah...I stopped reading at Krugman.


Yeah, what do nobel prize winning Economists know about economics? What would Clinton's economic advisor and former World Bank Chief Economist know? Nothin, that's what!

Best to trust Hollywood actors (http://vimeo.com/19635232) and gynecologists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEC68vTQwP8).

[Rohirrim]

There is a fundamental aspect to this that everybody ignores, and it comes at the most basic level of why we created societies in the first place - to better serve the general welfare needs of all. Instead, we now have banks that not only ripped off America and were then bailed out by us, but who are now sitting on hundreds of billions and refuse to reinvest in this country. They will reinvest offshore, but not here. Why should they? That money is making them more money. It's kind of funny, actually. We've devised a capitalization system that now, in tough times, refuses to provide capital for us. Ha! They no longer have to capitalize anything to make more money. They can sit at a computer and move money around and get richer every day.

What allows this to happen? They own our government and government writes the laws that have re-established this feudalist system. They're on top. The majority are on the bottom. Every move they make takes more from the people and funnels it upwards. I was just reading this morning how federal and state parks are being sold off all across the country. They won't stop until everything is privatized. And that doesn't mean you get any of it. This is why this recession is different from the Great Depression. Back then, everybody got hit hard. During this one, the rich continue to get richer and use that wealth (provided by the rest of us) to collect more assets.

This whole thing is engineered feudalism. When it is all over, the rich will be not only much richer, they will have total control. The labor movement will be dead and buried and the overwhelming majority of people on Earth will be debt slaves. Guys like Walker and Ryan have spelled out the agenda. The social safety net will be a thing of the past. Every single facet of life will be privatized and fee-based, and since wages will be at sub-survival level, nobody will be out of debt. As in the days of the old "company store" of the Robber Baron era, only those who accept living in debt will survive. They've already drained the equity out of private property. Nobody can realistically navigate outside of the total control of the credit industry. Hell, your credit rating determines whether you can work or even rent some ****hole apartment somewhere. We are witnessing the birth of the corporate controlled nation/state. Don't get out of line. They also control the drones.

[alkemical]

Or they could do what Iceland did and just refuse to pay the banksters - that country is just fine now and they were facing a similar situation to Greece.

Large continued deficit spending does not work but nor does trying to absorb derivative debt of the "too big to fail" investment banks.

..and we thought Berney Madoff ripped people off, he's small potatoes compared to the banksters.

Notice how Iceland's information isn't being "marketed" here.

[pricejj]

Try to tell that to any public servant in the UK. Spending rose because Cameron's *historic* spending-cuts caused mass unemployment.

LOL

Actually, U.K. government spending rose in every single major category from 2010-2012. Welfare is the only category where spending rose lower than the rate of inflation. There is nothing "conservative" about Cameron's fake "austerity" program. Total U.K government spending has risen $43b (10.6%)...with only a $3b from increase in Welfare spending.

U.K. spending 2010-2012:
Pensions - $116.71b to $129.26b (10.8%)
Healthcare - $118.31b to $123.80b (4.6%)
Welfare - $106.69 to $110.97b (4.0%)
Education - $88.56 to $93.26 (5.3%)
Interest - $30.87b to $48.64b (57.6%)
Defense - $41.61b to $47.18b (13.4%)

Cameron is about as "conservative" as Obama and the Socialist Democrats. Notice how interest payment on debt (which you completely disregard) rose 57.6% in the same period). Naturally, spending on public Pensions eats up the largest share of U.K. spending. Until governments around the world begin to make real cuts, and start decreasing their interest payments, things will only get worse.

You lose...again.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So it's fake! It's pretty cool how Republicans managed to convince several European countries to fail just to fool everyone. A clever ruse indeed. Someone should tell Greece to lower the retirement age to forty and build a monorail to the moon; That'll fix their problems!

Those European countries are in trouble because they drank the same "free market" Kool-Aid as everyone else during the derivative bubble years.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There is a fundamental aspect to this that everybody ignores, and it comes at the most basic level of why we created societies in the first place - to better serve the general welfare needs of all. Instead, we now have banks that not only ripped off America and were then bailed out by us, but who are now sitting on hundreds of billions and refuse to reinvest in this country. They will reinvest offshore, but not here. Why should they? That money is making them more money. It's kind of funny, actually. We've devised a capitalization system that now, in tough times, refuses to provide capital for us. Ha! They no longer have to capitalize anything to make more money. They can sit at a computer and move money around and get richer every day.

What allows this to happen? They own our government and government writes the laws that have re-established this feudalist system. They're on top. The majority are on the bottom. Every move they make takes more from the people and funnels it upwards. I was just reading this morning how federal and state parks are being sold off all across the country. They won't stop until everything is privatized. And that doesn't mean you get any of it. This is why this recession is different from the Great Depression. Back then, everybody got hit hard. During this one, the rich continue to get richer and use that wealth (provided by the rest of us) to collect more assets.

This whole thing is engineered feudalism. When it is all over, the rich will be not only much richer, they will have total control. The labor movement will be dead and buried and the overwhelming majority of people on Earth will be debt slaves. Guys like Walker and Ryan have spelled out the agenda. The social safety net will be a thing of the past. Every single facet of life will be privatized and fee-based, and since wages will be at sub-survival level, nobody will be out of debt. As in the days of the old "company store" of the Robber Baron era, only those who accept living in debt will survive. They've already drained the equity out of private property. Nobody can realistically navigate outside of the total control of the credit industry. Hell, your credit rating determines whether you can work or even rent some ****hole apartment somewhere. We are witnessing the birth of the corporate controlled nation/state. Don't get out of line. They also control the drones.

Hammer --> nail --> head.

Too bad the Fox News lemmings are blind to the fact that they are cheering for their own enslavement.

[Blart]

LOL

Actually, U.K. government spending rose in every single major category from 2010-2012. Welfare is the only category where spending rose lower than the rate of inflation. There is nothing "conservative" about Cameron's fake "austerity" program. Total U.K government spending has risen $43b (10.6%)...with only a $3b from increase in Welfare spending.

U.K. spending 2010-2012:
Pensions - $116.71b to $129.26b (10.8%)
Healthcare - $118.31b to $123.80b (4.6%)
Welfare - $106.69 to $110.97b (4.0%)
Education - $88.56 to $93.26 (5.3%)
Interest - $30.87b to $48.64b (57.6%)
Defense - $41.61b to $47.18b (13.4%)

Cameron is about as "conservative" as Obama and the Socialist Democrats. Notice how interest payment on debt (which you completely disregard) rose 57.6% in the same period). Naturally, spending on public Pensions eats up the largest share of U.K. spending. Until governments around the world begin to make real cuts, and start decreasing their interest payments, things will only get worse.

You lose...again.

Can you really not figure out why pension spending is increasing, or are you just being stubborn?

If it's like you say and David Cameron is a socialist, then please write up a paper that outlines Cameron's new, well-funded social & pension programs that he's somehow kept secret. It would be huge news for the rest of the world.

Also, just so you know, other conservatives accept David Cameron and believe he's doing a good job.

Here's the conservative think-tank Heritage Foundation on Cameron in 2010, when he implemented the cuts:

"British government departments will lose on average around 19 percent of their budgets, though the National Health Service and International Development have been ringfenced and Education has been largely spared with a 3.6 percent cut. Welfare spending is to be reduced by a further £7 billion in addition to the £11 billion in welfare cuts outlined in an emergency budget in June as part of a comprehensive welfare reform package spearheaded by Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith.

The U.K. budget cuts are the most ambitious undertaken since the reforms initiated by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. They are intended to roll back 13 years of excessive spending under the Labour governments of Gordon Brown and Tony Blair"

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/10/the-uk-budget-cuts-lessons-for-the-united-states

These are the biggest cuts in the UK since Thatcher. Are you calling Thatcher a socialist as well?

And here's your "socialist" who is about to cut another 25 billion from welfare,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9268411/David-Cameron-considers-extra-25bn-of-welfare-cuts.html

Hrm I wonder why so many people are taking pensions earlier than planned? I wonder why these social-safety net programs are seeing such a large increase? What could possibly cause that?
http://www.efinancialnews.com/story/2012-04-30/job-cuts-alarm-pensions-income


This is the exact same outcome a Ron Paul / Tea Party government would have in the first two years. Another recession (if not depression), massive public sector job losses followed by private losses, increased safety-net spending, and pricejj yelling "Ron Paul is a socialist!"

[alkemical]

One of the reasons for the spike in retirements here in my "state" is the "worry" that the Gov. is coming after pensions next.

The "measure" is accelerating cost(s).

[Drek]

I'm in complete agreement on the zombie banks, Baja; Let 'em die.

You do realize that you just disproved your own previous statement then, right?

Almost every penny Spain is about to get for their bailout is being funneled to their banks. Same already happened with Greece.

I've said before on here that the U.S. federal government needs to apply anti-trust and monopoly regulations to the major banks like a jackhammer and shatter them into hundreds if not thousands of different pieces.

Follow it up with taking away all corporate subsidies that are not directly tied to U.S. job creation. Change the corporate tax rate to a flat 20% of profit. For every 1% over 80% of your workforce + subs + vendors that are U.S. residents/businesses you get a 1% deduction, up to 0% tax for any company that is entirely employing, hiring, and buying form U.S. citizens.

Bam. You just fixed the U.S. economy. Curtail military spending and shore up infrastructure programs and state economies (specifically earmarking the funds for education/police/fire dept.s) for a few years to help grease the gears and this whole nation will feel like it's in a golden age by 2020.

Better yet, make lobbying/solicitation of elected officials a federal crime and make the elected officials accepting said solicitation equally guilty. Slap a 5 year mandatory sentence on it for each offense. Then put a term limit of 10 years on any elected office. Finish by having a ban on outside campaign financing and instead require all candidates to meet a signature threshold, at which point they all get the same amount of money to run on.

Do that and wait until about 2030 and America will be the shining city on a hill it's meant to be.

[pricejj]

Can you really not figure out why pension spending is increasing, or are you just being stubborn?

Yes, for the same reasons pension spending is increasing in the U.S. Too many unessessary federal workers, with far too rich retirement packages.

Pension spending in the U.K. has increased 56% since 2001, averaging a 5% increase per year (same as Cameron's). Pension spending is the U.K.'s largest expense, taking up 22.1% of the tax revenues. Don't you think there is something wrong with that?


If it's like you say and David Cameron is a socialist, then please write up a paper that outlines Cameron's new, well-funded social & pension programs that he's somehow kept secret. It would be huge news for the rest of the world.

Your claim that "austerity" failed is false, because no spending cuts have been made. In two years, Cameron increased government spending 10.6%...Obama increased federal spending 27.5% in four years. I know Cameron tried to get more cuts past the Labor party, but failed. It doesn't matter, U.K. government spending has dramatically increased in his tenure.


These are the biggest cuts in the UK since Thatcher. Are you calling Thatcher a socialist as well?

Again, there were no spending cuts. Are you always a drama queen?


This is the exact same outcome a Ron Paul / Tea Party government would have in the first two years. Another recession (if not depression), massive public sector job losses followed by private losses, increased safety-net spending, and pricejj yelling "Ron Paul is a socialist!"

You perfectly describe the Obama presidency, which has been a complete fail of epic proportions, with an increase of $5.5T in federal debt and a net job loss of 750,000 jobs to date.

I see you want more of the same...with just more debt and misery. No thanks, I'll pass.

[barryr]

So the Obama supporters best way to convince others to vote him in is the republicans´ ideas won´t work, while Obama´s have been a smashing success? I see.

[DenverBrit]

So the Obama supporters best way to convince others to vote him in is the republicans´ ideas won´t work, while Obama´s have been a smashing success? I see.

I'm curious.

How would the GOP solve the Euro zone crisis, China's slow down and Japan's slow recovery....the major US trading partners.

[pricejj]

I'm curious.

How would the GOP solve the Euro zone crisis, China's slow down and Japan's slow recovery....the major US trading partners.

Solving the Euro zone crisis, China's slow down, and Japan (which has been in limbo since the '90s) is not our problem. Creating American jobs, and eliminating the deficit, are our problem.

Foreign trade only accounts for 24.3% of the U.S. economy. In the late '90s the unemployment rate in the U.S. was 4.2%, while Japan was in free fall.

China (51.9%), Canada (71.1%), and the German economy (89.2%) depend much more on foreign trade than the U.S.

Last year the U.S. sold a record $328B in goods to Europe (2.2% of GDP).

http://online.wsj.com/article/global_view.html

[DenverBrit]

Solving the Euro zone crisis, China's slow down, and Japan (which has been in limbo since the '90s) is not our problem.

Foreign trade only accounts for 24.3% of the U.S. economy. In the late '90s the unemployment rate in the U.S. was 4.2%, while Japan was in free fall.

China (51.9%), Canada (71.1%), and the German economy (89.2%) depend much more on foreign trade than the U.S.

Last year the U.S. sold a record $328B in goods to Europe (2.2% of GDP).

http://online.wsj.com/article/global_view.html

Interesting story, but the truth is, the worldwide slump affects the US economy.

But the larger problem of a slowing world economy can't be ignored. U.S. exports to Europe are about 15% of all overseas shipments. As Europe's economy slows, exports to Europe should slow as well. Greek unemployment is 21.7%, while Italy's is a record 10.2%. "The only country in Europe that's growing is Germany, and they're just barely growing," Wallace says. Making matters worse: As the eurozone countries have been battered by fears of a Greek or Spanish default, the euro has sunk in value vs. the dollar. That makes U.S. goods more expensive for Europeans to buy.

European leaders are waiting for the results of the June 17 election in Greece, which could result in Greek leadership more inclined to default on national debt than agree to the harsh austerity measures demanded by its creditors. In the meantime, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said she opposes raising cash for struggling eurozone countries by issuing German-backed euro-bonds.

And China's economy, a dynamo of the world economy, has begun to slow, too.

The effects of the Asian and European slowdowns are being felt around the world. Brazil's GDP grew at a 0.8% pace in the first quarter, its slowest in more than two years. And any slowdown in U.S. exports will hurt the economy here as well: Exports accounted for more than half of GDP growth last year.


http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-06-03/economy/55366586/1

[pricejj]

And any slowdown in U.S. exports will hurt the economy here as well: Exports accounted for more than half of GDP growth last year.

1. This year, U.S. exports to Europe are on pace to beat last year's record $328B in exports (regardless of the Euro's weakness).

2. China's Q1 economic growth was 8.1%.

I know Obama is trying to use Europe as an excuse. It's not gonna work.

[DenverBrit]

1. This year, U.S. exports to Europe are on pace to beat last year's record $328B in exports (regardless of the Euro's weakness).

2. China's Q1 economic growth was 8.1%.

I know Obama is trying to use Europe as an excuse. It's not gonna work.

Your previous post apparently quotes an editorial that is subscription only.....this posts has no sources.

How about posting accessible source links?

[pricejj]

Both posts can be referenced to the same article. After clicking on the link, copy and paste the article title into google. Then click on the article that pops up in google...it should give you full access, it always does for me.

China's growth rate is still expected to be around 7% (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/13/us-china-economy-growth-idUSBRE85C05H20120613) in Q2. U.S. exports to China were a record $103.9B (https://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html)in 2011.

I definitely think that Europe's instability is affecting the stock market (which Obama equates to economic growth for some strange reason), but there is no evidence that Europe's downturn is slowing U.S. economic growth.

[DenverBrit]

Both posts can be referenced to the same article. After clicking on the link, copy and paste the article title into google. Then click on the article that pops up in google...it should give you full access, it always does for me.

China's growth rate is still expected to be around 7% (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/13/us-china-economy-growth-idUSBRE85C05H20120613) in Q2. U.S. exports to China were a record $103.9B (https://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html)in 2011.

I definitely think that Europe's instability is affecting the stock market (which Obama equates to economic growth for some strange reason), but there is no evidence that Europe's downturn is slowing U.S. economic growth.

And yet, corporations and banks are sitting on record amounts of cash and enjoying the best corporate profits in memory.

What is Romney's plan to get those corporations hiring again?

[Drek]

1. This year, U.S. exports to Europe are on pace to beat last year's record $328B in exports (regardless of the Euro's weakness).

2. China's Q1 economic growth was 8.1%.

I know Obama is trying to use Europe as an excuse. It's not gonna work.

The problem isn't exports. The dollar value of exports will always go up when there is inflation, and there is rampant inflation globally as the U.S. and the EU are basically in a race to print more money than the other.

The problem is that large portions of the wealth globally are held by large international companies who are heavily leveraged with regards to the Eurozone crisis.

If the banks didn't get bailed out in Greece your major banks would see a firestorm of red ink slam their books. Same with Spain. The major banks have been playing fast and loose with their bets for too long and are now leveraged up to the hilt in defaulting economies. They refuse to move money to all but the safest of bets for fear that the Eurozone will crash and they'll need their own treasure troves to offset the waves of red ink that will crash down upon them.

You can't equate the global economy with productivity. We've seen that in our own stock market where companies who actually produce something are being valued at far less than the people who push around slips of paper saying who owns portions of said company. Its a shell game, and one we can't fix without major global economic reform.

Instead we're seeing the world leaders across the board kick the can down the road. The EU is bailing out any needy country, the U.S. already had a bank bailout in full effect before Obama even stepped in to office. No one is taking a sledgehammer to these "too big to fail" banks that are holding the world hostage while demanding an ever growing percentage of the wealth.

[TonyR]

I ran the numbers on total government employment after the 1981, 1990, 2001 and 2008 recessions. I made government employment on the eve of the recession equal to "1," so what you’re seeing is total change in the ensuing 54 months, which is how much time has elapsed since the start of this recession. As you can see, government employment tends to rise during recessions, helping to cushion their impact. But with the exception of a spike when we hired temporary workers for the decennial census, it’s fallen sharply during this recession. Note that a Republican was president after the 1981, 1990 and 2000 recessions. Public-sector austerity looks a lot better to conservatives when they’re out of power than when they’re in it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/public-sector-austerity-in-one-graph/2012/06/11/gJQAv89NVV_blog.html

If state and local governments had followed the pattern of the previous two recessions, they would have added 1.4 million to 1.9 million jobs and overall unemployment would be 7.0 to 7.3 percent instead of 8.2 percent.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/americas-hidden-austerity-program/

[pricejj]

And yet, corporations and banks are sitting on record amounts of cash and enjoying the best corporate profits in memory.

What is Romney's plan to get those corporations hiring again?

I haven't studied up on Romney yet, so I don't know what his plans are.

There are three things I would do:
1. Lower the corporate tax rate to 25% (with a prospect for further reductions) and close the loopholes.
2. Create a stable individual and business-friendly corporate tax policy without prospect of a "fiscal cliff", eliminating new mandates, and immediately stop attempting to demonize corporations.
3. Stabilize and strengthen the dollar by dramatically reducing the deficit.

[pricejj]

The problem isn't exports. The dollar value of exports will always go up when there is inflation, and there is rampant inflation globally as the U.S. and the EU are basically in a race to print more money than the other.

I don't disagree, decreasing inflation is of paramount importance. However, for the sake of this argument, U.S. exports have been increasing far greater than the rate of inflation to both Europe (11% (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0003.html#2010) increase in U.S. exports in 2011) and China (13.1% (https://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html) increase in U.S. exports in 2011).

The problem is that large portions of the wealth globally are held by large international companies who are heavily leveraged with regards to the Eurozone crisis.

If the banks didn't get bailed out in Greece your major banks would see a firestorm of red ink slam their books. Same with Spain. The major banks have been playing fast and loose with their bets for too long and are now leveraged up to the hilt in defaulting economies. They refuse to move money to all but the safest of bets for fear that the Eurozone will crash and they'll need their own treasure troves to offset the waves of red ink that will crash down upon them.

You can't equate the global economy with productivity. We've seen that in our own stock market where companies who actually produce something are being valued at far less than the people who push around slips of paper saying who owns portions of said company. Its a shell game, and one we can't fix without major global economic reform.

Instead we're seeing the world leaders across the board kick the can down the road. The EU is bailing out any needy country, the U.S. already had a bank bailout in full effect before Obama even stepped in to office. No one is taking a sledgehammer to these "too big to fail" banks that are holding the world hostage while demanding an ever growing percentage of the wealth.

I don't disagree. There is no reason taxpayers should be held accountable for the risk that "too big to fail" banks take by over-lending and purchasing vast quantities of securities. Regulation definitely needs to be put in place breaking up big banks to reduce the impact of singular failures, decrease allowable leveraging ratios, and removing tax-payer liability.

The Dodd-Frank legislation did none of that, in fact, it did the complete opposite.

Leadership needs to concentrate on decoupling banks from government, and the ability to cripple the economy, not vise-versa.

[DenverBrit]

I haven't studied up on Romney yet, so I don't know what his plans are.

There are three things I would do:
1. Lower the corporate tax rate to 25% (with a prospect for further reductions) and close the loopholes.
2. Create a stable individual and business-friendly corporate tax policy without prospect of a "fiscal cliff", eliminating new mandates, and immediately stop attempting to demonize corporations.
3. Stabilize and strengthen the dollar by dramatically reducing the deficit.

If you're going to do Barry's homework, you should at least study. ;D

[DenverBrit]

I don't disagree, decreasing inflation is of paramount importance. However, for the sake of this argument, U.S. exports have been increasing far greater than the rate of inflation to both Europe (11% (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0003.html#2010) increase in U.S. exports in 2011) and China (13.1% (https://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html) increase in U.S. exports in 2011).


2012 show a different picture.

As the global economy weakens and the dollar strengthens, U.S. companies are finding it harder to sell their goods abroad.

U.S. exports declined in April for the first time since November, dropping $1.5 billion from March, or 0.8%, to $182.9 billion, the government said Friday. Imports also sagged, suggesting Europe's economic turmoil and slowing in China are affecting U.S. trade.

In the first four months of the year, U.S. exports of goods to the 27-member European Union grew just 3.5% from the same period a year ago. That compares with the 15.3% growth of exports to the EU in January-April ....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303665904577454133309426776.html?m od=googlenews_wsj
U.S. Exports Take a Noticeable Hit in April

The trade deficit of the U.S. economy narrowed to $50.1 billion in April from $52.6 billion in the prior month. Exports of goods and services fell 0.8%, while imports of goods and services declined 1.7% in April. After adjusting for inflation, exports of goods fell 1.5%, marking the fourth monthly drop in the last six months, while imports of goods dropped 1.6%.
http://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/analysis-reports/daily-global-commentary/2012/06/10/

[pricejj]

U.S. trade is still growing to both Europe and China, just more slowly than in 2011. Obama attempts to attribute the lack of U.S. job creation, to Europe's recession...which is factually incorrect.

Like I said, we are talking about U.S. exports totalling $431B (for both Europe and China), or 2.9% of GDP.

Basically, Obama is blaming a sector that comprises 2.9% of GDP (which grew by ~4% in the first quarter) on a lack of job creation here in the U.S.

How stupid does he think we are? He may want to start focusing on the remaining 97.1% of the U.S. domestic economy that his job-killing policies have had a direct impact on.

[Blart]

Your claim that "austerity" failed is false, because no spending cuts have been made. In two years, Cameron increased government spending 10.6%...Obama increased federal spending 27.5% in four years. I know Cameron tried to get more cuts past the Labor party, but failed. It doesn't matter, U.K. government spending has dramatically increased in his tenure.

Again, there were no spending cuts. Are you always a drama queen?


If David Cameron has increased the size of government, you should be able to tell us how.

What social programs has David Cameron started, what social programs has he increased, and how many state workers has he hired? What industries has Cameron nationalized for the people?

Please tell us, I'm excited to hear about David Cameron the socialist. You may want to send this info to wikileaks as well, as this would be a huge revelation.


Note: saying that "spending has increased" and listing a few numbers isn't specific. If you're not specific, a nasty liberal could make one of their communist claims that austerity caused another recession, which increased social safety net spending due to unemployment.

[pricejj]

If David Cameron has increased the size of government, you should be able to tell us how.

What social programs has David Cameron started, what social programs has he increased, and how many state workers has he hired? What industries has Cameron nationalized for the people?

Please tell us, I'm excited to hear about David Cameron the socialist. You may want to send this info to wikileaks as well, as this would be a huge revelation.


Note: saying that "spending has increased" and listing a few numbers isn't specific. If you're not specific, a nasty liberal could make one of their communist claims that austerity caused another recession, which increased social safety net spending due to unemployment.

1. You are also putting words in my mouth. I never called Cameron a Socialist.
2. I have provided all the data that is relevant to to prove that your original premise is false.

U.K. government spending has dramatically increased in Interest, Pensions, Healthcare, Defense, and Education, with the lowest spending increase attributed to Welfare.

Your premise that government spending cuts are forcing Europe into recession is completely false.

You have completely failed, and are now changing your argument to a position which you believe you can win. Whether or not David Cameron is a Socialist... I have no interest in whatever meaningless label that you attach to Cameron, or in the corner that you are attempting to pin me into. Much like the word "Austerity" in Europe, your new argument means nothing. I am moving on.

[Blart]

U.K. government spending has dramatically increased in Interest, Pensions, Healthcare, Defense, and Education, with the lowest spending increase attributed to Welfare.



You're pointing to a symptom, but not looking at the cause. All I'm asking of you is to give me your version of the cause, not just reiterate the symptom.

Cameron has cut pensions, healthcare, welfare, and education. Because of the cuts - the economy sucks, which is causing people to fall back on their last option: government safety nets.

Are you disputing the fact that Cameron has cut the public sector?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/03/david-cameron-public-sector-cuts-permanent
Are you disputing the fact that Cameron has cut pensions?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/8217746/Cut-in-public-sector-pensions-non-negotiable-David-Cameron-says.html
Are you denying that Cameron has cut benefits for the sick and poor?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2094805/Why-does-David-Cameron-insist-disability-cuts-sickened-party.html

Cameron has tried to cut back on everything you list as increasing. The result? It killed the economy, and people have to fall back on what's left of those programs.

Private healthcare? If you're too poor, you use public healthcare.
Pensions? If you've lost your job, retire early.
Education? If you can't get a job, go back to school.

Increased spending is just one result of austerity.

[Drek]

I don't disagree, decreasing inflation is of paramount importance. However, for the sake of this argument, U.S. exports have been increasing far greater than the rate of inflation to both Europe (11% (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0003.html#2010) increase in U.S. exports in 2011) and China (13.1% (https://www.uschina.org/statistics/tradetable.html) increase in U.S. exports in 2011).

It hasn't outpaced inflation by much if any when you look at the real inflation numbers, and I don't mean the lie that gets labelled as "real inflation index". Those numbers don't include fuel or food increases, the two fastest inflating segments of the economy. How much of a joke is that?

[/quote]I don't disagree. There is no reason taxpayers should be held accountable for the risk that "too big to fail" banks take by over-lending and purchasing vast quantities of securities. Regulation definitely needs to be put in place breaking up big banks to reduce the impact of singular failures, decrease allowable leveraging ratios, and removing tax-payer liability.

The Dodd-Frank legislation did none of that, in fact, it did the complete opposite.

Leadership needs to concentrate on decoupling banks from government, and the ability to cripple the economy, not vise-versa.[/QUOTE]
I'd agree. Dodd-Frank is a weak attempt to patch over the hole filled by the removal of Glass-Steagall. But Washington is unwilling to pick that fight after cracking the lid of Pandora's Box after their predecessors locked it up tight as they could following the Great Depression.

The law is there. It was on the books before this mess went full supernova. Shortly after it was repealed this **** happened. It was put in place immediately after the last time this **** happened. You'd think people would learn their lessons from history.


How stupid does he think we are? He may want to start focusing on the remaining 97.1% of the U.S. domestic economy that his job-killing policies have had a direct impact on.
What job killing policies are those? The private sector has replaced 90% of the jobs lost during the recession. The public sector has replaced ZERO of the jobs it lost and now accounts for over half of the missing pre-recession jobs.

His policies towards private industry have been as friendly as any GOP president. The problem with the economy is financial inflexibility by major banks hamstringing small to medium business, and the major retraction we've seen on government spending at the state levels, resulting in massive infrastructure, police, fire dept., and teacher layoffs.

Break the banks, prop up the states' for a few years to get them back on their feet, and the economy will be doing just fine in record time.

The cycle this nation should be running on is to be a debtor as a nation when times are tough and the states need a hand, but to pay down those debts when times are good and the states can handle things on their own. This doesn't happen because politicians want to exercise great largess during the good times instead of exercising fiscal prudence and eliminating debt.

[pricejj]

What job killing policies are those?

Excluding public sector gains/losses, Obama has lost 257,000 private sector jobs, during his Presidency, creating the weakest post-recession recovery in history.

Here are a few of his job-killing policies:
1. Obamacare
2. Renewing the corporate tax rate at 35% (the highest in the world)
3. The first credit downgrade in U.S. history
4. Creating the specter of a "fiscal cliff" at the end of 2012
5. Running up an additional $5.5T in debt
6. Other job-killing taxes (air fare tax, medical device tax, etc.)

The only thing Obama has done to create jobs is print trillions of dollars, inflating the money supply, and weakening the dollar, while decreasing the cost of exports. Too bad there are a whole boatload of negatives with that policy that far outweigh any shorterm gain he may have enjoyed.


Yo Blart, Drek is claiming inflation is, in fact, real (because it is). What say you?

[pricejj]

Hopefully the SCOTUS deems Obamacare unconstitutional here in the next 2 weeks. I would actually expect a mild economic rebound if that happens.

It's really Obama's only hope for net positive job growth during his term as President.

If Obamacare were to be deemed unconstitutional, Obama's ONLY significant contribution to U.S. current and future policy, would be as the single largest debtor President in American history (in only 4 years).

[BroncoBeavis]

Better yet, make lobbying/solicitation of elected officials a federal crime and make the elected officials accepting said solicitation equally guilty.

There's a small Constitutional problem with this. And by small I mean big.

[W*GS]

pricejj has all the hardcore wingnut spin and propaganda down cold...

[Blart]

Can you cite your source for Obamacare costing jobs? I can't find a single independent study showing negative economic effects.



Edit:
I'm finding the opposite.
Politifact:
"Obamacare ... will kill jobs across America."
http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Ftom-false.gif
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/feb/15/us-chamber-commerce/us-chamber-commerce-ad-attacking-tim-kaine-says-he/

Factcheck:
GOP’s ‘Job-Killing’ Whopper, Again
Republican attack ads peddle a shopworn, overblown claim about the health care law's effects.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/02/gops-job-killing-whopper-again-2/

So.. yeah. Some cited sources for the job killing claim would be nice.

[pricejj]

Can you cite your source for Obamacare costing jobs? I can't find a single independent study showing negative economic effects.

Would you consider the fact that Obamacare is increasing health care costs (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obamacare-costs-double-CBO/2012/03/14/id/432506), to be an adverse effect?

pricejj has all the hardcore wingnut spin and propaganda down cold...

Are you arguing the validity of CBO's Obamacare cost projection?

(btw - the insults you spew do nothing)

[Blart]

Would you consider the fact that Obamacare is increasing health care costs (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obamacare-costs-double-CBO/2012/03/14/id/432506), to be an adverse effect?


I think you should consider your source. NewsMax (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=NewsMax.com) was founded by the Scaife (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Scaife) family, and is affiliated with Move America Forward (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Move_America_Forward) - a pro-war lobby.

That probably explains why NewsMax is following the GOP's "odd misreading" of the CBO report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/no-the-cbo-hasnt-doubled-its-cost-estimate-for-health-care-reform/2011/08/25/gIQAZj7FPS_blog.html

The first CBO estimates he quotes run from 2010 to 2019. The second set run from 2012 to 2022. That is to say, the first set of estimates spans 10 years and includes four years where the bill is being implemented (2010-2013) and six in which it’s fully operational (2014-2019). The second set spans 11 years and includes only two years in which it’s being implemented (2012, 2013) and nine years in which it is fully operation (2014-2022).

In other words, to say the cost estimates of Obamacare "doubled" - the GOP compared 6 years to 9. Not very honest.

Read the report yourself, without the spin:
http://cbo.gov/publication/43080


As for costs to individuals, the CBO reports that pretty much all groups are going to save money on their premiums, from 3% to 40%.

For the effect on health insurance premiums, the CBO referred[179]:15 to its November 2009 analysis[236] and stated that the effects would "probably be quite similar" to that earlier analysis. That analysis forecasted that by 2016, for the non-group market comprising 17% of the market, premiums per person would increase by 10 to 13% but that over half of these insureds would receive subsidies that would decrease the premium paid to "well below" premiums charged under current law. For the small group market, 13% of the market, premiums would be impacted 1 to −3% and −8 to −11% for those receiving subsidies; for the large group market comprising 70% of the market, premiums would be impacted 0 to −3%, with insureds under high premium plans subject to excise taxes being charged −9 to −12%. The analysis was affected by various factors including increased benefits particularly for the nongroup markets, more healthy insureds due to the mandate, administrative efficiencies related to the health exchanges, and insureds under high premium plans reducing benefits in response to the tax.[236]

The Associated Press reported that, as a result of the Act's provisions concerning the Medicare Part D coverage gap, individuals falling in this "donut hole" would save about 40 percent.[237] Almost all of the savings came because, with regard to brand-name drugs, the Act secured a discount from pharmaceutical companies.[237] The change benefited more than two million people, most of them in the middle class.[237]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Other_e ffects_on_individuals

I'm in a minority group that will pay slightly more (non-group, over 400% poverty line - unless I set my business up to buy through an exchange), but to see some of my idiot friends finally get healthcare will be worth it.

[Drek]

1. Obamacare

How is this killing jobs? Its pushing millions more clients into the arms of private sector insurance.

2. Renewing the corporate tax rate at 35% (the highest in the world)
Key word here: Renewing. He didn't set the rates in the first place. As is most companies pay nothing close to that. I agree that it should be lowered in exchange for closing loop holes, but this is a congress/senate issue as much as Obama.

3. The first credit downgrade in U.S. history
Obama had reached a "grand bargain" with Boehner prior to this that would have averted the problem. He had the dems strong armed into accepting it. Boehner failed to get his party in line. How can you blame Obama for obstructionist GOP members who would rather watch the country burn than break a promise to Grover Norquist?

4. Creating the specter of a "fiscal cliff" at the end of 2012
Obama isn't the guy who put into place this fiscal cliff that the congress and senate are hurtling towards. The special committee that was supposed to reach a budget agreement are the ones who kicked this can down the road.

5. Running up an additional $5.5T in debt
And if he'd been like any of his GOP predecessors he'd have easily cleared $6T and be running down $7T. Again, like I pointed out in another thread, lowest budgetary growth rate of any president since Eisenhower.

6. Other job-killing taxes (air fare tax, medical device tax, etc.)
Wait, I thought you wanted a reasonable budget. The populous has demanded the TSA as a post-9/11 binky and things like the airfare tax is how you pay for it. If you don't tax the airlines (and by proxy the passengers) for it then you either pay for it out of general tax dollars which means either higher overall taxes or greater deficit spending.

Same with medical device tax. This is a heavily gov't. subsidized field as medicare recipients are particularly taxing on our medical facilities. This is how you start to off-set the red ink the program itself is generating without penalizing everyone else.

So what your really saying is he should be scrapping multiple government programs started by his predecessors as opposed to looking for viable financial systems that will keep programs the populous previously requested in operation. Kinda goes against the democratic process.

[Drek]

There's a small Constitutional problem with this. And by small I mean big.

I'll augment a bit: by lobbying/soliciting I mean lobbying/soliciting when directly tied to campaign donations and other fiscal incentives for our representatives.

No one should be able to BUY an elected official's time or sway their opinions through campaign donations. Right now that isn't just a dirty secret in Washington, it's the known driving force for almost all legislation.

[pricejj]

How is this killing jobs? Its pushing millions more clients into the arms of private sector insurance.

If consumers are forced to purchase an expensive product (health insurance), then they will have less money to allocate to purchasing other products (like homes), or starting businesses. If an employer is forced to offer health insurance coverage for employees, they will hire less employees. Businesses with no payrolls (self-employed) account for 75% (http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html) of U.S. businesses. Make no mistake that the specter of full implementation of Obamacare, and escalating health-care costs (which Obamacare has attributed to), are preventing businesses from hiring, and businesses from being created.

Key word here: Renewing. He didn't set the rates in the first place. As is most companies pay nothing close to that. I agree that it should be lowered in exchange for closing loop holes, but this is a congress/senate issue as much as Obama.

The Democrats held full power of the Congress from 2006-10, having a full-majority (including President Obama), from 2008-10. They did nothing to alter tax rates. Since 2010, Obama and the Democrats have repeatedly shot down House Republican attempts to lower the corporate tax rate and close the loopholes. Even Bill Clinton, says the corporate tax rate should be lowered (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58275.html).


Obama had reached a "grand bargain" with Boehner prior to this that would have averted the problem. He had the dems strong armed into accepting it. Boehner failed to get his party in line. How can you blame Obama for obstructionist GOP members who would rather watch the country burn than break a promise to Grover Norquist?

According to the CBO, Obama's "grand bargain" would still lead to a credit downgrade. In fact, no plan that Obama or the Democrats put forth would have avoided a credit downgrade. Obama and the Democrats refuse to cut federal spending, and it is physically impossible to collect $3.7T in tax revenue from U.S. taxpayers. With current levels of federal spending, there is no Democrat plan that would cut the federal deficit to less than $1T.

Obama isn't the guy who put into place this fiscal cliff that the congress and senate are hurtling towards. The special committee that was supposed to reach a budget agreement are the ones who kicked this can down the road.

Yes, he most certainly is. Obama instituted the one-year SS tax rate cut from 6.2% to 4.2% (set to expire). Obama and the Democrat super-majority passed the massive 20% federal spending increase in 2009, while keeping the tax rates the same (which is completely irresponsible). It's not the Republican's fault that current levels of federal spending are unprecedented, and unsustainable (24% of GDP). The Republican House has passed bill after bill that would cut federal spending, only to be rejected by Obama and Harry Reid.


And if he'd been like any of his GOP predecessors he'd have easily cleared $6T and be running down $7T. Again, like I pointed out in another thread, lowest budgetary growth rate of any president since Eisenhower.

Your statement is patently false. Obama has had (by far) the largest federal spending to GDP ratio (24%) of any President since WWII.

Wait, I thought you wanted a reasonable budget. The populous has demanded the TSA as a post-9/11 binky and things like the airfare tax is how you pay for it. If you don't tax the airlines (and by proxy the passengers) for it then you either pay for it out of general tax dollars which means either higher overall taxes or greater deficit spending.

LOL I don't recall "the populous" voting to form the TSA. The TSA was formed in 2002, and has a yearly budget of $8.1B Obama's airline tax would generate $1.8B per year. Luckily, House Republicans did the smart thing and recently voted to cut TSA funding (which Reid will undoubtedly table).

Same with medical device tax. This is a heavily gov't. subsidized field as medicare recipients are particularly taxing on our medical facilities. This is how you start to off-set the red ink the program itself is generating without penalizing everyone else.

No. The Medical Device Tax was included in Obamacare to help pay for the monstrous cost of the bill. Also included in the bill were new taxes like the Mortgage Origination Tax.

So what your really saying is he should be scrapping multiple government programs started by his predecessors as opposed to looking for viable financial systems that will keep programs the populous previously requested in operation. Kinda goes against the democratic process.

He should be looking for "viable financial systems" to keep the multiple programs he started, running. He doubled the annual federal deficit from $700B (part of which was a one-time stimulus) to $1.3T annually, created a huge new entitlement (Obamacare), and has done nothing to pay for it.

[Blart]

If consumers are forced to purchase an expensive product (health insurance), then they will have less money to allocate to purchasing other products (like homes), or starting businesses. If an employer is forced to offer health insurance coverage for employees, they will hire less employees. Businesses with no payrolls (self-employed) account for 75% (http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html) of U.S. businesses. Make no mistake that the specter of full implementation of Obamacare, and escalating health-care costs (which Obamacare has attributed to), are preventing businesses from hiring, and businesses from being created.


The CBO has shown health insurance premiums will drop with the reform. We've already discussed this.

[pricejj]

The CBO has shown health insurance premiums will drop with the reform. We've already discussed this.

Not true. CBO estimates indicate the Obamacare price Tag shifts from $940 Billion to $1.76 Trillion (http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html).

[pricejj]

This report shows Obamacare will increase health insurance premiums (http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/22/how-obamacare-dramatically-increases-the-cost-of-insurance-for-young-workers/)by 19-30 percent.

Also, what about all the people who have minimum health care costs that they pay out-of-pocket? Obamacare unconstitutionally forces them the health insurance market. Health care costs certainly increase for them.

[Blart]

Not true. CBO estimates indicate the Obamacare price Tag shifts from $940 Billion to $1.76 Trillion (http://news.yahoo.com/cbo-obamacare-price-tag-shifts-940-billion-1-163500655.html).

You didn't read my reply to your other post.

Again, that report is cooked. The "increase" is because some GOP genius threw out numbers comparing 6 years to 9 years (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/no-the-cbo-hasnt-doubled-its-cost-estimate-for-health-care-reform/2011/08/25/gIQAZj7FPS_blog.html). Read the CBO report without the spin,

http://cbo.gov/publication/43080


This report shows Obamacare will increase health insurance premiums (http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/22/how-obamacare-dramatically-increases-the-cost-of-insurance-for-young-workers/)by 19-30 percent.

Also, what about all the people who have minimum health care costs that they pay out-of-pocket? Obamacare unconstitutionally forces them the health insurance market. Health care costs certainly increase for them.

For about 8% of the population. ~90% will have cheaper premiums. Again, read the CBO report yourself, or a summary with a little less spin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Other_e ffects_on_individuals

[pricejj]

Obama himself said that Obamacare would cost $900B in 2009. Regardless if you think that his original estimate was correct or not (which it's not), can the U.S. taxpayers really afford an additional $900B in new entitlement spending, when we are already running a $1.3T deficit?

[Blart]

Obama himself said that Obamacare would cost $900B in 2009. Regardless if you think that his original estimate was correct or not (which it's not), can the U.S. taxpayers really afford an additional $900B in new entitlement spending, when we are already running a $1.3T deficit?

It was about 8% off, not bad. If you count the savings, it's actually cheaper now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/health%20reform%20gross%20costcoverage%20aca.jpg?u uid=a8ORUHKKEeG3R-5kJlrmxg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/heath%20care%20net%20cost%20coverage.jpg?uuid=lOeS tnKKEeG3R-5kJlrmxg

Can our society afford the cost?

Debt is very cheap at the moment, so we should use this opportunity to build our infrastructure. Nothing like cheap money. Buy low!

And as far as infrastructure goes, healthcare is one of the best investments a society can make on itself.

We'll get more doctors, nurses, and (ugh) insurance agents,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/02/healthreformjobs.html


I'd prefer all of that money go to doctors, nurses and better hospitals, but that's called Universal Healthcare, and it would make us communist like Canada. Because of freedom, we have to give a large chunk of that money to insurance companies.

But yes, it's still a wiser choice than doing nothing, or slashing spending and wallowing in recession.

[pricejj]

Fortunately, for us non-Massachusetts residents, a laboratory for the individual mandate already exists. Health insurance premiums in Massachusetts (which were already the nations highest) are rising relentlessly for both families and for the state government. The median annual premium for family plans jumped 10% from 2007 to 2009 to $14,300. (http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/economy/massachusetts_healthcare_reform.fortune/index.htm)

[pricejj]

The wiki entry indicates (based on 2009 analysis worst-case)-

Insurance bearing individuals:
non-group (17% of market): +13%
small-group (13% of market): +1%
large-group (70% of market): 0% (plus an excise tax of 12%)

That is quite a large worst-case increase, even with CBO's initial 2009 rosy estimate.

You also must include the enormous additional burden being placed on the U.S. taxpayer due to subsidies and Medicaid expansion. Taking Obama's incorrect figure of $900B (over 10 years). That equates to an additional $300 yearly tax on every man, woman, and child in the United States.

[pricejj]

[/I'd prefer all of that money go to doctors, nurses and better hospitals, but that's called Universal Healthcare, and it would make us communist like Canada. Because of freedom, we have to give a large chunk of that money to insurance companies.

Actually, because of Obamacare ,we have to give a large chunk of that money to insurance companies.

I like the House Republicans bill that would allow interstate purchasing of health insurance. That measure would actually begin to reduce costs...something Obamacare could never do.

[Blart]

Fortunately, for us non-Massachusetts residents, a laboratory for the individual mandate already exists. Health insurance premiums in Massachusetts (which were already the nations highest) are rising relentlessly for both families and for the state government. The median annual premium for family plans jumped 10% from 2007 to 2009 to $14,300. (http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/economy/massachusetts_healthcare_reform.fortune/index.htm)

Which is why they're likely passing price controls this July.

Insurance bearing individuals:
non-group (17% of market): +13%
small-group (13% of market): +1%
large-group (70% of market): 0% (plus an excise tax of 12%)

There is no best case scenario, there is no middle ground, only the worst case scenario! You're a true conservative.

Actually, because of Obamacare ,we have to give a large chunk of that money to insurance companies.
Duh.


I like the House Republicans bill that would allow interstate purchasing of health insurance. That measure would actually begin to reduce costs...something Obamacare could never do.

hahaha

[pricejj]

Which is why they're likely passing price controls this July.

Perfect, which will force health care professionals to ration health care even further.

What are your feelings about being forced to pay 100% of the costs for birth control and office visits for women?

[Blart]

Perfect, which will force health care professionals to ration health care even further.

What are your feelings about being forced to pay 100% of the costs for birth control and office visits for women?

Insurance corporations - like all corporations, have only one objective - their bottom line. They are legally bound to make profits for their shareholders, they are not legally bound to act ethically.

It would be ethical to keep insurance prices in line with inflation, but not as profitable. Hence the need for price controls.

I agree it's silly to have all this red tape and regulation, as corporations will act up to the limit of each regulation (and constantly search for loopholes) but that's liberalism for you. I'd prefer to nationalize this industry.

[pricejj]

I'd prefer to nationalize this industry.

I know you would, and you already know my feelings on that subject. Not going to rehash it here.

[Drek]

Actually, because of Obamacare ,we have to give a large chunk of that money to insurance companies.

I like the House Republicans bill that would allow interstate purchasing of health insurance. That measure would actually begin to reduce costs...something Obamacare could never do.

You do know that Obama has endorsed this exact thing multiple times right? When it came time for the healthcare plan and insurance companies didn't want that (they like their walled gardens) the GOP railed against it. Now that Obama's passed his bill they're suddenly in favor of it, when they know it'll never pass. Pretty convenient bit of rhetoric.

[pricejj]

You do know that Obama has endorsed this exact thing multiple times right? When it came time for the healthcare plan and insurance companies didn't want that (they like their walled gardens) the GOP railed against it. Now that Obama's passed his bill they're suddenly in favor of it, when they know it'll never pass. Pretty convenient bit of rhetoric.

False. The Democrats had a super-majority, and interstate insurance was not included in the bill. Sorry, Democrats had every opportunity to fashion the bill exactly how they wanted, and did.

I especially despise the Democrats for repeatedly voting down re-importation of drugs (including in Obamacare), for the past several years. Allowing drug re-importation would certainly cut health care costs. Democrats refuse it.

[BroncoBeavis]

False. The Democrats had a super-majority, and interstate insurance was not included in the bill. Sorry, Democrats had every opportunity to fashion the bill exactly how they wanted, and did.

I especially despise the Democrats for repeatedly voting down re-importation of drugs (including in Obamacare), for the past several years. Allowing drug re-importation would certainly cut health care costs. Democrats refuse it.

That was because the White House did a backroom deal with PhRMA in reimportation. There's been a lot of sleazy details that have come out recently on all that.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/memos-unveil-how-white-house-worked-with-phrma-to-sell-obamacare/

Looks like they were coordinating with Big Pharma on political ad buys and everything. If a Republican ran the White House, these guys would be calling for a criminal investigation.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I'm curious.

How would the GOP solve the Euro zone crisis, China's slow down and Japan's slow recovery....the major US trading partners.

The same way they "solve" our domestic economic problems, i.e., with more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, and by doubling down on the trickle-down Kool-Aid.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

If a Republican ran the White House, these guys would be calling for a criminal investigation.

And people like you would be protesting that investigation every step of the way.