Intelligent article/clip/show discussion

[/dev/null]

I found this to be humorous, on one of the Sunday talk shows, Paul krugman made the case that Obama is an anti keynesian.

Paul Krugman is a douche

[B-Man]

Obama’s 1996 Scenario is Finished

Jonathan S. Tobin

 

Last year, as the Republican-controlled House of Representatives stood its ground on the debt ceiling standoff, President Obama’s strategy for 2012 became apparent. Throughout the torturous negotiations over entitlements, budgets, taxes and spending, the president issued statements about wanting a compromise, but these were a thin veil covering his obvious desire for a confrontation. Demanding new taxes that the House majority elected in 2010 had vowed never to accept, the administration more or less dared the GOP leadership to allow the country to default by refusing to raise the debt ceiling.

 

It was painfully obvious as the controversy lingered throughout the summer that President Obama was working from Bill Clinton’s 1995 playbook when he similarly bluffed a Republican Congress into shutting down the government over a budget standoff. Though Congress’s popularity plunged, the president was disappointed in his hopes that House Speaker John Boehner or Majority Leader Eric Cantor refused to step into the Newt Gingrich clown suits he had prepared for them. Nevertheless, the White House still hoped that lingering disgust for Congress combined with an economic recovery would allow the president to win re-election in the same manner as Clinton did. But if there was any doubt about the inapplicability of the 1996 template, this year it was removed on Friday as another dismal jobs report more or less guaranteed that a summer recovery wasn’t in the cards. The bad economic news isn’t just a setback that will give the Democrats a few shaky news cycles. It is confirmation that the president’s re-election strategy has already failed.

 

This realization comes through in some of the accounts of the White House’s reaction to the bleak jobs report. Though the president was undaunted during his various campaign appearances and statements, even the usually pro-Obama coverage of the New York Times could not fail to note that the hopes of the president’s staff for a 1996 rerun have been crushed. Though the Democrats are still going all-out to demonize the congressional Republicans, blaming them or George W. Bush for the poor economy is a perilously weak re-election strategy for a man running on the slogan of “Forward.”

 

The Democratic counter-attack to the GOP carping about jobs is to accuse the opposition of rooting for a bad economy. But that is a talking point that will work just about as well for the Democrats as the Republican effort to claim critics of the Iraq war were cheering for America to lose. The problem here is that, as the Times noted, the president seems to have no viable options to change the situation other than to whine about Republicans not passing mini-stimulus bills he claims will jump-start the economy.

 

As the Times notes, in 1996 with the economy booming. the Republican Congress passed legislation that aided Clinton as well as bolstered their own reputation. Democrats will brand the GOP as obstructionists for not working with the president for the common good this year, but the big difference between the two situations is that Clinton co-opted Republican positions and moved to the center as he cruised to re-election. By contrast, President Obama has run to the left this year, making it impossible for the House to embrace his proposals even if they wanted to.

 

The president hoped to make the election a referendum on the GOP and on Mitt Romney’s fitness for the presidency. But with a failing U.S. economy and the prospect that an even worse tailspin in Europe will drag America’s finance down even further this year, that is looking like a losing bet. Nothing is worse for an incumbent than the appearance that he is not in control of events. The president’s helplessness on the economy — an issue that is his opponent’s one great strength — is scuttling his 1996 blueprint for victory in an election in which the odds appear to be starting to turn against him.

 

 

Commentary

 

.

[Rob's House]

Either way insuring everyone and reforming the market are the two things that needs to happen. There are 2 possible ways to insure everyone and they need law. And the market reform is obvious and can be helped with policies of large government customers like medicare leading the charge for private insurers to adopt later but the service side needs time to adjust and ultimately this is just something that will take time and occur organically.

I don't see how this is a solution or why it is necessary. Forcing more people to pay into a system whose problem is inefficiency doesn't do a thing to fix the problem. It's like having a leak in your heat ducts so instead of replacing the faulty duct you just burn more fuel.

 

I've been uninsured and known dozens of uninsured people. Most of my best friends are or have been uninsured at some point in time. Many of us have had unforeseen injury/sickness during that time, but somehow managed to get the care we needed without going into crippling debt. As far as problems with the medical system go, the plight of or drain caused by uninsured people is a few notches down the list.

 

 

To put it simply, compromise.

Sometimes compromise is surrender. Going along with a ****ty idea, or giving concessions just to get a deal made is how you end up with disasterous results. See Versailles Treaty.

 

I found this to be humorous, on one of the Sunday talk shows, Paul krugman made the case that Obama is an anti keynesian.

Paul Krugman is an anti-economist

[dayman]

 

 

 

Sometimes compromise is surrender. Going along with a ****ty idea, or giving concessions just to get a deal made is how you end up with disasterous results. See Versailles Treaty.

 

 

 

 

 

Well that may be true in some instances. Talk about lowering federal spending 3ish% over the next 4 years and then presumably getting push back about the slope of that ramp is a route to effective compromise. Slash-and-burn isn't.

 

I don't see how this is a solution or why it is necessary. Forcing more people to pay into a system whose problem is inefficiency doesn't do a thing to fix the problem. It's like having a leak in your heat ducts so instead of replacing the faulty duct you just burn more fuel.

 

I've been uninsured and known dozens of uninsured people. Most of my best friends are or have been uninsured at some point in time. Many of us have had unforeseen injury/sickness during that time, but somehow managed to get the care we needed without going into crippling debt. As far as problems with the medical system go, the plight of or drain caused by uninsured people is a few notches down the list.

 

 

 

Well what it gets to is the overwhelming percentage of overall costs such a small percentage of people account for. To make sure the chronically ill are taken care of in a way that doesn't over-burden the overall insurance market...it seems you need to suck in the healthy people no? And that is a separate (but certainly related) issue from market oriented cost reform which we also need to occur and facilitate as best we can.

Edited June 3, 2012 by TheNewBills

[WorldTraveller]

The tea party has a good goal, which is to limit the size of government and spending, it's just that the implementation of their proposals would be nearly catastrophic. Obama doesn't share that same goal, he wants a bigger government financed by higher taxes which if implemented, over time would have the same catastrophic outcome.

 

The solution is to gradually cut spending and reform the entitlements. Tax increases or significant cuts in this economy is the wrong course to take. We know that Obama isn't the man to do the job, and either would a typical tea party guy such as a rand Paul sort of candidate.

[dayman]

The solution is to gradually cut spending and reform the entitlements. Tax increases or significant cuts in this economy is the wrong course to take. We know that Obama isn't the man to do the job, and either would a typical tea party guy such as a rand Paul sort of candidate.

 

 

 

How gradually and where to cut spending is a debate the country needs to have, agreed. Slash-and-burn isn't an option, agreed. In either way, we are going to have to tolerate significant deficits in the short term. So to hit the American public over the head with "deficit, deficit, deficit" is a distraction and mucks up the discussion. Long-term deficit yes...but not this coming years budget.

 

Entitlement reform re: SS/Medicare is really the mack daddy and that is what will determine the long term deficit issues. Thing is those are long term in a very loose usage of the word "long term" but neither Obama or Romney are serious about expending the significant political capital it would take to start that reform now...and perhaps that is wise since we still have short term issues that require immediate attention.

 

As for taxes...the marginal rate is one thing but overall taxes are going to rise in a way Grover would not approve of. And that would be the agenda of either man running for president.

 

Really the more Romney gets specific the less difference there is between him and Obama. Sure, there are some differences (enough to make it an actual choice) but to have had some sects of the right vilify the President to the extent he has been only to support Romney now makes little sense.

Edited June 3, 2012 by TheNewBills

[WorldTraveller]

How gradually and where to cut spending is a debate the country needs to have, agreed. Slash-and-burn isn't an option, agreed. In either way, we are going to have to tolerate significant deficits in the short term. So to hit the American public over the head with "deficit, deficit, deficit" is a distraction and mucks up the discussion. Long-term deficit yes...but not this coming years budget.

 

Entitlement reform re: SS/Medicare is really the mack daddy and that is what will determine the long term deficit issues. Thing is those are long term in a very loose usage of the word "long term" but neither Obama or Romney are serious about expending the significant political capital it would take to start that reform now...and perhaps that is wise since we still have short term issues that require immediate attention.

 

As for taxes...the marginal rate is one thing but overall taxes are going to rise in a way Grover would not approve of. And that would be the agenda of either man running for president.

 

Really the more Romney gets specific the less difference there is between him and Obama. Sure, there are some differences (enough to make it an actual choice) but to have had some sects of the right vilify the President to the extent he has been only to support Romney now makes little sense.

I would argue that without the tea party, that the discussion of deficit reduction wouldn't nearly be as emphasized as if they didn't exist. So I'm thankful that they came about, because it is quite clear that the status quo isn't gonna cut it. So it's just a matter of how?

[Rob's House]

Well that may be true in some instances. Talk about lowering federal spending 3ish% over the next 4 years and then presumably getting push back about the slope of that ramp is a route to effective compromise. Slash-and-burn isn't.

3%ish over 4 years is too small to make an impact. Especially when you consider its essentially 3% reduction of projected future spending you're talking about. Most "slash-and-burn" proposals are straw man propaganda trumpeted by the left to make Tea Baggers look ridiculous. By and large they're just a group of run-of-the-mill fiscal conservatives who got a little freaked out by a guy who never saw a government project he didn't like and want to increase funding for, get the Presidency with a super majority. Most understand that reforms have to be gradual, and many were protesting proposed increases rather than demanding massive cuts immediately.

 

 

Well what it gets to is the overwhelming percentage of overall costs such a small percentage of people account for. To make sure the chronically ill are taken care of in a way that doesn't over-burden the overall insurance market...it seems you need to suck in the healthy people no? And that is a separate (but certainly related) issue from market oriented cost reform which we also need to occur and facilitate as best we can.

I don't think the % of overall costs coming from uninsured is as staggering as we're lead to believe. I'd like to see some hard #s on the issue, but as I understand it the overwhelming majority of costs goes to pay for old people. The true objective of this bogus mandate is to get young people to subsidize the health care costs of old people. If it were merely an issue of getting uninsured to pay their bill, giving a line of credit that can't be bankrupted and can only requite a max of 10-15% of your wages in repayment (similare to student loans) would make more sense. Further, and again, none of this does anything to address the real issue, which is cost. You're just collecting more fuel to pour into the leaky furnace because its easier right now than fixing the leak.

[dayman]

3%ish over 4 years is too small to make an impact. Especially when you consider its essentially 3% reduction of projected future spending you're talking about. Most "slash-and-burn" proposals are straw man propaganda trumpeted by the left to make Tea Baggers look ridiculous. By and large they're just a group of run-of-the-mill fiscal conservatives who got a little freaked out by a guy who never saw a government project he didn't like and want to increase funding for, get the Presidency with a super majority. Most understand that reforms have to be gradual, and many were protesting proposed increases rather than demanding massive cuts immediately.

 

 

 

I don't think the % of overall costs coming from uninsured is as staggering as we're lead to believe. I'd like to see some hard #s on the issue, but as I understand it the overwhelming majority of costs goes to pay for old people. The true objective of this bogus mandate is to get young people to subsidize the health care costs of old people. If it were merely an issue of getting uninsured to pay their bill, giving a line of credit that can't be bankrupted and can only requite a max of 10-15% of your wages in repayment (similare to student loans) would make more sense. Further, and again, none of this does anything to address the real issue, which is cost. You're just collecting more fuel to pour into the leaky furnace because its easier right now than fixing the leak.

 

Well as for the 3-4% I mean to say in relation to GDP (but realize I didn't actually write that)...fairly significant I'm sure you would agree. That would the be starting point for Romney according to the Zakaria interview w/ his chief economics adviser.

 

 

As for the fixing the issue with cost...you just can't. No legislation can do that (at least not in this country). All you can do is facilitate the natural progression which is only now beginning, which we will and should do. But that doesn't mean that insurance reform should be put off for 10-20 years for the cost problem to be significantly reformed IMO. As for the small amount of people accounting for the large amount of healthcare costs...I was just referring to what you later talked about referring to the old people/chronically ill (not the uninsured) but supposedly the uninsured cost-shifting dynamic is significant according to almost any talk I see (from people of both parties) but I agree it would be nice to grasp some hard numbers. Those hard number would be tough to generate though. Either way bringing in everyone and widening a base of healthy young people seems to be the only way to maintain affordable insurance costs if we are going to allow pre-existing conditions and high-risk people into the market on an individual basis (and on a group basis to a lesser extent) and also if we are going to continue to provide the services the 5% using 50% of the care demand (and supposedly need) since the cost issue is a slow-burn.

 

And as for the loan idea similar to student loans that is an interesting idea but as expensive as school is it really isn't close to the end of life/chronically ill/cancer/other extreme medical costs. It could allow some flow of cash for those people but the loans themselves would never be paid off....if we have a student loan bubble now the bubble that would create would be enormous. Especially considering a lot of those people will die lol...also many too sick to work and have productive income...etc...many of these people are the exact people that can't pay off the loans (the similar problem w/ current student loan bubble b/c of recession and growing education costs but at least w/ the student they theoretically will pay it off over the course of a lifetime...the old/sick not so much even in theory). We would just end up subsidizing massive default IMO. You think?

Edited June 3, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Rob's House]

1. As for the fixing the issue with cost...you just can't. No legislation can do that (at least not in this country). All you can do is facilitate the natural progression which is only now beginning, which we will and should do. 2. But that doesn't mean that insurance reform should be put off for 10-20 years for the cost problem to be significantly reformed IMO. As for the small amount of people accounting for the large amount of healthcare costs...I was just referring to what you later talked about referring to the old people/chronically ill (not the uninsured) but supposedly the uninsured cost-shifting dynamic is significant according to almost any talk I see (from people of both parties) but I agree it would be nice to grasp some hard numbers. Those hard number would be tough to generate though. Either way bringing in everyone and widening a base of healthy young people seems to be the only way to maintain affordable insurance costs 3. if we are going to allow pre-existing conditions and high-risk people into the market on an individual basis (and on a group basis to a lesser extent) and also if we are going to continue to provide the services the 5% using 50% of the care demand (and supposedly need) since the cost issue is a slow-burn.

 

And as for the loan idea similar to student loans that is an interesting idea but as expensive as school is 4.a. it really isn't close to the end of life/chronically ill/cancer/other extreme medical costs. It could allow some flow of cash for those people but the loans themselves would never be paid off....if we have a student loan bubble now the bubble that would create would be enormous. Especially considering 4.b. a lot of those people will die lol...also 5. many too sick to work and have productive income...etc...many of these people are the exact people that can't pay off the loans (the similar problem w/ current student loan bubble b/c of recession and growing education costs but at least w/ the student they theoretically will pay it off over the course of a lifetime...the old/sick not so much even in theory). We would just end up subsidizing massive default IMO. You think?

1. Rather than looking for legislation that fixes the issue I look to removing the legislation that causes the issue.

 

2. I don't consider this new health insurance legislation to be "reform" in any since of the word, but rather quite the opposite of reform.

 

3. If high-risk people, or those with pre-existing conditions, want insurance they have to pay the premium commesurate with the risk they represent. Otherwise it's not insurance, but medical welfare. Some people may be fine with that concept, but the idea that every person is entitled to the best health care science can offer is a fantasy. Those people need to get insured ahead of time or rely on public services like medicaid.

 

4.a. For end of life care you may be S.O.L. That may sound callous but it's more callous to expect the rest of the population to suffer so that you can get a few extra weeks tacked on at the end. If you can show you have significant assets to put against it then fine, but death is part of life and you don't get $100s of thousands of other people's money to make every last ditch effort to secure a little more time. It sucks, but that's just the way it is.

 

4.b. Creditors get first dibs on the estate.

 

5. Those people are the one's for whom social programs exist. Our society can afford to accommodate the truly unemployable among us. If we stop diverting resources to absurd government contracts, obscene pensions, ridiculous compensation packages for government employees that produce little to nothing, and stop giving a free ride to anyone with the audacity to demand it, we'll have more than enough to treat these people more than adequately.

[dayman]

1. Rather than looking for legislation that fixes the issue I look to removing the legislation that causes the issue.

 

2. I don't consider this new health insurance legislation to be "reform" in any since of the word, but rather quite the opposite of reform.

 

3. If high-risk people, or those with pre-existing conditions, want insurance they have to pay the premium commesurate with the risk they represent. Otherwise it's not insurance, but medical welfare. Some people may be fine with that concept, but the idea that every person is entitled to the best health care science can offer is a fantasy. Those people need to get insured ahead of time or rely on public services like medicaid.

 

4.a. For end of life care you may be S.O.L. That may sound callous but it's more callous to expect the rest of the population to suffer so that you can get a few extra weeks tacked on at the end. If you can show you have significant assets to put against it then fine, but death is part of life and you don't get $100s of thousands of other people's money to make every last ditch effort to secure a little more time. It sucks, but that's just the way it is.

 

4.b. Creditors get first dibs on the estate.

 

5. Those people are the one's for whom social programs exist. Our society can afford to accommodate the truly unemployable among us. If we stop diverting resources to absurd government contracts, obscene pensions, ridiculous compensation packages for government employees that produce little to nothing, and stop giving a free ride to anyone with the audacity to demand it, we'll have more than enough to treat these people more than adequately.

 

LOL this will be difficult since the further we go the further we get from the quoted text but I'll stay with the numbers for now. My thoughts:

 

1. There really is no legislation that creates the costs problems in the market. There may or may not be some things that can be improved but this medical cost explosion in this country happened organically. If there are specific pieces of legislation that created the situation we are in that you know of please let me know I'll check 'em and see what I think.

 

2. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

3. Well the fact is they didn't...and w/ a mandate in the future they (the future "they")will...but for now we have them and at some point they have to come in...and they can't come in at market rates b/c they can't afford it...just dumping them into medicaid won't fix any of the problems they cause. The best way to deal with them, is make sure in the future they aren't there.

 

4a. Well...I'm not going to argue with you on that but to be honest I don't see that changing.

 

4b. The kind of people we're talking about that die with huge unpaid medical bills aren't leaving large estates most are broke.

Edited June 3, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Rob's House]

LOL this will be difficult since the further we go the further we get from the quoted text but I'll stay with the numbers for now. My thoughts:

 

1. There really is no legislation that creates the costs problems in the market. There may or may not be some things that can be improved but this medical cost explosion in this country happened organically. If there are specific pieces of legislation that created the situation we are in that you know of please let me know I'll check 'em and see what I think.

2. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

3. Well the fact is they didn't...and w/ a mandate in the future they (the future "they")will...but for now we have them and at some point they have to come in...just dumping them into medicare won't fix any of the problems they cause.

 

4a. Well...I'm not going to argue with you on that but to be honest I don't see that changing.

 

4b. The kind of people we're talking about that die with huge unpaid medical bills aren't leaving large estates most are broke.

Without doing the research to get the specifics, I know there are laws that determine all that which must be included in a policy for it to be considered "credible coverage." This is a big one as it requires all manner of costly additions that the average Joe doesn't necessarily believe society should be coercively forced to provide. Also, there are laws (and these may be state or federal, I'm not sure) that require employers to provide levels of access and contribute certain amounts to health care plans (dude touches on the employer aspect briefly). I'm not sure what the law requires of insurance companies regarding end-of-life care, but I'd be willing to bet that they are required to cover all manner of procedures that may be of questionable value and that if the customer had the choice at the outset of getting such coverage would often opt out of it.

 

For example, if you could opt out of coverage for procedures x, y, and z, which are extrememly costly and of questionable value in order to reduce your premium by 30% you might go with that. But if the government forces all insurance companies to cover x, y, and z, and therefore every customer that is covered has and pays for that coverage...

[dayman]

Without doing the research to get the specifics, I know there are laws that determine all that which must be included in a policy for it to be considered "credible coverage." This is a big one as it requires all manner of costly additions that the average Joe doesn't necessarily believe society should be coercively forced to provide. Also, there are laws (and these may be state or federal, I'm not sure) that require employers to provide levels of access and contribute certain amounts to health care plans (dude touches on the employer aspect briefly). I'm not sure what the law requires of insurance companies regarding end-of-life care, but I'd be willing to bet that they are required to cover all manner of procedures that may be of questionable value and that if the customer had the choice at the outset of getting such coverage would often opt out of it.

 

For example, if you could opt out of coverage for procedures x, y, and z, which are extrememly costly and of questionable value in order to reduce your premium by 30% you might go with that. But if the government forces all insurance companies to cover x, y, and z, and therefore every customer that is covered has and pays for that coverage...

 

 

Well we're blurring the line here of the medical cost/insurance cost discussion. I was referring the medical cost problem exclusively in that counter-point. Either way people can't pay for these theoretical x/y/z operations out of pocket...almost nobody can anyway...but what they can do is pay for a larger share and thus be forced to shop and compare competing services which is one thing that IMO will help bring down the costs of the more specialized services over time. As for being required to cover this and that...historically it's been state to state and I can't really link it directly to the cost of the operation itself...if they were affordable anyway (despite being on the steep side) maybe I could but at least what I am thinking of as "x, y, and z" are not.

Edited June 3, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Rob's House]

Well we're blurring the line here of the 1. medical cost/insurance cost discussion. I was referring the medical cost problem exclusively in that counter-point. Either way 2. people can't pay for these theoretical x/y/z operations out of pocket...almost nobody can anyway...3. but what they can do is pay for a larger share and thus be forced to shop and compare competing services which is one thing that IMO will help bring down the costs of the more specialized services over time. As for being required to cover this and that...historically it's been state to state and I can't really link it directly to the cost of the operation itself...if they were affordable anyway (despite being on the steep side) maybe I could but at least what I am thinking of as "x, y, and z" are not.

1. The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. By forcing coverage you increase the aggregate cost of medical care which in turn raises the cost of insurance.

2. If everyone needs expensive procedures they can't pay out of pocket, where will the money come from? The idea of insurance is that you probably won't need an expensive procedure but you pay into a risk pool just in case.

3. I couldn't agree more

[dayman]

On another topic.

 

There was an interesting study discussed at the end of GPS today done by Michael Porter (a Harvard management guy) and 71% of Harvard grads in high level decision-making positions now think American competitiveness is slipping badly. He defines competiveness in 2 ways: 1) American companies competing in international markets but 2) WHILE having an increase in American's standard of living. If our companies are competing internationally by cutting wages domestically, to Porter that is a sign that we actually are NOT competitive.

 

Ultimately he sees the path to prosperity being measured by increased productivity that justifies a high wage. And in this aspect, he proposes that we've dropped the ball.

 

The study/survey shows that not only will factories be shifted over seas continually but R&D as well (I've seen Clinton say multiple times in recent speaking engagements posted online that manufacturers increasingly want their R&D near their plants). R&D being shifted in addition to manufacturing is particularly troubling...not having workers here sucks but not having the innovation here? That is a new level of "oh ****" for us IMO.

 

Some reasons the majority surveyed cited for moving abroad were:

 

-number 1 reason was that our workers were not productive enough to justify higher wages; so moving over seas turned out to be a good deal on cost/benefit analysis

 

-about 30% surveyed said they COULD NOT find the skills they needed in America

 

His survey also asked what companies really wanted...the most common answer? Improve the quality of the domestic work force. Not taxes, not anything like that. That is particularly interesting.

 

He went on to say that a budding trend recently has been a bit of a turn-around in some business starting to move toward investing in domestic workforce a bit more and in some sectors bringing business activity back to teh US...a sign of businesses recognizing the tangible economic benefit from investing in what he calls "the commons."

 

 

Anyway...interesting last segment there and my damn DVR actually cut the last end of the interview off. But there was both exposure to hard truths and troubling facts in his survey but some hope buried in there as well. I think it goes without saying that if we really want to get ourselves going long-term, we are going to have to fix our education problems in this country and it is going to take some real leadership from (IMO) the Federal Government on this issue.

 

I would like to think the States could start improving themselves (and I'm not suggesting they aren't still primarily responsible) but the kind of comprehensive reform we need to improve the productivity of our future work force is going to take some sort of stronger effort from Washington (despite the questionable success of past programs that came from the Hill). That's my take anyway, I wouldn't be so quick to vilify efforts of the federal government to become MORE involved in our education.

 

Another random article I saw recently (can cannot seem to find searching now nor can I recall the exact details) had to do with an unbelievably low percentage of American teachers having been top 20% in their class when they were educated and it compared that to Japan where an unbelievably high percentage of their teachers were top 10% when they were in school (other Asian nations follow the same trend). It cited pay, private sector forces, and the status teachers have in society over there as contributing factors. It's obvious that we should all be disgusted by the way our public education system is performing worse and costing more and the teachers we DO HAVE are a part of the problem...but we should consider the TEACHERS we WANT TO HAVE when discussion things like the Wisconsin troubles IMO. We need to get our fiscal house in order but it will all be for nothing if we fall too far behind in worker productivity.

 

 

 

...a loosely related video concerning education (typical interview with Doc Neil who I love...)...all these things (space, education, etc) take heavy investment the way I see it there is no other way...smart investment but investment in ourselves nonetheless....

 

Edited June 3, 2012 by TheNewBills

[IDBillzFan]

I would argue that without the tea party, that the discussion of deficit reduction wouldn't nearly be as emphasized as if they didn't exist. So I'm thankful that they came about, because it is quite clear that the status quo isn't gonna cut it. So it's just a matter of how?

You don't need to argue it because it's a fact that anyone with even the slightest bit of an open mind can see.

 

As candidate, Obama promised to cut the deficit in half by his first term. Even after getting his ass handed to him in the 2010 midterms, he not only has no interest in it, he wouldn't know where to start if he appointed people to a bipartisan group to SHOW him how to do it.

 

Oh, wait.

 

Liberals hate the tea party because the tea party has managed to become what the liberal left only wishes it could become: an organized group that understands simply holding your breath until you turn blue is not a way to get things done in government. This is why many people still give serious consideration to the tea party while absolutely no one discusses OWS without a guffaw and a snicker and a joke about smelly tent-dwellers.

[dayman]

They finally put up the interview I was talking about in the post above here's a link if anyone wants to talk about it. Can't be bothered to figure out how to link the video directly but the video is there in the link.

 

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/04/how-to-keep-america-competitive/

[Jauronimo]

Do you ever get the feeling you're just talking to yourself?

Knock it off!

[fjl2nd]

I found this to be humorous, on one of the Sunday talk shows, Paul krugman made the case that Obama is an anti keynesian.

 

Well, he definitely hasn't been a Kenynesian by any stretch. The only thing close was the stimulus package.

 

The economy is going the way Republicans wanted it. Private sector growing, public sector shrinking. Spending was reigned in and taxes have remained low. And now we see the results in the slowing recovery.

[DC Tom]

Well, he definitely hasn't been a Kenynesian by any stretch. The only thing close was the stimulus package.

 

The economy is going the way Republicans wanted it. Private sector growing, public sector shrinking. Spending was reigned in and taxes have remained low. And now we see the results in the slowing recovery.

 

Keynes wasn't even a Keynesian, goddammit!