Why Aren't We Doing This? - Page 2

Originally Posted by segovius

Probably a mistake to underestimate the British people's attachment to the principle of the NHS. Particularly if you don't understand the concept or know anything about the UK.

There are sheep there for sure just like the US but they are a different breed and can get nasty if pushed too far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac
They've also said they arre " Managing decline ". Is that really what you want for us?

That's the kind of cheap, strawman-like argument I'd expect from you. First, "managing decline" doesn't necessarily mean the decline of a nation over time, nor does it mean one embraces and accepts such decline as permanent. Secondly, how do these 500,000 government jobs create growth? You seem to be implying that these jobs benefit the economy, which they don't on the whole.


Quote:

And if this is really what you want why weren't we doing this during the Bush years when this was all brewing?

Because the fiscal situation is totally different. The deficit is 4x as high, and the national debt is accumulating at around 4x the speed. Spending is off the charts compared to the Bush years, even if one puts aside TARP which added to the FY 2009 deficit. Meanwhile, the government is growing by leaps and bounds...far faster than it did during Bush (where it grew too much). And let's not forget, I've always called for lower spending. When deficits were in the 200-400 billion range, I said that I didn't like them, but that the deficits were manageable. I still think they WERE manageable. These deficits are not.

As for things "brewing" during the Bush years, I agree with that. However, I think you'd be hard pressed to show which Bush Administration policies led to the recession. "Tax cuts for the rich" isn't the reason, nor are the wars. "Deregulation" is not the reason, either. "Being asleep at the switch" (as you've stated before) is nothing but meaningless rhetoric. The truth is that the roots of the crisis go back to the Carter admin (not a political shot there...if you prefer I can just write "go back 35 years).

" Managing decline "

However, I think you'd be hard pressed to show which Bush Administration policies led to the recession.

European governments, including France, Germany and Great Britain, are all looking at austerity measures to help battle the current financial crisis. It might seem like common sense to tighten a country's belt in hard economic times, but one expert warns that the U.S. shouldn't follow suit.

Brown University political economist Mark Blyth believes that Britain's use of austerity is a dangerous idea that will ultimately lead to reducing the economy overall. If the United States government tries it, he tells NPR's Guy Raz, the same people who paid for the bailouts are going to pay for austerity as well.

Several countries are hoping that the strategy, which applies spending cuts to reduce deficits, will help pay the massive increase in public debt caused by the financial crisis.

Putting the austerity policy into effect is seen as a wise move by many of the G-20 countries. The G-20 has even backed Great Britain's recent plan to trim their huge budget deficit by enforcing massive spending cuts. Good for the U.K. if it works, but Blyth cautions it can't work for everyone.

What If Everyone Stopped Spending?

Blyth, who is originally from Dundee, Scotland, stars in a new animated video that takes a skeptical look at the plan. He sees the world as a series of balance sheets.


Homeowners and banks alike used their mortgages as leverage during the housing bubble they took on more debt according to the value of their assets. But when the bubble burst, both were left in the red.


Take the U.K. for example, he says, which leads the trend in austerity politics. In debt and worried about the country's credibility in the financial markets, Britain aims to drastically reduce government spending.


It's The Public Who Will Pay Again

That's not stopping several governments from introducing austerity measures, in part, Blyth says, because the notion
The risk in the U.S., Blyth says, is that the public who paid for bailouts will wind up paying for austerity as well.


Many in the Tea Party actually do call for austerity measures, and that's where Blyth parts ways.
But then, the American debate is full of contradictions.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

What does this have to do with us? Are you suggesting we'd have to cut our military to cut government jobs?



OK, which policies are you referring to? You make it sound as if each administration comes into office and immediately implements all of its "policies," tossing out all previous policies of the past administration. The mere fact that Bush was in office doesn't mean his administration contributed. Rhetorically speaking, you can blame it on him (which you do), but for those of us that actually seek to understand cause and effect, that rhetoric is useless.



What is "damning" exactly? Secondly, I've never claimed that Congress/Bush had "no control." I've merely asked you to tell me which policies you believe contributed to the recession, and why.



No, not everything is Obama's fault at all. The recession beginning was not his fault, for example. But a great deal is his fault, and I'm prepared to tell you which policies I think are the problem, and why I think they are the problem. I can tell you that the stimulus was flawed, for example. Why?

• Keynesian economic stimulus doesn't work (shovel-ready infrastructure)
• Much of the spending wasn't related to infrastructure at all
• It wasn't the front-loaded "shot in the arm" that it was advertised to be
• It added nearly $1 Trillion to the deficit
• The effect, if any, was temporary

I can tell you that the healthcare bill is terrible because:

• It will cost nearly another Trillion dollars
• It was rammed through Congress with zero bipartisan support
• It will make healthcare more expensive. Even Obama referred to this in recent weeks
• It's unconstitutional...it forces you to buy a product from a private company. It's an "existence tax."
• It was not the product of a "roundtable dicussion" as promised by Obama.

Should I go on?



I don't want it both ways. I'm interested in whom was responsible for what, and why.



Why? Because his name was on the door?



So wait...I "can't have it both ways," but you can? You just told me that Bush was responsible. The buck stops here, says jimmac! But don't judge Obama unfairly! You can't blame Obama! Not even if you have well-defined, specific reasons!





Uh...no it doesn't change, not at all. I'm referring to the specific policies enacted by each administration. The Bush years were characterized by solid growth, low unemployment, low taxes and interest rates, and spending that was too high (resulting in deficits of about 3% of GDP). The Bush administration was generally pro-business. It also supported too much growth of government and the creation of the Medicare Rx Drug entitlement.

The Obama years have thus been characterized by anemic and/or negative growth, high unemployment, rising taxes, astronomical spending (resulting in deficits of about 10% of GDP), a new and expensive healthcare law, quasi-nationalization of certain businesses, greater government control, class warfare and continued bailouts. The Obama administration is generally viewed as anti-business (by business leaders themselves) and supports even more growth of government.



Nothing to do with partisanship. It has to do with reality. Obama and the Dems are doing what they're doing. There is no sense in having a pissing contest here...arguing who is better or worse than Bush. That ship has sailed. All we have is now. And "now" is not going so well for the Dems and unfortunately, the nation.

What does this have to do with us? Are you suggesting we'd have to cut our military to cut government jobs?

Aye! ( Slaps forehead! ). I asked you a question about this which you didn't answer ( of course ).

Originally Posted by trumptman

Hyperbole aside, it isn't hard to find almost daily stories of how it fails people. You don't even have to look hard.

Originally Posted by FineTunes

October 24, 2010

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=130791197



Blythe on Austerity Video

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Nurse caught on CCTV turning off paralysed patient's life support machine

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

Yes. Thats front page news in the UK. It's front page news because it's unheard of incompetence.

You find these kinds of stories in the US, too.

http://www.action-alameda-news.com/2...-incompetence/

Do you know how many people have been declared bankrupt in the United Kingdom because of medical costs in the last twenty years?

0.\tNone. Not one. Not a single person. Zero.

We dont get those kind of stories here. Ever.

So, like I say, well keep our system, which is imperfect, and loved by millions, and you keep your system, which is fucking awful, and when you criticise us well smile to ourselves and maybe tell you to blow it your arse.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

I wrote a pretty comprehensive reply, one that I thought addressed your points. You responded with an insult. I suppose I should expect as much.

As for me being "in denial," nothing could be further from the truth. If you wish to point out specific actions/policies that Bush undertook or supported that you believe contributed to the recession, I'm more than willing to read and discuss them. All I've seen thus far however is the rather odd notion that "he was in charge" and therefore the recession HAD to be at least partly his fault.

Is my request unreasonable? I'm not trying to trap you or set you up here, jimmac. I'm just wondering which policies you see as the problem.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Uh no.

What you did is side step the issue of what the hell was the Bush administration doing all of that time? Time you refuse to give to the Obama administration. 8 years vs. 2.

Obama is in charge and yet you're saying certain scenerios will happen without an outcome yet. We have an outcome with Bush by the way.

Don't worry I'm not afraid of any trap you would try to lay. I'm just frustrated with your ability to look the other way when it's a Republican. You don't judge the other side with the same criteria. You did go on a rant about healthcare and your brand of economic theory however. But did you answer the question? Nope!

You seem to support Bush's economic policies and yet look at the outcome at the end of his term in office! You don't really need to waste time on a internet forum looking at specific policies when you have a bottom line to look at like that. Bush wasn't paying attention to anything. He was too busy spending money like water on useless things like Iraq. Why didn't he see the growing problem and do something about it? Quite a few economists were saying this was coming. Why didn't he do something then instead of waiting until it got this bad?

What policies? Please!

Also I've noticed a tendancy on the part of much of the conservatives here to not answer certain telling questions.

Maybe they think I'm trying to trap them.

What policies? I'd say the whole package.

Originally Posted by trumptman

......What's the excuse in the U.K where the government controls it all and thus nothing should ever go wrong?

Originally Posted by trumptman

Collective bankruptcy is still bankruptcy. The U.K is broke. I'm not claiming the U.S. is much better in that regard, especially after the additional three trillion we've blown through in the last 23 months, but the point is that parties on both sides of the Atlantic are taking action and the action being called for or acted upon is called austerity.

As for our system, if it was so despised and loathed, and is now being replaced by something better, why do the election polls show Obama and the Democrats have dug their own grave?

I've seen the stories. In your country it is about how much longer they can go on while the doll and binge drinking are the national past times.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39754325...d_news-europe/



Is it that we don't see ourselves as "there" yet? Frankly, I don't think so. I think it's that our politicians CANNOT make cuts. They literally cannot. I'm not optimistic that the GOP will impose the kind of massive spending cuts needed to get us out of this hole. Our leaders are too concerned with their political power. The beast has gotten so big, it now dictates what and when (and who) it eats.

Rather than passing trillion dollar spending sprees and bail outs, we should be going the other direction. Cut the federal budget by 25% right off the top. Reduce taxes to get the economy going. Something has to be done.

Your thoughts...

Originally Posted by trumptman

Uh be it good or bad, if you hit certain marks before some set time, you are judged on them. Each election is a benchmark and a judgment by the American people. Bush didn't get 8 years because someone gifted it to him. He won reelection based off his performance. His party also gained seats for six years of his term. When the public decided they didn't like his direction any longer, justified or not his party lost the Congress.

Obama is no different. His party has had control of Congress for going on 4 years now. The debt has risen at unprecidented rates during that time. The clip of Speaker Pelosi promising no additional debt was on Drudge just today.


I'll be happy to see the quotes from you where you withheld judgment for 8 years, gave the man completely uncritical leeway and then made your judgment afterward.

More like from day one you and your ilk were calling him illegitimate.



Jimmac, seriously at least go buy some new tricks for you little lame magic act. You're not fooling anyone. Everyone here remembers ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES FROM DAY ONE and WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING and CYCLES, CYCLES, pendulum swings, etc. The lame little rationalizations you keep tossing out have no basis in reality.



Amazingly enough, the polls show Bush even with Obama which means the American people would prefer he go back to spending it like water through his fingers to Obama's because his runaway spending wasn't even one third the rate of Obama's spending.


You don't ask questions. You fixate on little strawmen fallacies you think prove some points, like for example shouldn't Obama get 8 years to fail before we get to judge him a failure because Bush got four years. As anyone with half a brain can note, and as I already did, Bush was judged from day one and was re-elected and grew his party majorities to get what he wanted. Obama has not. No one need wait for failure to become more pronounced to judge it. Your bullshit tells us to ignore four election cycles that happen in eight years. No one cares to do that. You'll point it out again but no one buys that line of bullshit.

Uh be it good or bad, if you hit certain marks before some set time, you are judged on them. Each election is a benchmark and a judgment by the American people. Bush didn't get 8 years because someone gifted it to him. He won reelection based off his performance. His party also gained seats for six years of his term. When the public decided they didn't like his direction any longer, justified or not his party lost the Congress.

More like from day one you and your ilk were calling him illegitimate.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

OK, I at least see what your point is now. You're implying that the Bush Administration contributed to the recession by not being proactive enough. In other words, it's not the specific policies you take issue with, it's the lack of action. I can only assume you're referring to financial reform/mortgage reform, etc. Am I correct so far?

If so, we at least can discuss your point: I don't agree with this notion, if it's what you meant. It begs the question, what should the Bush Administration have done? It also puts aside some of the actions the administration did undertake, such as financial reform back in 2002 (post-Enron and WorldCom) and the push it made for better Congressional oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (if you recall, these efforts were spurned by Congressional Democrats, most notably Barney Frank).

The root of the crisis as I understand was mortgage-backed securities, both sub-prime and other. The tools that caused and/or precipitated the disaster were entirely legal (such as credit default swaps). What we had was a whole lot of lies...not by government, but by those who were packaging the securities. The quality of the funds was not as advertised. When the housing bubble burst, the CDS contracts were called, and the whole thing exploded. You had funds that were supposed be backed by trillions of dollars of real estate assets that turned out to be backed by far less.

The point I'm making here is this: I don't think increased regulation of the financial industry or even unscrupulous lenders would have prevented the crisis. I also cannot identify which Bush administration policies, in particular, caused the Great Recession. Can you?



I think we've seen plenty of outcomes resulting from Obama policies. In particular, huge deficits, lack of growth, and high unemployment. As for what's to come, do you deny that this level of deficit spending and growth of government will result in major problems down the road? That's all I'm saying.



First, I think I just answered the question above. If you meant something else (Bush not being proactive enough), please let me know.

As for "looking the other way," well, that's a characterization I don't agree with. You do seem to accuse me of this pretty frequently, no matter how much I criticize Republicans. So, I'm not sure that anything I write will change your mind. I thought I presented a pretty even-handed assessment of what each administration did or has done in regard to the economy. Apparently you don't agree. What I will not allow you to get away with, however, is the insinuation (or in this case, the plain statement) that I'm applying different standards in evaluating the efficacy of policies that are common to both administrations---just because one was Republican and one was Democratic. That much is simply false.



The problem I have with this statement is that it completely ignores cause and effect. If we do that, we cannot hope to prevent and/or remedy future recessions. Your statement that one does not have to identify the policies with which he disagrees is utterly laughable. I don't think I've ever heard or seen someone make that claim in my lifetime. My question is this: If we don't have to identify the actual policies that we disagree with, then why are we blaming that person in question at all (Bush)? Are we to simply, mindlessly accept that "Bush is bad and his name was on the door," therefore it's his fault? I highly doubt that many here--conservative, liberal, moderate---would agree with your notion or understand your argument here.



Now, that's just silly. You can't look at an outcome and conclude that.



Which had nothing to do with the recession and very little to do with the deficits we are now running.



If any entity started pointing out the problems with the mortgage market, it was the Bush administration. And what would have been done?



Really, which ones? When?



I will ask again: What should have been done, and when? Can you at least make a plausible case that it would have prevented the crisis?




There you go again. It really all comes down to this: You consistently state that the policies of the Bush Administration caused or contributed to the recession. Yet, you have not identified a single one. Your position honestly does not make sense. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask which policies you have a problem with. We don't have to agree about those policies...but for God's sake, at least tell me/us which ones you dislike, and why.

If you still refuse, or say it's a waste of time, or sound off again with something like "LOOK WHAT HAPPENED! OF COURSE IT'S BUSH'S FAULT," then I'll simply have to conclude that you don't know or don't care which policies are the problem, and just find it easier to make a rhetorical argument that amounts to "Bush Sucks." Right now, that's what I'm starting to think.

Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo

This is bullshit. It is not 'a disaster'. You really, truly don't know what you're talking about. The NHS is something to be proud of. British people are proud of it.

It should be a source of shame for you that it's taken you so long, as the world's wealthiest nation, to institute even the weak health care reform you've just passed.

Right wing America collectively pissed it's hysterical pants at the institution of something that amounted to administrative reform. You're fucked as a nation because half of you can't even bring yourself to have a conversation without smelling salts on hand. Your president's a bit of a wet moderate but the national discourse is so screwed that you can't even discuss a speech to schoolkids without hysteria, so there's no way you're going to be able to consider the changes that matter.

And the British NHS isn't a disaster. I'm sure you have some out there examples of specific failures or something but you can shove them up your arse, because we love it.

Originally Posted by gerald apple

If you despise America so much why is your country always looking up to us for advice especially David Cameron?You Brits are to pompous and arrogant to start with!The NHS in your country is nothing to brag about go ask the people who use it everyday. It stinks.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

Well, that pretty much answers it. You blame Bush because his name was on the door. It really doesn't matter to you what actually happened or what he actually did (or didn't do). As I've stated, I disagree with this notion in every way. I also think it's exceptionally lazy on your part. Politically and rhetorically, you can absolutely make this argument. In the real world though, it's just silly.



But I haven't...not at all. I'm looking at what he's actually doing. I don't support the specific policies he's undertaken. I've been specific about what those policies are: Extreme deficit spending, quasi-nationalization of corporations, expansion of government in most areas, pseudo-Keynesian stimulus, etc. They are all bad and completely unsustainable. Do you disagree?



Yes, I can see you're trying to set up that line of argument. You're getting all geared up to blame the Republicans when the economy doesn't skyrocket within the next 12 months.

There are two problems with your position, however. First, it assumes the GOP will have total control and will be able to enact its agenda. If they controlled Congress and the Presidency, I would agree with you--but even in the most optimistic scenario for the GOP, they will control only Congress and will lack a veto-proof majority. This should give them significant power over spending. However, it's unlikely that they'll be able to get through major reforms on taxes, healthcare, etc.

The second problem is that your would-be argument is entirely reliant on outcomes. In other words, if the economy doesn't improve significantly, you'll run around telling everyone that Republicans failed and you "told us so." My prediction (based on our discussion in this and other threads) is that you'll ignore what the GOP and Obama actually do, and focus on entirely on the immediate short-term outcome.

Yes, I can see you're trying to set up that line of argument. You're getting all geared up to blame the Republicans when the economy doesn't skyrocket within the next 12 months.

Originally Posted by jimmac

Same old rhetorical nonsense and avoidance. Oh well let's see if your wishful thinking proves out.

09-15-2003, 09:03 AM

Look there's a simple way to understand this. Someone works for you. Doing a job for you. For which this person receives a salary.

Then you find out they lied about something serious concerning their job. To manipulate their job and it cost you a lot of money. What do you do?

This isn't falling under the catagory of the " white lie ".

In any other walk of life the person would be let go.

I don't see this as any different.

Now, I know some Bush supporters would have me believe this is excusable. The world is a very complex place and that all politician's lie. Fair enough.

That still doesn't change the basic principles here.

Do you really want someone to work for you that spreads false information in order to make themselves look good? False information that costs you money?

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Looking through older posts is fun!



I agree with you there, jimmac! It's a shame you are willfully ignorant of this when it comes to Obama.

Also, hadn't Bush been in office for under 3 years when you wrote that?

Originally Posted by jimmac

This is strictly your viewpoint. That doesn't make it right. As for 3 years we'd already blown through the surplus in 6 months and there is that little war thing.

Yes looking through old posts can be fun.

Originally Posted by jimmac

So I'm guessing that if Obama gets a second term you won't be bitching right?

By the way you can judge Obama after 4 years you don't have to wait for 8. At least one term. That's fair.



Myself and the ilk brothers had a little problem with ballots. And remember that stupid undeclared war in Iraq was during his first term. We saw where it was going because it wasn't the first uinnecessary war the U.S. has been in.

Raising taxes is not the answer.

Originally Posted by Gafflation

We shall have to agree to disagree as I have no problem with the tax rate going back to their pre-Bush levels so....

Originally Posted by Gafflation

I believe it is not possible to immediately make enough spending cuts to reduce the deficit without causing other problems which I rate just as bad if not worse.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Well, at some point I suppose we need to start thinking long term.

Originally Posted by Gafflation

Exactly. And just about anything would be better in the long term than what you propose.

Originally Posted by Gafflation

Laissez-faire may sound great in theory but it has never worked and will never work. It would destabilize society and exponentially increase the disparity between the the wealthy and the poor, making the middle class non-existent.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

You're going to lose that argument every time. Trickle down absolutely works. It's been proven time and time again.

Originally Posted by trumptman

But you won't keep your system and we won't keep our system because both of the governments running them are out of other people's money. Your government is laying off half a million people and our government ought to be doing the same.

The race in this case isn't to utopia but to the bottom with world government playing a game of currency chicken trying to see who blinks first in the devaluation game. Devaluation of currency, essentually printing up free money and hoping no one calls you on it, is the only game these terrible governments and the politicians using said money to buy votes, have left.

Despite the claim by many in the U.S. health policy community that international comparison is not useful because of the uniqueness of the United States, the rankings have figured prominently in many arenas. It is hard to ignore that in 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy.3 These facts have fueled a question now being discussed in academic circles, as well as by government and the public: Why do we spend so much to get so little?

Comparisons also reveal that the United States is falling farther behind each year (see graph). In 1974, mortality among boys and men 15 to 60 years of age was nearly the same in Australia and the United States and was one third lower in Sweden. Every year since 1974, the rate of death decreased more in Australia than it did in the United States, and in 2006, Australia’s rate dipped lower than Sweden’s and was 40% lower than the U.S. rate. There are no published studies investigating the combination of policies and programs that might account for the marked progress in Australia. But the comparison makes clear that U.S. performance not only is poor at any given moment but also is improving much more slowly than that of other countries over time. These observations and the reflections they should trigger are made possible only by careful comparative quantification of various facets of health care systems.

Originally Posted by iPoster

You do have a point on the costs, but our wonderful privatized health care system is just so great...oh, wait.

I know some people who work 39 hour a week 'part time' jobs at Wal-Mart who aren't eligible for corporate health program, can't afford an individual one and have to resort to using the emergency room for basic health care. (Wal-Mart is just an example) There would be funding issues to overcome with a full British style system, but our current system does not provide 'coverage for everyone'. I'm not sure Obama's plan is the right one, but some sort of public/private option for those who really need it would be a good idea in my opinion.

BTW I work (OK will be working, I'm a Senior) in health care, just the little I've seen from the inside during clinical rotations has shown me how customer costs are outrageous in comparison to the actual costs of services provided. Plus cases like this one don't do much to engage trust in the current HMO system.

To be fair the US is on top in the research and development areas of healthcare, by force of numbers if nothing else.