or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by BRussell

Well I don't know enough about this to come up with my own numbers, and I don't know if there's a difference between population growth and job growth - new born babies are not going into the work force, for example - but 90,000/month does seem to be a standard job growth population adjustment number. 
Do you have anything to back that up? One of my favorite bloggers keeps a running tally of the job numbers and subtracts out his estimate of population growth, and this is what he says:    
Yes, as I understand it, the unemployment rate always is lowered when people give up looking. But you can also look at the number of jobs added, and the last couple of (bad) reports were revised upwards, which is clearly a good thing. It's that "jobs added" metric that is probably more important than the unemployment rate which is, as you note, kind of a strange measure. But the unemployment number is the headline, and it dropped below 8%, so I'm sure Obama will be happy...
And so conservatism (with the exception of NoahJ) continues its descent into solipsism and nihilism. 
It definitely wasn't great. Worst of any incumbent? That seems hard to believe but I can't really remember all the ones I've seen.    Last night he sounded like the kind of Republican I could support. He sounded pragmatic and non-ideological. The problem is that he's been something different in the past and he'll be something different again. And, for better or worse, the party is extremely important. I sincerely doubt that a president has enough power to lead the party...
Obamacare reduces the deficit. By repealing it, Republicans would increase the deficit.
If that's true, then why do all the countries with the most socialized medicine spend so much less per capita on health care than us, and why is there no counter-example in the world? I'd just like to see even one example of your theory in action, because there sure are tons of examples of my theory, as in, every other wealthy country in the world.   The evidence indicates that socialized medicine is more efficient than private insurance. I know that's inconsistent with...
You can say that the problem is on the spending side as long as you acknowledge that that is an ideological position, not a mathematical one. Spending is up to about 24-25% of GDP when it's historically been closer to 21-22%. Taxes are at about 15% of GDP when they've historically been closer to 18-19%. Mathematically they should be about the same. At what level they both should be, e.g., 15, 20, or 25%, is an ideological question. I'm not saying that it's wrong to have...
If you don't agree that health costs are the only true budget problem that we in the US have, then I'm sorry but you don't understand the US budget. Fixing health care costs does fix the long-term debt, it is the only way to fix the long-term debt, and any plan that doesn't address health costs can't fix the debt. It's why Paul Ryan gets virtually all of his savings from health care, and so does every other serious proposal.   But you're defending Romney's "Big Bird"...
Tyson's point is perfect, and every serious budget expert - including people like Ryan - would acknowledge it under other circumstances, and have repeatedly in the past. They would also say that there's really only one real problem issue in the budget: Health care.   And on that front, Romney attacked Obama for cutting Medicare ("I'm going to give back the $716 billion that Obama cut from medicare"), attacked what is probably the most important cost-control measure...
New Posts  All Forums: