Will the US end up like Greece in a few years? (stats, solutions)

[Joke Insurance]

Originally Posted by Antlered Chamataka

The EU and the Euro was born in 2000 and I was 20 at that time. And I knew rightaway after studying the Euro financial model that this whole set up was a farce and was headed for ruin. It couldn't even hold itself together for a decade.

Do you think it happened this way? Serious question, btw

[saganista]

Originally Posted by jwm1964

Ideas different than your own aren't necessarily propaganda. Without specifying what you are talking about, just painting with a broad 'right-wing propoganda' brush is over-generalizing.

You have to be reminded? No recollection of idiot-talk about death panels, rationing, and government take-overs? Absurd mischaracterizations of the state of other countries' national health care systems? Promises that small business would cease to exist in this country if HCR passed, and that major corporations would simply pack up and move overseas if they lost their right to double-deduct portions of retiree health care costs? All of that has just slipped away from you somehow? All of that was pure propaganda, and all of it was pure right-wing.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

I'm sure people could understand your point without the edge and sarcasm.

It's not clear to me that some people have much desire to understand in any case. They debate (if you want to call it that) from some crippled state of emotionalism and denial. In this case, however, I was merely carrying forward another poster's slanted reference to those "fully on board the deficit express" and didn't even go into his irrational slur suggesting that the validity of another's arguments could be judged simply through knowledge of his or her place of employment.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

Name calling? Yea technically you can say you are comparing someone with something, perhaps a metaphor, but come on, your really just calling those who think differently than you derogatory names.

hoo-li-gan: A tough and aggressive or violent youth. Seems quite a good fit to the preprogrammed rowdies who were sent out to disrupt Town Hall meetings in August of 2009. Perhaps you'd have preferred if I'd used the term "bullyboy" -- a swaggering tough; usually one acting as an agent of a political faction.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

Sag, chill. sheesh, this is what I was talking about, bring the rhetoric down and quit attacking everybody who doesn't see, think and feel exactly how you do.

The quality of the other poster's demands and commentary did not warrant another treatment, and I'm familiar enough with his posts over a number of years to feel free to react on the basis of a long, smug, and apparently continuing history as a cloaker of truth and dispatcher of dishonesty. Nothing new here. And as I've told you in so many words on now multiple occasions, people can see, think, and feel whatever they like. But if these should gel into some sort of claim or opinion that they then deliberately express in a public forum in a manner that betrays gross flaws in fact and egregious errors in reason, they should expect to be called and corrected on the matter. If they were innately honest people, they would indeed welcome it.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by texdav

Every bill has to be score neutral on budget i spending. But CBO who scores it has to go by the senate figures.The senate can give them a amount in savings form fraud;effciancy etc. the CBO has to take thsoe figures in scoring.

No, all that's transmitted to or analyzed by CBO is the text of the proposed legislation itself. Even if that were to include estimates of future costs and savings, those would be ignored, just as the courts ignore any included claim that a particular law is in fact Constitutional.

Originally Posted by texdav

Of course it never has comwe true. that is why we continue to boprrow more and more>

We continue to borrow more and more simply because our revenues do not cover our costs. There are a variety of reasons for this, the most recent and most significant having been the major reductions in revenue and expansion of emergency support payments that resulted from the Great Bush Recession.

Originally Posted by texdav

The there are the special funding such as war; so calledone time spendig such as stimulus;TARP and unemployment increased spending. We will soon have double the deficit since 2008.But its more than the us or greece.Of the euro zone only gernay isn;'t in worse shape thru growth i there economy.

Germany, like China, was an early recoverer from the global recession (thanks in part to major stimulus packages), and each of them then turned to export-driven growth. This is a tactic generally reserved for developing countries, not for economic powers, and such not-really-playing-by-the-rules behavior is one of the reasons why each of them has caught flak at G-20 meetings.

Originally Posted by texdav

But while their defaultig would effect us as badly it wil have a effect o growth in slowing it down even more.So while we may not default still growth is due to be slow and recovery long.

A default in Greece would be in nobody's interests, but lacking their own currency, their hands are tied. It's an EU problem awaiting an EU solution. The recovery will meanwhile continue to be longer and slower than what anyone would prefer. Some people are trying to take steps to move the process forward. Others have retreated into a deranged ideological lockdown. Hopefully, the views of the sane people will come to prevail.

Originally Posted by texdav

Not solving defcits can mean drastc cuts coming and when it gets high like greece facing collpase or drastc cuts if you can borrow even.

Yet again, the situations in Greece and in the US are not even remotely comparable. Ten-year Treasury yields closed yesterday at 2.94%. There is no shortage of funds being made available to finance our current deficit. Where are the people lined up to invest in Greece? What we would like of course is for rising aggregate demand to spark new jobs and business opportunities that would engender competition for available funds sufficient to drive those rates back up toward the 4-5% range. But you aren't going to get that effect from cutting spending.

[sunnyandcloudydays]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

The "Greatest Generation" did not run up the debt in World War 2. Most of them were too young to be in positions of power. They got to deal with the burden of the war debt, though. A fast growing economy made the debt manageable and shrunk it as a % of GDP.

Our debt is now approaching 100% of GDP. That might be a manageable percentage if we didn't have a huge wave of Baby Boomers about to collect Social Security & Medicare. And in case you were thinking of it, don't mention the wars. Even if we ended all the wars now, Social Security & Medicare are going to eat up nearly all government revenue if we don't do soemthing. Economists across the political spectrum agree on that much. Our future economic prospects are not that good, as countries with aging populations collecting Social Security benefits tend to have slow growing economies....so growing out way out of the problem is not a likely option as it was after World War 2.

Wow when you say the words the Greatest generation
well it makes me wonder will my generatin , gen x have to suffer because of the greatest generation?

If so thanks! all kidding aside the country is in some deep deep trouble
I have even heard rumblings of ssi being eliminated in august until they get his mess unraveled.

All this for a job creation bill that materialized nothing and bailing out wall street

remember when they said the country could not face losing wall street banks
well i certainly beg to differer what could be worse the banks failing
or millions and i mean millions of folks having to suffer because of this countries support of big business.

all of congress senate please do your self a fovor to your constitutes and impeach YOURSELF

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

I am not an attorney, that is true. Most people not directly involved in writing or promulgating complicated legislation are. My worries are based on the comments/explanations I received on a visit to the local Medicare/SS office the last time I was in the States. They hadn't a clue of what the "reform" package was all about, or what it was going to mean to a person on the verge of retirement, like me. It is not a big confidence-builder when the people paid (handsomely) to adminster programs are not able to explain their ramifications. The next time I visit, I'll point them to the link you included, I guess. I'm sure they'll appreciate it as much as I.

To summarize, you have abdicated any and all Personal Responsibility® in understanding the matter, while at the same time continuing to pontificate on the internet as if you actually knew what you were talking about. Very interesting.

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

So far, it's been an express to nowhere.

Do you know when the detailed provisions of HCR are scheduled to go into effect? Do you know what year this is?

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

From what above? Your confidence and rhetoric?

No, from your own glaring lack of understanding and sophomoric suggestion that even after a year of intensive debate, hearings, and discussions, lawmakers -- of one party only, of course -- were somehow completely in the dark about what HCR had been designed to do.

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

And the only hooligans we saw on NHK were in Wisconsin shutting down the government.

Really? Which functions of the Wisonsin state government were curtailed?

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

Right. Never has the word "approximate" had more wiggle room.

Please suggest the source of any new public employee union members that you have detected in your thorough (though apparently fruitless) study of HCR. In other words, step up and defend your own baseless hyperbole.

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

1. Always the confusion between health care insurance and health care. It reminds me of the slithering that goes on when people elide "illegal immigrants" to "immigrants" -- like we want to keep Albert Einstein sweating in Juarez.

Not an answer to the question. Why do HCR detractors focus so exclusively on the UK and Canada? Why not talk about Switzerland for once, seeing as their system would likely be the closest existing analogue to the sort of system that HCR is contemplating? The default answer, by the way, is that detractors don't actually care if their arguments make any sense -- that they attack HCR merely to attack HCR in the glib and partisanly misanthropic "we can break him" sort of Jim DeMint sense, and in absolutely no other actual sense whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

2. I never attacked the French system.

Heat wave deaths serve to jog your memory any?

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

What I DID criticize (and continue to do so) was any attempt to black/white compare such diverse countries as the US and France, without taking into account the immense differences in population, geography, culture, transportation, and a multitude of other factors which make any such generallized comparison impractical and largely invalid.

LOL. France is very different from Japan as well, yet both have national health care systems that basically beat the pants off what we have and do it at a much lower per capita cost. Again, why do people insist on defending low quality at high cost?

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

3. See 2, to a degree. No other developed country, for example, has Mexico on its southern border.

We don't insure people in Mexico under HCR nor those from Mexico who have not gotten a hall-pass to obtain it.

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

Well, if Bush is Jupiter, Obama is Alpha Centauri.

Alpha Centauri is of course a binary star system, not a planet, and it would be honest to admit that Obama did not campaign on promises of enacting the largest two-year tax cut in US history or massive increases in food stamp, unemployment, or COBRA support payments. All those things and more were forced upon him over the course of late 2008 as the full extents and impacts of his predecessor's horribly failed economic stewardship began to become apparent. Bush ran large deficits when he had no reason. Obama has run large deficits when he had no choice.

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

Well, you know, I'm not young anymore and not 100% healthy.

Well, I can comiserate on the age thing, and having just been through the ordeal of a total hip replacement procedure, I maybe have some insight into what less than 100% health might mean. Doesn't improve your points any.

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

Mocking me or any citizen for asking for explanations to something as immense and important as a revision of our healthcare system, and then saying "go the website and educate yourself, old man" may be satisfying to some so-called progressive liberals, with their professed concern for the public welfare, but it sounds more like snarky authoritariansim to me.

Boo-hoo-hoo. Big boy undies, and all that. No one told you to pop into a thread about the US versus Greece and promote an anti-HCR screed instead. You did that all by yourself. Elections are not the only things that have consequences.

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

It aso suggests that your lack of understanding of the legislation is at least as profound as the rest of us.

I would doubt that. Your failure to be able to stand on your own two feet on the matter would seem to say very little if anything about what level of HCR understanding I might have.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by sunnyandcloudydays

...all kidding aside the country is in some deep deep trouble I have even heard rumblings of ssi being eliminated in august until they get his mess unraveled.

If you meant to refer to Social Security, you cannot use the acronym "SSI" for it. SSI stands for Supplemental Security Income, a separate support program funded out of general revenues (not payroll taxes) that primarily benefits very low-income elderly and disabled persons. While the program is administered by the Social Security Administration for logistical reasons, it is not at all a part of Social Security itself.

Originally Posted by sunnyandcloudydays

All this for a job creation bill that materialized nothing and bailing out wall street.

Well, none of major Wall Street investment banks actually exists as such anymore, and the bailouts were not to protect them, but rather the rest of the financial system on which virtually all trade and economic activity depend. The follow-on ARRA legislation meanwhile sustained well over three million jobs in the economy that would not have been there without it, shaving some two percentage points and more off the unemployment rate, and adding a like amount to the GDP growth rate.

Originally Posted by sunnyandcloudydays

remember when they said the country could not face losing wall street banks
well i certainly beg to differer what could be worse the banks failing
or millions and i mean millions of folks having to suffer because of this countries support of big business.

The Bush administration essentially sat on its hands as the predicted credit crisis came into full flower in the Summer of 2007 and then was allowed to bleed out into the broader economy, eventually engulfing asset markets in the Fall of 2008. By the time any impetus toward taking counter-measures was developed, the cats were out of the bag, and damage control was the name of the game. Remember that the regretable and at one time avoidable suffering of millions is lesser than that of what would have been tens or hundreds of millions.

Originally Posted by sunnyandcloudydays

all of congress senate please do your self a fovor to your constitutes and impeach YOURSELF

Just giving the boot to about two-thirds of all Republicans would solve most of the current problems. Okay, three-thirds, just to be on the safe side.

[sunnyandcloudydays]

Originally Posted by saganista

If you meant to refer to Social Security, you cannot use the acronym "SSI" for it. SSI stands for Supplemental Security Income, a separate support program funded out of general revenues (not payroll taxes) that primarily benefits very low-income elderly and disabled persons. While the program is administered by the Social Security Administration for logistical reasons, it is not at all a part of Social Security itself.


Well, none of major Wall Street investment banks actually exists as such anymore, and the bailouts were not to protect them, but rather the rest of the financial system on which virtually all trade and economic activity depend. The follow-on ARRA legislation meanwhile sustained well over three million jobs in the economy that would not have been there without it, shaving some two percentage points and more off the unemployment rate, and adding a like amount to the GDP growth rate.


The Bush administration essentially sat on its hands as the predicted credit crisis came into full flower in the Summer of 2007 and then was allowed to bleed out into the broader economy, eventually engulfing asset markets in the Fall of 2008. By the time any impetus toward taking counter-measures was developed, the cats were out of the bag, and damage control was the name of the game. Remember that the regretable and at one time avoidable suffering of millions is lesser than that of what would have been tens or hundreds of millions.


Just giving the boot to about two-thirds of all Republicans would solve most of the current problems. Okay, three-thirds, just to be on the safe side.

Hey I give a round of applause because you know way more than I do about this stuff.

I am just an average cat trying to make a buck and this was my spin on the whole situation.

Yes I voted Democratic and usually do -not to say I will this time
who knows what will happen

[Yeledaf]

Originally Posted by saganista

To summarize, you have abdicated any and all Personal Responsibility® in understanding the matter, while at the same time continuing to pontificate on the internet as if you actually knew what you were talking about. Very interesting.

Well, let's all hope that whatever shape Federal healthcare "reform" takes, it isn't administered by some pompous asshat with a bum hip.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by sunnyandcloudydays

Hey I give a round of applause because you know way more than I do about this stuff. I am just an average cat trying to make a buck and this was my spin on the whole situation.

No problem with that at all. Nearly all people are in the same boat. Sadly, propagandists count on that as they work to push their phony stories into the mainstream, and from there, hopefully into the public consciousness.

Originally Posted by sunnyandcloudydays

Yes I voted Democratic and usually do -not to say I will this time. who knows what will happen

Really...at the rate things are going, there may not even be a Republcan Party by the time the next election gets here.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Yeledaf

Well, let's all hope that whatever shape Federal healthcare "reform" takes, it isn't administered by some pompous asshat with a bum hip.

There is nothing pompous about pointing out the shortcomings of poorly-informed poseurs. The flippant partisan airs are once again shown to have been bones with no meat on them at all. What else is new today...