Obamacare: Unions sick of it + Youth may destroy it

zorki1c wrote:

BlackSpinner wrote:

zorki1c wrote:"Finally, if one more person claims that Obama care is socialism, I'll scream."

It is. Scream away.

That is because you don't know what you are talking about. Screaming doesn't make it so.
I suggest you take a Politics 101 course before you display more ignorance to the rest of the world.

Not sure if you are addressing me or the person I was quoting.

Discussing a subject without understanding your terminology? Big fail.

BlackSpinner wrote:

zorki1c wrote:

BlackSpinner wrote:

zorki1c wrote:"Finally, if one more person claims that Obama care is socialism, I'll scream."

It is. Scream away.

That is because you don't know what you are talking about. Screaming doesn't make it so.
I suggest you take a Politics 101 course before you display more ignorance to the rest of the world.

Not sure if you are addressing me or the person I was quoting.

Discussing a subject without understanding your terminology? Big fail.

Could you tell me what pressure you are running at? Must be a lot higher than mine because the pressure is obviously inflating your brain which makes you soooo much smarter than me. And it's obvious you are smarter. Just ask you.

EOC

Hey BlackSpinner,

Canadians come to America by the hundreds, if not thousands, for the healthcare they either can't get in Canada or aren't willing to wait months to get. Apparently, it doesn't "suck" as much as you suggest.

My god, every time you open your mouth you make another mistake! Stop spouting off and read real stats, not garbage.

rd1978 wrote:Hey BlackSpinner,

Canadians come to America by the hundreds, if not thousands, for the healthcare they either can't get in Canada or aren't willing to wait months to get. Apparently, it doesn't "suck" as much as you suggest.

Yes and so do the Hobbits and the Elves. Tell another fairy story

Any time I am in need of an expert opinion on just about any topic, especially one that is complex and/or serious like healthcare for example, I always seek out either a bureaucrat or, better yet, a community organizer.

The great sheeple harvest is on ...

Four out of 5 U.S. adults face near-poverty or no work ...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive ... 06005.html

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-2 ... unemployed

And corporate fascism is peaking towards collapse -- and still, the sleepy sheeple dream and/or argue over obamacare.

DreamStalker wrote:The great sheeple harvest is on ...

Four out of 5 U.S. adults face near-poverty or no work ...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-2 ... unemployed

And corporate fascism is peaking towards collapse -- and still, the sleepy sheeple dream and/or argue over obamacare.

Getting to be a world wide problem, not just US.

DreamStalker wrote:The great sheeple harvest is on ...

Four out of 5 U.S. adults face near-poverty or no work ...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive ... 06005.html

This is a serious study, and worth our concern, but it is being used in a misleading way by some media outlets. This study isn't about a recent, acute crisis, because what the author tried to determine was how many people faced economic uncertainty at some time over the course of their working lives. As a result, it necessarily drew on experience from several decades. It found that at some time before turning 60, 79 percent of people experience (a) a year or more of periodic unemployment, (b) reliance on some form of government aid, such as food stamps, and/or (c) income below 150 percent of the federal poverty level. Many more people have something like this happen sometime during their lives than are in this position at any one time.

RogerSC wrote: I doubt that there's much respect for Krugman, but I happen to agree with a lot that he writes.

"There are men regarded today as brilliant economists, who deprecate saving and recommend squandering on a national scale as the way of economic salvation; and when anyone points to what the consequences of these policies will be in the long run, they reply flippantly, as might the prodigal son of a warning father: 'In the long run we are all dead.' And such shallow wisecracks pass as devastating epigrams and the ripest wisdom."

Henry Hazlitt

Not Fade wrote: "There are men regarded today as brilliant economists, who deprecate saving.........
Henry Hazlitt

Oh that economics could be as simple as some wish! The only way to save is for the value of the saver's labor to be greater than the value of what he consumes. But, for that saving to have value in the future it must be borrowed by someone else. Then, years later, the saver asks for his savings (deferred labor value) to be returned. The borrower then has to have a surplus value in his labor, using the value of his labor to support himself and to help support the saver. In some ways, it really isn't any different from the borrowing penchant we see today that must be repaid by later generations.

Historically the American economy has been based on waste. We build, we throw away. At the risk of stirring up strong sentiment, military spending is largely waste. We build a bomb, and then explode it. All the labor that went into the bomb, or the missile, or the round of ammunition, goes poof, and becomes nothing more than a useless hole in the ground. Or how about all the labor that goes into the food and fuel and clothing that ends up as nothing more than boot tracks in the sand? If you look at it cold heartedly, you will see that military spending is largely waste. We choose to spend it because it does provide a return in terms of national security. But, how much national security can we afford?

Then there is Obamacare which will cause billions of dollars to be expended in removing ruptured appendixes, or setting broken legs, or caring for an aged and ailing person in the last few months of life. There is no question the first two are valuable to society in general. The third one, in the minds of some, has questionable value in the long term for society, aside from being an expression of compassion. So which is the more admirable choice? Spend billions to pay staff and buy disposable medical material to care for ailing and dying people, or pay soldiers to go look for and clobber off Al Qaeda guys? Don't answer, just think about it. Economics ain't simple. We can't endlessly continue to do both.

On the other hand, we send money to China, they use it to build homes and buy food while they build a smart phone for us. Then we use the smart phone for a couple of years and throw it away. How smart is that in the long term? Yes, the smart phone helps us enjoy life, and is a tool to help in making things we need and want, but isn't it also a waste to some extent? In contrast, years ago Western Electric built telephones which the Bell System rented to subscribers and had an expected life span of 40 years!

See, economics ain't simple. Because it isn't, it's hard for politicians and citizens, and us forum members, to discuss it rationally.

Keep in mind, for every $50,000 a year in waste, fraud, and abuse that is prevented, someone, somewhere loses a job.

Not Fade wrote:

RogerSC wrote: I doubt that there's much respect for Krugman, but I happen to agree with a lot that he writes.

"There are men regarded today as brilliant economists, who deprecate saving and recommend squandering on a national scale as the way of economic salvation; and when anyone points to what the consequences of these policies will be in the long run, they reply flippantly, as might the prodigal son of a warning father: 'In the long run we are all dead.' And such shallow wisecracks pass as devastating epigrams and the ripest wisdom."

Henry Hazlitt

Treating the famous Keynes quotation as if it were an expression of flippant disregard for the future is dishonest, which is why Hazlitt was nothing but a hack. The context of the statement was an argument over whether Britain, having of necessity gone off the gold standard during the First World War, should go back afterwards at its pre-war exchange rate. Keynes was deeply critical of the economists who said that in the "long run" domestic prices would fall so as to put the cost of British good in line with those of other countries, because they ignored the consequences that would ensue before this long-run equilibrium was reached. Krugman, for whom I have utmost respect, explains it best:

One dead giveaway that someone pretending to be an authority on economics is in fact faking it is misuse of the famous Keynes line about the long run. Here's the actual quote:

But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again.

As I've written before, Keynes's point here is that economic models are incomplete, suspect, and not much use if they can't explain what happens year to year, but can only tell you where things will supposedly end up after a lot of time has passed. It's an appeal for better analysis, not for ignoring the future; and anyone who tries to make it into some kind of moral indictment of Keynesian thought has forfeited any right to be taken seriously.

Krugman has emphasized over and over that government spending is only an appropriate response to specialized economic circumstances, not a panacea. It is perfectly rational if I cut back my spending when my income falls, but if everyone does so at the same time, a spiral of increasing misery results. My expenditures are my neighbor's income, and vice versa. We cannot all stop spending at once without each adversely affecting the other. That is where we found ourselves beginning in 2008, and that is why Krugman and his like argue so vehemently that now is not the time for governmental austerity, because only government can buck the trend and supply some new demand for good and services. This is no flippant disregard of the future, but a sincere argument about what will best get us back on track for the future.

PST wrote: Treating the famous Keynes quotation as if it were an expression of flippant disregard for the future is dishonest, which is why Hazlitt was nothing but a hack.
...

One dead giveaway that someone pretending to be an authority on economics is in fact faking it is misuse of the famous Keynes line about the long run.

Brilliant Post! Thank you.

We cannot all stop spending at once without each adversely affecting the other. That is where we found ourselves beginning in 2008, and that is why Krugman and his like argue so vehemently that now is not the time for governmental austerity, because only government can buck the trend and supply some new demand for good and services. This is no flippant disregard of the future, but a sincere argument about what will best get us back on track for the future.

A relative who is an economist and definitely not a liberal has made the same argument.

By the way PST, thank you so much for always making sure that people aren't misrepresenting facts. It is greatly appreciated.

49er

idamtnboy wrote: Keep in mind, for every $50,000 a year in waste, fraud, and abuse that is prevented, someone, somewhere loses a job.

Keynes and Krugman are walking through the park. Keynes says, “I’ll pay you $5,000 to eat that chunk of dried dog doo.”

Krugman does it.

Keynes doesn’t have any evil savings and didn’t think Krugman would do it. The next day Keynes begs for the money back.

Krugman says, “I’ll give it back if you eat a chunk of dried dog doo.”

Keynes does it.

Krugman says, “We have been stupid: No one made money and we’ve both eaten ****.”

Keynes says: “But we boosted GDP by $10,000!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBgJqgUmSZE