U.S. Politics

Page 388 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
rhubroma said:
Why can't we just live an aesthetic existence?

...
i'm not sure, but i think you mean "ascetic"?

of course, a less materialistic lifestyle i think would have benefits, both mentally and economically, but this is not something that can be dictated by fiat. it could only happen if society itself chooses it and allows for those who wish to be, become or remain acquisitive to do so.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Maybe worry about things you can control? An aesthetic existence is not everyone's definition of happiness perhaps.

If my definition of happiness is a bigger yacht then why should that be a problem for you?
it shouldn't be a problem.

however, there is a subtle chicken/egg problem inherent to your question. one characteristic of happy societies (defined as a collection or average of all the individuals that make up the society) is that they tend to find satisfaction less through material goods and acquisition.

whether this is because happy societies buy less, or societies that buy less are happy is unclear.

either way, societal (as opposed to just individual) materialism is either a symptom or a cause.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
lol.

How are you going to spin this Velo? Kinda discounts the whole "but but but he was a Bush appointee..."

... probably BS graph...
i think you should consider the source of that graph as suspect. the white house visitor logs have been secret for almost the entirety of obama's presidency. they are not public information without a FOIA request. they are not posted on the website whitehouse.gov as the graph implies.

don't get me wrong. obama is as corrupt as they come. but your source for this information is problematic, not to mention that there other problems with the information in the graph.
 
gregod said:
i'm not sure, but i think you mean "ascetic"?

of course, a less materialistic lifestyle i think would have benefits, both mentally and economically, but this is not something that can be dictated by fiat. it could only happen if society itself chooses it and allows for those who wish to be, become or remain acquisitive to do so.
Nope, I meant what I said.

The Classical Word did even if it had it's fair share of problems, though at least there was room for myth.

I agree that nothing can be dictated by fiat, but society isn't reflecting upon anything other than buying stuff at the momment, because that's what it has been told it has to do: for the economy and for the country.

But what good are all these things we buy, if people have stopped living natural lives and have lost all sense for beauty I've asked? If you look at the world pre and post free-market capitalism, leaving technological advances aside (in short progress), it seems to me that the world today and society are in no better shape than they were in 1492. At least then there was room for culture and not the base materialism which has replaced it today. Just look at what the so called architects of today have achieved (compared to those say of the High Renaissance). What building crimes they have committed! The world has been ruined by their hideous constructions, which have been "justified" in the name of growth and development. The world of civilization used to be a beautiful design, while today it has been ruined by the worst forms of barbary. That's the truth gregod.

I'm not being nostalgic, nor anti-temporal, but just posing a basic inquiry that none of our political and economic leaders seem to contemplate or reflect upon, let alone the flock of sheep they lead. Whereas in the past, despite the injustices (injustices, which, however, still flourish today), the pre-democratic regimes thought about the mark they would leave - in short, thought about the aesthetic and the power this has over society and the beauty thus created. I could quote Augustus, or Pope Nicholas V, but that would be quite useless now.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
rhubroma said:
Nope, I meant what I said.

The Classical Word did even if it had it's fair share of problems, though at least there was room for myth.

I agree that nothing can be dictated by fiat, but society isn't reflecting upon anything other than buying stuff at the momment, because that's what it has been told it has to do: for the economy and for the country.

But what good are all these things we buy, if people have stopped living natural lives and have lost all sense for beauty I've asked? If you look at the world pre and post free-market capitalism, leaving technological advances aside (in short progress), it seems to me that the world today and society are in no better shape than they were in 1492. At least then there was room for culture and not the base materialism which has replaced it today. Just look at what the so called architects of today have achieved (compared to those say of the High Renaissance). What building crimes they have committed! The world has been ruined by their constructions.

I'm not being nostalgic, nor anti-temporal, but just posing a basic inquiry that none of our political and economic leaders seem to contemplate or reflect upon, let alone the flock of sheep they lead. Whereas in the past, despite the injustices (injustices, which, however, still flourish today), the pre-democratic regimes thought about the mark they would leave - in short, thought about the aesthetic and the power this has over society. I could quote Augustus, or Pope Nicholas V, but that would be quite useless now.
overall, i agree, but i think in one regard managed capitalism (as opposed to the free market variety) has indeed increase overall societal happiness. the post world war II baby boom period was for the US a period of great economic expansion and prosperity. societies that have continued or moved to this style of capitalism have also experienced more overall prosperity. where the US has lost its way is through the fallacious thinking that unfettered markets are perfect in spite of the OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary. naturally, there is a debate to be had as to the appropriate level of regulation. however, america is the country of hyperbole. if a little is good more must be better. or in the case of market freedom fundamentalists, if less is better zero must be great.

somalia?
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
gregod said:
i think you should consider the source of that graph as suspect. the white house visitor logs have been secret for almost the entirety of obama's presidency. they are not public information without a FOIA request. they are not posted on the website whitehouse.gov as the graph implies.

don't get me wrong. obama is as corrupt as they come. but your source for this information is problematic, not to mention that there other problems with the information in the graph.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/visitor-records

wrong.:eek:
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
i stand corrected. thanks. i could have sworn it was obama that made the visitors records private, but i must be mixing him up with his predecessor. as the site says,
In December 2009, we will begin posting all White House visitor records for the period from September 15th onwards under the terms of our new voluntary disclosure policy. In addition, as part of our new policy, we will post records dating from January 20th that are specifically requested on an ongoing basis. For more information, read the White House blog post announcing the new policy.
(emphasis added)

since i failed spectacularly on this, i'll have to do the due diligence and look through the records to confirm the data in the graph.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
Glenn_Wilson said:
thanks again for that link. it is highly searchable and informative. furthermore, it only confirms my suspicion that the graph is misleading at best and BS at worst. 115 of shulman's "white house" meetings were actually in the old executive office building which is where the OMB resides. he actually only had 6 POTUS "meetings" three of which were state functions, one was a president daily economic briefing, one in the situation room(!) and one in the west wing. there are several more exculpatory details, but i'll leave that to others.

as i said before. obama is just as or more corrupt than his predecessors and has certainly surrounded himself with venal and corrupt functionaries, but this shulman/irs tea-party targetting thing, there is no there, there.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Well, well.

Last week, the state of California claimed that its version of Obamacare’s health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums. “These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard,” boasted Peter Lee, executive director of the California exchange.

But the data that Lee released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.

Lee’s claims that there won’t be rate shock in California were repeated uncritically in some quarters. “Despite the political naysayers,” writes my Forbes colleague Rick Ungar, “the healthcare exchange concept appears to be working very well indeed in states like California.” A bit more analysis would have prevented Rick from falling for California’s sleight-of-hand.
Except that Lee was making a misleading comparison. He was comparing apples—the plans that Californians buy today for themselves in a robust individual market—and oranges—the highly regulated plans that small employers purchase for their workers as a group. The difference is critical.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/

The true irony here is Obamacare really increases the cost of coverage in the population centers. Of course the population centers in Cali are where the Obama voters reside.

 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
gregod said:
thanks again for that link. it is highly searchable and informative. furthermore, it only confirms my suspicion that the graph is misleading at best and BS at worst. 115 of shulman's "white house" meetings were actually in the old executive office building which is where the OMB resides. he actually only had 6 POTUS "meetings" three of which were state functions, one was a president daily economic briefing, one in the situation room(!) and one in the west wing. there are several more exculpatory details, but i'll leave that to others.

as i said before. obama is just as or more corrupt than his predecessors and has certainly surrounded himself with venal and corrupt functionaries, but this shulman/irs tea-party targetting thing, there is no there, there.
We are going to find out if there is any there there.

I think it to be likely that Shulman mis-led congress as recently as testimony on May 22. I think Miller probably did as well and I think Lerner thinks this too... Which may explain her being unwilling to testify.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
lol.

How are you going to spin this Velo? Kinda discounts the whole "but but but he was a Bush appointee..."

um, lessee...isn't the IRS involved in health care policy now? Something called Obamacare? Oh right.

I just downloaded the logs for Shulman’s visits, most of the visits are with Nancy DeParle (40) or Sarah Fenn (54), both of whom were deeply involved in health care policy. The only other person to have more than 10 visits was Jason Furman from the CEA (11). If the White House was hatching a conspiracy, it seems hard to believe these would be the people doing it.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/05/30/explain-this-mr-carlson/

And those are the meetings he was cleared to attend - but he only actually physically attended 11 of them.

Indeed, of the 157 events Shulman was cleared to attend, White House records only provide time of arrival information -- confirming that he actually went to them -- for 11 events over the 2009-2012 period, and time of departure information for only six appointments. According to the White House records, Shulman signed in twice in 2009, five times in 2010, twice in 2011, and twice in 2012. That does not mean that he did not go to other meetings, only that the White House records do not show he went to the 157 meetings he was granted Secret Service clearance to attend.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/the-fake-story-about-the-irs-commissioner-and-the-white-house/276399/

So...11 visits to the WH in 3 years. Whoa. Scandalous. But hey, WH logs and facts and such aren't anything compared to that impeccable conservative logic:

"Now this is speculation but it's educated speculation because I think that's what happened. " - Bill O'Reilly.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
And the austerians get even quieter.

The debunking of Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff continues.

The Harvard economists have argued that mistakes and omissions in their influential research on debt and economic growth don't change their ultimate austerity-justifying conclusion: That too much debt hurts growth.

But even this claim has now been disproved by two new studies, which suggest the opposite might in fact be true: Slow growth leads to higher debt, not the other way around.

In a post at Quartz, University of Michigan economics professor Miles Kimball and University of Michigan undergraduate student Yichuan Wang write that they have crunched Reinhart and Rogoff's data and found "not even a shred of evidence" that high debt levels lead to slower economic growth.

And a new paper by University of Massachusetts professor Arindrajit Dube finds evidence that Reinhart and Rogoff had the relationship between growth and debt backwards: Slow growth appears to cause higher debt, if anything.

As you can see from the chart from Dube's paper below, growth tends to be slower in the five years before countries have high debt levels. In the five years after they have high debt levels, there is no noticeable difference in growth at all, certainly not at the 90 percent debt-to-GDP level that Reinhart and Rogoff's 2010 paper made infamous. Kimball and Wang present similar findings in their Quartz piece.

This contradicts the conclusion of Reinhart and Rogoff's 2010 paper, "Growth in a Time of Debt," which has been used to justify austerity programs around the world. In that paper, and in many other papers, op-ed pieces and congressional testimony over the years, Reinhart And Rogoff have warned that high debt slows down growth, making it a huge problem to be dealt with immediately.
Well thank goodness the low-info voters didn't listen to the high-info voters about the need for Romney/Ryan "economics". ;)

Speaking of elections and economics, how's the economy shaping up for the 2014 midterms?

The 2014 midterm election is shaping up as something the United States has not seen in nearly a decade: a campaign run in a strengthening economy with deficits on the decline. No one is popping champagne corks yet, and risks remain. But the altered terrain, if it holds, could benefit Democrats and challenge Republicans whose rise to power in the House in 2010 came via a tea party movement that blasted President Barack Obama and his party for ignoring a stagnant economy and piling up an endless run of trillion dollar deficits.

Times have changed since 2010. Barring a fresh crisis — and there are certainly a few that could arise — many economists expect growth to return to a fairly healthy level by next year as house prices and the stock market continue to rise and the jobless rate falls closer to its historic average of 5.8 percent. The federal deficit is around half the size it was when the tea party reached its apex, due to tax hikes, spending cuts and stronger growth. Consumer confidence this week hit a level not seen since the financial crisis rocked the economy in 2008. And economists say there is enough time between now and when voters go to the polls next November for the improvements to actually be felt throughout the economy. Even conservative economists predict somewhat stronger growth next year, while left-leaning forecasters are borderline giddy.
“The fact is the economy is probably going to look and feel very good next year,” said Ian Shepherdson of Pantheon Macroeconomics. “The most likely outlook for Obama and the Democrats is pretty good growth and employment rising strongly. If you step back and look at it, it’s a hugely favorable scenario for them.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/2014-election-economy-92053.html#ixzz2Usv4K4nK
Moral of the two stories: never, ever, ever listen to conservative Rs.
 
gregod said:
overall, i agree, but i think in one regard managed capitalism (as opposed to the free market variety) has indeed increase overall societal happiness. the post world war II baby boom period was for the US a period of great economic expansion and prosperity. societies that have continued or moved to this style of capitalism have also experienced more overall prosperity. where the US has lost its way is through the fallacious thinking that unfettered markets are perfect in spite of the OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary. naturally, there is a debate to be had as to the appropriate level of regulation. however, america is the country of hyperbole. if a little is good more must be better. or in the case of market freedom fundamentalists, if less is better zero must be great.

somalia?
I was being philosophical. In a general sense the modern economy has generated more material wealth, though whether or not that also equates to an "increase in overall societal happiness" is debatable.

I agree that a managed market system is better than fanatical deregulation, but it still boils down for me to the world our civilization is building and thus leaving to posterity.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Well, well.

The true irony here is Obamacare really increases the cost of coverage in the population centers. Of course the population centers in Cali are where the Obama voters reside.
LOL. Ah right. First pick the individual market and use that as "Californians", then pick rates from ehealthinsurance.com as a baseline for comparison - did you know that your hypothetical 25-year-old male Californian can get insurance for $75 a month? - then compare it to the group market, and oh yeah ignore those inconvenient ACA tax credits and subsidies too.

btw did you know that Roy found the exact same thing for Ohio (premiums up 55-85%) and Wisconsin (up 35%) during the election, when he was Romney's health care adviser and OH and WI were important swing states? That's SO odd that he keeps using the same approach and reaching the same conclusion. Couldn't be this now, could it?

Avik Roy has made himself a bit of a career trying to scare people about Obamacare with articles like How Obamacare's $716 Billion in Cuts will Drive Doctors Out of Medicare and Obama's MLR 'Bomb' Will Create Private Insurance Monopolies and Drive Premiums Skyward Hallelujah! where he predicts declining insurance profits (didn't happen), soaring individual and small group premiums (also didn't happen), and further monopolization of private insurance markets (been happening for decades). I think he knows better. But his main job isn't to inform; it's to alarm.
NO. Can't ****ing be.

Speaking of the ACA though, more good news.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113346/obamacare-insurance-options-looks-exchanges-will-have-plenty

To be successful, exchanges must have enough plans to generate some competition. The whole idea of the exchanges is to let people shop around, seeking the best combination of benefits, service, and prices—just as they might shop for a car, an accountant, or any other good or service. Yes, that's probably more of a conservative idea than a liberal one. But, for competition to take place, insurers must participate. And conservatives have predicted the insurers would stay away, because of Obamacare's supposedly onerous regulations and a fear that the whole system is doomed to collapse.

Sure enough, some carriers really do seem wary. But plenty aren't. On Thursday, the administration announced it expects the FFMs to have more than sufficient competition. At least one new insurer will be offering plans in about three-fourths of the FFMs, according to the administration, and 90 percent of “target enrollees” (people the administration is hoping will use the exchanges) will be able to choose from at least five different insurers. Given the poor state of competition that exists in many states today, the administration says, that’s a big improvement.
Awesome how the success of Romneycare in Massachusetts is the base for comparison for other states. Ah cons, forever shooting yourselves in the foot.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
LOL. Ah right. First pick the individual market and use that as "Californians", then pick rates from ehealthinsurance.com as a baseline for comparison - did you know that your hypothetical 25-year-old male Californian can get insurance for $75 a month? - then compare it to the group market, and oh yeah ignore those inconvenient ACA tax credits and subsidies too.

btw did you know that Roy found the exact same thing for Ohio (premiums up 55-85%) and Wisconsin (up 35%) during the election, when he was Romney's health care adviser and OH and WI were important swing states? That's SO odd that he keeps using the same approach and reaching the same conclusion. Couldn't be this now, could it?

NO. Can't ****ing be.

Speaking of the ACA though, more good news.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113346/obamacare-insurance-options-looks-exchanges-will-have-plenty

Awesome how the success of Romneycare in Massachusetts is the base for comparison for other states. Ah cons, forever shooting yourselves in the foot.
It's painful to argue when you didn't actually read the article, isn't it? Personally, I find it almost impossible but ymmv.

How did Lee and his colleagues explain the sleight-of-hand they used to make it seem like they were bringing prices down, instead of up? “It is difficult to make a direct comparison of these rates to existing premiums in the commercial individual market,” Covered California explained in last week’s press release, “because in 2014, there will be new standard benefit designs under the Affordable Care Act.” That’s a polite way of saying that Obamacare’s mandates and regulations will drive up the cost of premiums in the individual market for health insurance.

But rather than acknowledge that truth, the agency decided to ignore it completely, instead comparing Obamacare-based insurance to a completely different type of insurance product, that bears no relevance to the actual costs that actual Californians face when they shop for coverage today. Peter Lee calls it a “home run.” It’s more like hitting into a triple play.

In plain English, the 25 year old buying a catastrophic health plan on the cheap will not be able to do that in 2014.

So anyways, Obama saying crap like "if you like your health plan, you'll get to keep it. Period", ain't at all true, is it Velo? Nope. If Obama was truthful he would have said "Cadillac Plans for everybody! If you cant afford them we'll take the money from those who can and if you can afford them but don't want them, well, too F'ing bad for you."

Obama's many things. Entirely honest isn't one of them.

Lanhee Chin, Bloomberg:

“To put it simply: Covered California is trying to make consumers think they’re getting more for less when, in fact, they’re just getting the same while paying more.

Yet there are many plans on the individual market in California today that offer a structure and benefits that are almost identical to those that will be available on the state’s health insurance exchange next year. So, let’s make an actual apples-to-apples comparison for the hypothetical 25-year-old male living in San Francisco and making more than $46,000 a year. Today, he can buy a PPO plan from a major insurer with a $5,000 deductible, 30 percent coinsurance, a $10 co-pay for generic prescription drugs, and a $7,000 out-of-pocket maximum for $177 a month.

According to Covered California, a “Bronze” plan from the exchange with nearly the same benefits, including a slightly lower out-of-pocket maximum of $6,350, will cost him between $245 and $270 a month. That’s anywhere from 38 percent to 53 percent more than he’ll have to pay this year for comparable coverage! Sounds a lot different than the possible 29 percent “decrease” touted by Covered California in their faulty comparison.

While Covered California acknowledges that it’s tough to compare premiums pre- and post-Obamacare, at the very least, it could have made a legitimate comparison so consumers could fairly evaluate the impacts of Obamacare."
Normally, I'd expect you to call out Peter Lee on his outright falsehood... but you are so heavily invested in your lib crusade there's not a chance of that happening. I don't even fault you for it. The hook is set pretty hard.
 
Scott SoCal said:
So anyways, Obama saying crap like "if you like your health plan, you'll get to keep it. Period", ain't at all true, is it Velo? Nope. If Obama was truthful he would have said "Cadillac Plans for everybody! If you cant afford them we'll take the money from those who can and if you can afford them but don't want them, well, too F'ing bad for you."
Just out of curiosity Scott, what about the people who truly can't afford premium private health care?

Should they just be left out of the system? Is this what is meant by the "land of opportunity?" How is it possible that the richest nation on earth can't come up with a public health care system? And then expect to give lessons to everybody about progress and its "way of life."
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
It's painful to argue when you didn't actually read the article, isn't it? Personally, I find it almost impossible but ymmv.




In plain English, the 25 year old buying a catastrophic health plan on the cheap will not be able to do that in 2014.

So anyways, Obama saying crap like "if you like your health plan, you'll get to keep it. Period", ain't at all true, is it Velo? Nope. If Obama was truthful he would have said "Cadillac Plans for everybody! If you cant afford them we'll take the money from those who can and if you can afford them but don't want them, well, too F'ing bad for you."

Obama's many things. Entirely honest isn't one of them.

Lanhee Chin, Bloomberg:



Normally, I'd expect you to call out Peter Lee on his outright falsehood... but you are so heavily invested in your lib crusade there's not a chance of that happening. I don't even fault you for it. The hook is set pretty hard.
LOL. Dude, Roy has done this for years. Here's WI:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/10/29/in-wisconsin-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-30-says-obama-adviser/

...and OH:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/10/29/in-ohio-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-55-85/

...and CO:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/10/30/in-colorado-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-19-says-obama-adviser/

...and at least several other states that I'm not going to bother trying to find, all with exactly the same results. (btw Roy is also the guy who thought that we should copy Switzerland's "entrepreneurial" market-based health care system, apparently not realizing that the Swiss system has an individual mandate and more regulations that the ACA....ok then.) If you keep repeating it often enough...

Anyway, here in the real world, yet more good news:

http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2013/05/study-health-law-protected-young-adults-from-high-hospital-bills/
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Sadly this is already where it's heading.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/more-stupid-on-irs-scandals-053113

Yes, friends, that's what's coming. That's going to be what you hear going forward. The IRS dumbassery is going to be the new "death panels." People are going to argue on the radio, and on the TV, and in congressional town halls in the hinterlands, that the IRS is going to "enforce Obamacare" by doing to sick conservatives what they did to all those poor social-welfare organizations with the tricornered hats and the flintlocks. We've already got Republican politicians out in Ohio arguing this very point. Marco Rubio went halfway there the other day. And Rand Paul and Michele Bachmann have gone further than that, Paul a little more subtly, because la Bachmann is as subtle as a tackhammer, and not much brighter.

The idea that the IRS will have the power to withhold medical care from conservatives -- in other words, it is going to have the power to kill through neglect a president's political opponents -- is going to be a serious part of our national dialogue going forward, and it is going to be based in some bureaucratic dumbassery through which some paperwork was delayed and some groups were inconvenienced in their attempts to get in on a really cool campaign-finance scam. People are going to nod sagely and debate the fact that, perhaps, the "concerns" are overstated but that they are "out there" and worthy of our consideration.
As Peggy Noonan once said "is it irresponsible to speculate? It's irresponsible not to."
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
And the austerians get even quieter.

Well thank goodness the low-info voters didn't listen to the high-info voters about the need for Romney/Ryan "economics". ;)

Speaking of elections and economics, how's the economy shaping up for the 2014 midterms?

Moral of the two stories: never, ever, ever listen to conservative Rs.
Hilarious! From your Politico story link;

The 2014 midterm election is shaping up as something the United States has not seen in nearly a decade: a campaign run in a strengthening economy with deficits on the decline
The federal deficit is around half the size it was when the tea party reached its apex, due to tax hikes, spending cuts and stronger growth.
Isn't that "austerity?" lol, Velo. In the same post you bash and praise austerity.


Times have changed since 2010. Barring a fresh crisis — and there are certainly a few that could arise — many economists expect growth to return to a fairly healthy level by next year as house prices and the stock market continue to rise and the jobless rate falls closer to its historic average of 5.8 percent.
"many economists"... erm, why no names??

"stock market continues to rise"... two things, fewer people are participating in the stock market than in 2008, so they will feel nothing from a rising market AND the second the FED stops pumping money there will be a correction, probably in 2014.

http://news.investors.com/economy/052213-657212-fed-qe-outlook-signals-mixed-worry-investors.htm


"jobless rate falls"... it's likely as the economy improves the unemployment rate will increase. The U-6 is still about 14% and they, as you know, are not counted as unemployed. As they start looking for work expect the reported unemployment to rise. Probably in 2014.

“The fact is the economy is probably going to look and feel very good next year,” said Ian Shepherdson of Pantheon Macroeconomics. “The most likely outlook for Obama and the Democrats is pretty good growth and employment rising strongly. If you step back and look at it, it’s a hugely favorable scenario for them.”
Maybe. If there's no big correction on Wall Street and if the Fed continues their pump and if inflation doesn't emerge and if the economy doesn't grow fast enough to expose the real unemployment numbers...

And Obamacare isn't the total cluster-fruck that Senator Baucus seems to think it's going to be then maybe the Dems will be able to take over.

Can't wait.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
rhubroma said:
Just out of curiosity Scott, what about the people who truly can't afford premium private health care?

Should they just be left out of the system? Is this what is meant by the "land of opportunity?" How is it possible that the richest nation on earth can't come up with a public health care system? And then expect to give lessons to everybody about progress and its "way of life."
It's a dilemma, isn't it?

Lots of things that could be done with our current system... but for of competing interests and opposing political philosophies. People who truly can't afford care get care. It's the people who can barely afford care are the ones who are truly screwed.
 
Apr 20, 2009
1,190
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
We are going to find out if there is any there there.

I think it to be likely that Shulman mis-led congress as recently as testimony on May 22. I think Miller probably did as well and I think Lerner thinks this too... Which may explain her being unwilling to testify.
misled, possibly. lied, likely. i think he was in CYA mode over the optics of the situation, not that there was anything to it in the first place.

however, as for ms. lerner's taking the fifth, i have total respect for that. one should NEVER voluntarily speak to any federal official without a grant of immunity. because any mistake, failure of memory or omission is punishable by jail time.
 
Scott SoCal said:
It's a dilemma, isn't it?

Lots of things that could be done with our current system... but for of competing interests and opposing political philosophies. People who truly can't afford care get care. It's the people who can barely afford care are the ones who are truly screwed.
It's a dilemma that could be fixed overnight if a certain fanatical anti-state ideology and anti-solidarity from a certain political class, i.e. the right, would be placed aside.

Besides a private option would still be there for those so inclined, and able, to buy it, while the public one makes sure that those who can't afford the former, or barely can, don't get screwed as you put it.

I realize, however, that in the absence of any real sense of solidarity, and hence confidence in prioritizing the collective interest as a litmus test for a nation's level of civility, building a public health care system in America would be an arduous task.

On the other hand I was reading an article in yesterday's daily in which Bloomberg dared to advise the young to consider not attending university and learn a trade instead. The fact is that not even in the USA are people sure that going to college is the best investment for the future. The doubt has come for two rather decisive reasons: one, a private university in America costs on average $29,600 per year, while considering housing costs and other living expenses each student can expect to pay about $145,000 over four years. The second reason is that not even in the US does having a college degree guarantee finding a decent job after graduation. At the same time if you have a degree from U. Penn one can expect to initially earn $42,000 a year, whereas if from Penn State only $18,300 per year. It's become thus indespensible to weigh the costs and future benefits before going to college.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
gregod said:
misled, possibly. lied, likely. i think he was in CYA mode over the optics of the situation, not that there was anything to it in the first place.

however, as for ms. lerner's taking the fifth, i have total respect for that. one should NEVER voluntarily speak to any federal official without a grant of immunity. because any mistake, failure of memory or omission is punishable by jail time.

Well, the optics just got worse.

Shulman’s wife Susan L. Anderson is the senior program advisor for the Washington-based nonprofit organization Public Campaign, which claims that it “is laying the foundation for reform by working with a broad range of organizations, including local community groups, around the country that are fighting for change and national organizations whose members are not fairly represented under the current campaign finance system.”

This is getting ugly. For Shulman, plausible deniability just went out the window.:D

http://o.dailycaller.com/thedailycaller/#!/entry/former-irs-commissioner-shulmans-wife-works-for-liberal-group-fighting,51a91148da27f5d9d0d2f6ec/2


And who can forget...

When asked to account for his 118 visits to the White House within a two-year period, former IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman dug deep and managed to come up with one explanation: he took his kids to the White House Easter Egg Roll!
Lol

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY