U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nevada > Las Vegas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-22-2019, 12:14 PM
 
2,541 posts, read 657,086 times
Reputation: 4417

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie the heartbreaker View Post
I am going to add that Clinton and Bush both had a role in the economic crisis that resulted in 2008-2009. Namely, the subprime housing crisis was caused by policies that were instituted under Clinton, but did not cause the crash until 10 years later.
I agree with you completely. Our government did it to us.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie the heartbreaker View Post
To say that Obama had a role in the crisis that caused the value of 401k's and IRA's to plummet, which happened before he even took office, is preposterous.
I agree with you again - clearly I miscommunicated in the first place, for which I apologize.

What I meant to say was while there was certainly plenty of blame to go around for the cause of the plummet, the anti-business policies and rhetoric of the Obama administration were exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time.

Perhaps you recall President Obama on TV -- not once, but multiple times -- chiding businesses not to go to Las Vegas for business meetings. He also chided individuals not to go to Las Vegas and blow their money.

Then-Mayor Oscar Goodman responded to President Obama's anti-Las Vegas rhetoric:



Many businesses, fearful of being in the Obama Administration's cross-hairs cancelled long-scheduled business meetings & sales conferences in Las Vegas. They instead held them elsewhere in the country, at a greater cost to their shareholders, simply not to be in the spotlight.

That's just a minor example -- but a very visible one.

Economists have long noted that the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery. The economy has to grow even faster than normal for a while to catch up to where it would have been without the recession. The fundamentals of America’s world-leading economy are so strong that the pattern held throughout the USA’s history.

Until Great Recession. The 2008-09 recession was so bad the economy should have come roaring back with a booming recovery—even stronger than Reagan’s boom in the 1980s. But the Obama Administration carefully, studiously pursued the opposite of every pro-growth policy Reagan had followed. What he got was the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression.

Before President Obama, in the 11 previous recessions since the Depression, the economy recovered all jobs lost during the recession an average of 27 months after the recession began. In President Obama’s recovery, dating from the summer of 2009, the recession’s job losses were not recovered until after 76 months—more than six years.

America also suffered a severe recession during Reagan’s early years, because of the tight monetary policy that broke the back of 1970s inflation. All the job losses from that recession were recovered after 35 months. Seventy-six months after that recession started, the number of jobs was up 12.8 million from the previous peak.

Before Obama, in the 11 previous post-Depression recessions, the economy recovered the gross domestic product lost during the recession within an average of 4.6 quarters, or a little over a year. It took the Obama recovery 14 quarters, or 3 years, to reach that point. The Reagan recovery took half that time.


Obama apologists at the time argued America could no longer grow any faster than Obama’s 2% real growth averaged over eight years. Slow growth was the “new normal.” The American Dream was over. Get used to it. Hillary Clinton promised to perpetuate Obama’s economic policies, and, well, blue collar America voted.

The recovery took off on Election Day 2016, as the stock market communicated. President Trump’s tax cuts and sweeping deregulation—especially regarding energy—fundamentally changed course from President Obama. These new policies have driven today’s boom, increasing annual growth to more than 3% within six months and now briefly to over 4%, with record high employment, record low unemployment, and once again a positive outlook for the future of the economy.

Clearly, President Obama did nothing to cause the past recession or halving of retirement savings, but he absolutely owns the slow recovery, which had a real negative impact on everyone from graduating high schoolers and graduating college student to retiring seniors.

He absolutely owns the slow recovery.

Last edited by RationalExpectations; 08-22-2019 at 12:37 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-22-2019, 12:47 PM
 
2,541 posts, read 657,086 times
Reputation: 4417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie the heartbreaker View Post
For every winner, there is a loser. Wealth is never destroyed, it gets transferred to another.
I agreed with you up until this point.

Wealth is not a fixed pie where a larger slice for you necessarily means a smaller slice for me.

Wealth is the size of the pie, and it does indeed grow over time (at least with the right policies and conditions.)

Wealth is created though value-add, which is measured in gross margins. The trivial example is the lemonade stand: kids buy sugar and lemons, convert whole lemons into juice via labor, add water, and what costs perhaps 5 cents per glass is then sold for 50 cents per glass. In that transaction between a voluntary seller and a voluntary buyer, 45 cents of gross margin is created. That's 45 cents of value-add. That's 45 cents of wealth created.

Just as wealth can be created, so also can it be destroyed. Again, in the trivial example, imagine selling that glass of lemonade for 1 penny when it costs 5 cents to make. That is 4 cents of negative gross margin. That's 4 cents of value destroyed. That's 4 cents of wealth destroyed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2019, 01:08 PM
 
2,541 posts, read 657,086 times
Reputation: 4417
New projections for tax year 2018 regarding Personal (Individual) Income Taxes
  • Top 1% will pay a total of 43% of ALL Personal Federal Income Taxes Paid
  • Top 20% will pay a total of 87% of ALL Personal Federal Income Taxes Paid
  • Bottom 60% will pay a total of 4% of ALL Personal Federal Income Taxes Paid

The above isn't complete because of some taxpayers who filed extensions, and that data isn't yet in. That's why it is still a projection for the year.

With the current projections, the share of Personal (Individual) Federal Income Taxes Paid by the Top 1% is higher than it has ever been.

Read that last sentence again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2019, 01:30 PM
 
632 posts, read 161,453 times
Reputation: 253
Help me, help me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2019, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas, NV
159 posts, read 64,001 times
Reputation: 160
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
New projections for tax year 2018 regarding Personal (Individual) Income Taxes
  • Top 1% will pay a total of 43% of ALL Personal Federal Income Taxes Paid
  • Top 20% will pay a total of 87% of ALL Personal Federal Income Taxes Paid
  • Bottom 60% will pay a total of 4% of ALL Personal Federal Income Taxes Paid

The above isn't complete because of some taxpayers who filed extensions, and that data isn't yet in. That's why it is still a projection for the year.

With the current projections, the share of Personal (Individual) Federal Income Taxes Paid by the Top 1% is higher than it has ever been.

Read that last sentence again.
That last sentence really doesn't mean much without context. How much did income/earnings increase year over year among each of those groups?

As an aside, do you have a link to a source to the year over year numbers for taxes paid per group. I'm interested to see what it looks like from the 70s and 80s when the overall tax rates were much, much larger.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2019, 02:40 PM
 
2,541 posts, read 657,086 times
Reputation: 4417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie the heartbreaker View Post
I forget to mention healthcare. I pay my taxes and get free healthcare, as I should through medicaid. I am not so selfish as to think I have it, so screw everyone else. That is the conservative's mindset, not mine. Everyone should have free healthcare here, not just the poor, disabled and elderly. Medicare for all!
I think just about everyone in the USA would agree with the following statement:
Our current health insurance system is almost unbelievably goofed up. There is far too much administrative red tape. It is far too expensive to be justified, especially since other developed nations seem to have it figured out.
I know I agree with the above statement. I suspect you would agree it as well. Perhaps I'm naive, but I suspect just about everyone on C-D would agree with it. Moreover I will be the first to admit I'm not smart enough to have a solution to our health insurance system.

Back in the 1960s, a typical employee spent about 6 days of his annual compensation on health insurance & health care. Today the number is north of 60 days of annual compensation and growing. Back then, an expectant mother typically spent a week or more in the hospital delivering a baby and recovering, and wasn't sent home until everyone was sure both the mother and baby would be fine; today, we half-joke about drive-by baby delivery. Why could we afford that back then, as an example, in the 1960s (with a mere 6 days annual compensation) when today we get far less for 60 days compensation? It isn't because modern mothers are healthier and only need 2-ish days in the hospital.

The idea of Medicare for All is an attempt to address the price of health insurance and medical care, which for decades has been escalating like a nuclear reaction. I'm not convinced that, by itself, is the answer.

Let's take a typical doctor's practice. That doctor has a combination of medicaid, medicare and private health insurance customers. The cost might be, just to pick a simple number, $100 (and I do mean cost rather than price - I mean the doctor's business cost to deliver an office visit to a customer rather than the price the customer incurs for purchasing that office visit). The actual number doesn't matter in this example, as should be clear in a minute.

So it costs the doctor's business $100 to deliver an office visit service to a customer. If that customer is on Medicare, that doctor will be reimbursed, say, $50. The doctor's business loses money on it. How can the doctor's business stay in business? Only by having private insurance customers pay more (e.g., Cigna, Aetna, UNH, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, etc). So, when a private insurance customer purchases an office visit, the doctor's business charges $200 (pre-negotiated). On average, the doctor's business makes a profit, even though the doctor loses money on the Medicare customers.

The above example's numbers are just for illustration, of course - and the illustration is "Medicare for All" proponents presume it will mean "Inexpensive Medical Insurance and Inexpensive Medical Care Delivery For All."

That ain't necessarily so. If the proponents expect that, under Medicare For All, doctors will all agree to be reimbursed a mere $50 per visit for everyone, they will be disappointed as the doctor's business would go bankrupt at such a reimbursement rate. Ditto for hospitals, MRI/CT imaging businesses, Physical Therapy businesses etc. Remember: currently, every health care provider loses money on Medicare.

We collectively consume -- on average -- north of $11,000 per person per year of health care goods & services in the USA for every man, woman and child (regardless of immigration status). THEREFORE, as surely as night follows day, the price we customers of Medicare for All (or any other Single Payer scheme) must pay -- on average -- is at least $11,000 per person per year for every man, woman and child (to pay for the actual delivery of health care) plus administrative costs.

The arithmetic is inescapable.
It is ineluctable.

And, it is depressing.

It seems to me -- and I'm not sure I'm right -- that part of the answer is we must yank costs out of the health care system. Those costs, for the most part, walk on two legs. They are actual people - administration of one form or another - who mostly interact with computers that electronically interact with insurance providers. They are skilled in the application of billing codes so as to maximize the portion of the bill covered by the insurer. They figure out and solve billing problems when the insurance providers inexplicably reject a bill. What they do NOT do is actually deliver health care. The promise of Medicare for All that may well be correct is doctors businesses and hospitals and MRI/CT businesses and rehab businesses and the like can lay off armies of clerks and administrators who nowadays push paper - both real paper and electronic paper.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2019, 04:18 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas, NV
1,380 posts, read 1,316,445 times
Reputation: 1457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie the heartbreaker View Post
Isn't this exactly my point? Their healthcare system is far better than ours. Not only their healthcare, their whole country is far better than ours. Finland is #1 when it comes to happiness. All of the Nordic countries score higher than the United States. I guess the quote below is what you are looking for.
Yes, but we have guns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2019, 05:11 PM
 
58 posts, read 17,600 times
Reputation: 72
^ God Bless America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2019, 06:02 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas
2,220 posts, read 1,616,115 times
Reputation: 1744
Quote:
Originally Posted by orca17 View Post
Yes, but we have guns.
and lots of crazy people. seems like a good combination.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2019, 07:09 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
682 posts, read 511,963 times
Reputation: 2028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander666 View Post
Move to Finland. Or, does Finland have income and wealth requirements to move there? Cuba would be a good fit.

You got it. But no, Cuba is not to my liking.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander666 View Post
By the way, Healthcare is not a right, simply a product like everything else consumers buy.

I beg to differ. To say that, only people of means deserve to live, while others deserve to die. I agree with Canada when they say that healthcare is a right. Otherwise, Canada does not have the ideal healthcare model, I only agree with the statement that they made.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
This is behind a paywall. OMG! You actually pay for the LA Times!

I am confused. The link is from Forbes. I was able to read the LA Times link I posted earlier without paying anything?


Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
You are not alone. Indeed, nearly half of millennials say they prefer socialism to capitalism. “My policies most closely resemble what we see in the U.K., in Norway, in Finland, in Sweden,” AOC told TV's 60 Minutes. Yet Sweden’s experiment with socialist policies was disastrous, and its economic success in recent decades is a result of market-based reforms.

There in lies the problem. The Nordic countries are not socialist countries, they are capitalist. If you look back on all my posts, I never said I want socialism. Socialism is one step away from communism. The proper term to what I see as best is called compassionate capitalism. AOC is a mess, that is why I never tried to defend her when others were attacking her here. She is young and doesn't even know the proper terms for what she wants.



Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
Perhaps you missed the very end of the article:
“People outside of Finland tend to see only the good sides of the system,” says [Finnish policy analyst Heikki] Hiilamo.

“Normally, we show people the sunny side of the street, but there is a dark side of the street. And health care is on the dark side, and for many years we have had a problem.”

That sounds very similar to the problem we have with social security. Namely, people living longer while birth rates are dropping. Their outcomes are better than the United States by far, but it is far from perfect.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
I think just about everyone in the USA would agree with the following statement:
Our current health insurance system is almost unbelievably goofed up. There is far too much administrative red tape. It is far too expensive to be justified, especially since other developed nations seem to have it figured out.
I know I agree with the above statement. I suspect you would agree it as well. Perhaps I'm naive, but I suspect just about everyone on C-D would agree with it. Moreover I will be the first to admit I'm not smart enough to have a solution to our health insurance system.

Back in the 1960s, a typical employee spent about 6 days of his annual compensation on health insurance & health care. Today the number is north of 60 days of annual compensation and growing. Back then, an expectant mother typically spent a week or more in the hospital delivering a baby and recovering, and wasn't sent home until everyone was sure both the mother and baby would be fine; today, we half-joke about drive-by baby delivery. Why could we afford that back then, as an example, in the 1960s (with a mere 6 days annual compensation) when today we get far less for 60 days compensation? It isn't because modern mothers are healthier and only need 2-ish days in the hospital.

The idea of Medicare for All is an attempt to address the price of health insurance and medical care, which for decades has been escalating like a nuclear reaction. I'm not convinced that, by itself, is the answer.

Let's take a typical doctor's practice. That doctor has a combination of medicaid, medicare and private health insurance customers. The cost might be, just to pick a simple number, $100 (and I do mean cost rather than price - I mean the doctor's business cost to deliver an office visit to a customer rather than the price the customer incurs for purchasing that office visit). The actual number doesn't matter in this example, as should be clear in a minute.

So it costs the doctor's business $100 to deliver an office visit service to a customer. If that customer is on Medicare, that doctor will be reimbursed, say, $50. The doctor's business loses money on it. How can the doctor's business stay in business? Only by having private insurance customers pay more (e.g., Cigna, Aetna, UNH, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, etc). So, when a private insurance customer purchases an office visit, the doctor's business charges $200 (pre-negotiated). On average, the doctor's business makes a profit, even though the doctor loses money on the Medicare customers.

The above example's numbers are just for illustration, of course - and the illustration is "Medicare for All" proponents presume it will mean "Inexpensive Medical Insurance and Inexpensive Medical Care Delivery For All."

That ain't necessarily so. If the proponents expect that, under Medicare For All, doctors will all agree to be reimbursed a mere $50 per visit for everyone, they will be disappointed as the doctor's business would go bankrupt at such a reimbursement rate. Ditto for hospitals, MRI/CT imaging businesses, Physical Therapy businesses etc. Remember: currently, every health care provider loses money on Medicare.

We collectively consume -- on average -- north of $11,000 per person per year of health care goods & services in the USA for every man, woman and child (regardless of immigration status). THEREFORE, as surely as night follows day, the price we customers of Medicare for All (or any other Single Payer scheme) must pay -- on average -- is at least $11,000 per person per year for every man, woman and child (to pay for the actual delivery of health care) plus administrative costs.

The arithmetic is inescapable.
It is ineluctable.

And, it is depressing.

It seems to me -- and I'm not sure I'm right -- that part of the answer is we must yank costs out of the health care system. Those costs, for the most part, walk on two legs. They are actual people - administration of one form or another - who mostly interact with computers that electronically interact with insurance providers. They are skilled in the application of billing codes so as to maximize the portion of the bill covered by the insurer. They figure out and solve billing problems when the insurance providers inexplicably reject a bill. What they do NOT do is actually deliver health care. The promise of Medicare for All that may well be correct is doctors businesses and hospitals and MRI/CT businesses and rehab businesses and the like can lay off armies of clerks and administrators who nowadays push paper - both real paper and electronic paper.

Yes, I agree completely. We have big problems that we have to deal with before Medicare for all would work. For example, my medicaid goes through Health Plan of Nevada which greatly raises cost. Eliminate the middle man. A woman was billed $80,000 for some scorpion antivenom that only costs $100 in Mexico for the same exact thing!


Quote:
Originally Posted by orca17 View Post
Yes, but we have guns.

Yes, but so do they. Norway, Sweden and Finland all make the top 10 countries in gun ownership. They have more gun control laws than us, but they are far from being China, for example. For the record, it may surprise you all that I am pro second amendment and am not for gun control. I have posted about that many times years ago. I own a gun myself and that would be one issue that I agree with conservatives on completely, which is rare.

Last edited by Katie the heartbreaker; 08-22-2019 at 07:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nevada > Las Vegas
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top