Will the US end up like Greece in a few years? (drugs, Pelosi)

[jwm1964]

Originally Posted by saganista

In that case, we have the least bloated government of just about any developed country in the world. Our public sector gets into the 20-25% of GDP range where so many others are at 40% and up. Meanwhile, the term has become such a trite, worn-out, and hackneyed cliché, I'm surprised anyone with even a pretense to erudition would continue to use it.

We are in debt. Regardless of what we say about GDP we are operating at a net loss. You know this. We have to borrow money every year at an exorbitant rate to finance programs which don't work.

You are the demagogue here who chooses to blindly ignore the obvious.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by jwm1964

To dismiss people who acknowledge the obvious as wild eyed fanatics or conspiracy theorists just no longer works. Global government is an increasingly open agenda not a plot in a James Bond movie. More oversight, regulation and "management" of interactions between people and organizations who operate in the grey area between national boundaries (otherwise known as government) currently occurs and is growing in power.

Those who operate in the"gray areas" are multi-national corporations. I assume you understand that if there is no entity with power equal to or greater than that of multi-national corporations, it is they who will gladly call all the shots that matter. Would you rather have such global issues decided by states or by multi-national corporations?

Originally Posted by jwm1964

Again to deny this yourself or try and dismiss others who acknowledge it is disengenuous. People are not as stupid as you would like to believe.

It isn't a matter of preference or belief, but of the evidence people put in front of me every day.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

More governance on an international level will continue to evolve.

No doubt in tandem with the evolution of international probelms that no single national government can address. Did you ever stop to think that this must be the same sort of process that the colonies/states went through in realizing that the country had reached the point of needing to create a strong national government instead of the weak one they had at first thought they could get by with?

Originally Posted by jwm1964

To bankrupt our economy and make us a debtor nation to other foreign powers places us in a subservient position to these powers.

Well, we became a debtor nation back in the mid-1980's. Ronnie Reagan? Morning in America? I'm sure you remember all that. Debt is meanwhile a tool. Every nation of any significance uses it to one degree or another. I guess we are all just subservient to each other.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

Just like we used to do to other countries when our economy was viable. It is called usury and is the equivalent of economic slavery.

The Bible tells me so. But any finance textbook tells me quite differently. Every modern economy runs on credit. Period. Back like ten years ago in those pre-Republican days when we had huge budget surpluses, not only were we not issuing new Treasury debt to cover deficits, we were buying the stuff back ahead of schedule. So much so that the Bond Market Association had to complain to the administration that there just wasn't enough product out there to sustain a healthy market. It wasn't slavery they were arguing for.

Otherwise, all debt and all currency (just a particular form of debt) are backed by the real goods and services produced by the economy that issues them. This is true around the world, and every government that actually functions is in the business of being the issuing agent for that economy. You may have noticed that just about ALL governments have had to react to recent economic calamity by issuing more debt, as in passing stimulus packages to help their economies through troubled times. There is a cost to this, but it is far less than the cost of allowing economic infrastructure to evaporate. In a sense, the world has given itself permission to expand debt beyond what it would have otherwise because of the scale and impact of the Great Bush Recession. The US is a part of that world.

[jwm1964]

Originally Posted by saganista

Those who operate in the"gray areas" are multi-national corporations. I assume you understand that if there is no entity with power equal to or greater than that of multi-national corporations, it is they who will gladly call all the shots that matter. Would you rather have such global issues decided by states or by multi-national corporations?

Yea, I get that.
We were discussing this 20 years ago as the natural evolution of political power. Multi-Nationals which operate in the grey area and are more powerful/solvent than most of the World Governments would become the the new ruling class.

Don't forget banks as a distinct sub-group of multi-nationals.

And yes, this is the crux of the problem. These Multi-s currently own our political system - both parties. We need to throw off the oppressive yoke of government and thereby throw off the chains in which these multi-s enslave us.

Originally Posted by saganista

It isn't a matter of preference or belief, but of the evidence people put in front of me every day.


No doubt in tandem with the evolution of international probelms that no single national government can address. Did you ever stop to think that this must be the same sort of process that the colonies/states went through in realizing that the country had reached the point of needing to create a strong national government instead of the weak one they had at first thought they could get by with?

I don't argue the premise, I argue the degree. I am pro-states rights and de-ferderalization. This doesn't mean I don't believe the Federal government has a role to play, I believe that this role needs to be more clearly defined and in many cases rolled back.

Same for global governance.
There is a role for it to play, but we need to preserve our independence and sovereignity.

Originally Posted by saganista

Well, we became a debtor nation back in the mid-1980's. Ronnie Reagan? Morning in America? I'm sure you remember all that. Debt is meanwhile a tool. Every nation of any significance uses it to one degree or another. I guess we are all just subservient to each other.

Again, you speak in absolutes. Debt in and by itself is not a bad thing, excessive debt coupled with irresponsible spending is not sustainable for individuals or governments and yes, it was under Ronnie that we began the current cycle of irresponsible spending which initially stimulated the economy allowing Clinton to ride the economic bubble as a hero but eventually culminating in the current debt crisis.

Originally Posted by saganista

The Bible tells me so. But any finance textbook tells me quite differently. Every modern economy runs on credit. Period. Back like ten years ago in those pre-Republican days when we had huge budget surpluses, not only were we not issuing new Treasury debt to cover deficits, we were buying the stuff back ahead of schedule. So much so that the Bond Market Association had to complain to the administration that there just wasn't enough product out there to sustain a healthy market. It wasn't slavery they were arguing for.

I'm glad you like your bible, but there are many religious texts just as there are many economic texts - some supporting your position, some opposing.

I believe the proper role of government is to safeguard rights and liberties however these things are intrinsic to humanity and do not come from government.

The problem with your view is that is tyranical. What the government creates and grants, the government can take away.

Originally Posted by saganista

Otherwise, all debt and all currency (just a particular form of debt) are backed by the real goods and services produced by the economy that issues them. This is true around the world, and every government that actually functions is in the business of being the issuing agent for that economy. You may have noticed that just about ALL governments have had to react to recent economic calamity by issuing more debt, as in passing stimulus packages to help their economies through troubled times. There is a cost to this, but it is far less than the cost of allowing economic infrastructure to evaporate. In a sense, the world has given itself permission to expand debt beyond what it would have otherwise because of the scale and impact of the Great Bush Recession. The US is a part of that world.

Quite frankly, this isn't the Bush administration recession, if it is any administration recession it is the Reagan recession. The natural culmination of the expand/contract economic cycles initiated by his policies.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by jwm1964

We are in debt.

So what? Everyone is. Why the phobia over debt? Is there some rational reasoning behind it?

Originally Posted by jwm1964

Regardless of what we say about GDP we are operating at a net loss.

Is Intro to Corporate Accounting the only class you ever took? The nation was born of debt. We borrowed our way to liberty and independence from the British crown. Then we labored like true Protestants to pay it all off, which we accomplished with some difficulty by the mid-1830's. And when we were done, we looked around and started asking why did it. No good answer, so we started borrowing again. Staggering amounts for the time during the Civil War, WWI, the Depression, and WWII. Then for some reason during the Reagan/Bush-41 years and then again when Bush-43 came along. You have to skip over Clinton, who of course ran budget surpluses his last four years.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

We have to borrow money every year at an exorbitant rate to finance programs which don't work.

The ten-year Treasury yield was back below 3% this morning. That does not qualify as exorbitant. I doubt you're much of a judge when it comes to whether programs are working or not. You seem to think Social Security -- the most popular and successful social insurance program in the history of the world -- is not working.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

You are the demagogue here who chooses to blindly ignore the obvious.

Too many of the things you claim to be obvious just ain't so. I have to keep pointing that out.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by jwm1964

Yea, I get that. We were discussing this 20 years ago as the natural evolution of political power. Multi-Nationals which operate in the grey area and are more powerful/solvent than most of the World Governments would become the the new ruling class. Don't forget banks as a distinct sub-group of multi-nationals. And yes, this is the crux of the problem. These Multi-s currently own our political system - both parties. We need to throw off the oppressive yoke of government and thereby throw off the chains in which these multi-s enslave us.

What have you got left after government? If multi-nationals are the crux of the problem, then there are only two choices. Chop them up into bite-sized pieces that can be governed effectively by existing state governments of even modest size, or grow or create governments that are of sufficient size, power, and resources to beat them up just as they are. You aren't electing either one of those.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

I don't argue the premise, I argue the degree. I am pro-states rights and de-ferderalization. This doesn't mean I don't believe the Federal government has a role to play, I believe that this role needs to be more clearly defined and in many cases rolled back.

Don't send a boy to do a man's job. Why do you think the corporatist propaganda machine screams for small government as the only way forward? The only thing that really frightens them is big government. That's why.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

Again, you speak in absolutes. Debt in and by itself is not a bad thing, excessive debt coupled with irresponsible spending is not sustainable for individuals or governments...

Spending such as the stimulus bill and extended unemployment benefits were made necessary -- not irresponsible -- by the scope and nature of the recession. Take such emergency measures out of Obama's budgets and he has cut the rate of growth in federal spending about in half from what it was in the pre-calamity Bush years.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

...and yes, it was under Ronnie that we began the current cycle of irresponsible spending which initially stimulated the economy allowing Clinton to ride the economic bubble as a hero but eventually culminating in the current debt crisis.

There isn't such a continuity. Reagan/Bush sent us through the second worst economic collapse of the 20th century in 1981-82, then the stock market crash of 1987, and then the housing collapse and recession of 1991-92. These were not by and large boom times. Clinton himself would have rather cut taxes in 1993, but he was badgered by advisors into a signifcant tax increase that helped crumple the deficits and take pressure off of private capital markets. This paved the way for solid, sensible growth in both the public and private sectors with balanced federal budgets resulting, not from cuts in spending, but as they always do, from kinking the receipts curve upward enough for it to meet up with the spending curve again. Then of course W came along with his dismal tax cuts for the rich ideas. Hopeless. There are then three differnet eras -- a first one of ineptitude, then sanity, and lastly utter malfeasance. The recession has its actual origin in a credit crisis. The credit crisis had its origins all but exclusively in that Bush-43 era of malfeasance.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

I'm glad you like your bible, but there are many religious texts just as there are many economic texts - some supporting your position, some opposing.

Don't like the Bible so much, just familiar with it. But show me an actual economics text that disparages debt. Show me one that disdains government.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by jwm1964

You have a humanist view. Government creates and guarantees rights and liberties. I don't. I believe the proper role of government is to safeguard rights and liberties however these things are intrinsic to humanity and do not come from government.

Funny names. I have a factual view from knowing that I own my property only through a deed which was defined and executed under local law, then registered at the county courthouse, and in light of which, I can expect to receive police and even higher levels of government protection and enforcement should some churl or charlatan attempt to deprive me of the rights that deed defines. The whole nine yards of this operation is a state enterprise. It's all government from start to finish. There is nothing at all natural or intrinsic about any of it. We made the whole thing up. The people from whom we simply stole much of this land had no fixed concept of private property. Land to them was a all a trust and a commons. That's what was intrinsic to them.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

The problem with your view is that is tyranical. What the government creates and grants, the government can take away.

How is that tyranical? You live in a society. You have rights, but they are all bounded by responsibilities. The wild stallion running free across the open plains is a figment of your imagination.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

Quite frankly, this isn't the Bush administration recession...

Quite frankly, yes, it is. All but exclusively laid, incubated, and hatched by and under his own misguided fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policies. It would be difficult to point to another President who was handed an economy in such healthy shape upon taking office. It would be difficult as well to name one who inherited a worse economy than did his successor.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

...if it is any administration recession it is the Reagan recession. The natural culmination of the expand/contract economic cycles initiated by his policies.

Write a book. But don't expect it to sell very well. There is no such thing as natural cycles that Reagan could have set into motion. You could claim that he did a lot to promote subprime lending and that abuse of subprime credit markets eventually played a substantial role in bringing about the credit crisis, but that would be like blaming Italy for the Invasion of Iraq because it was Christopher Columbus who discovered the New World.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

No, while not elementary by any means, it is not above the ability of the general public to grasp the concepts when we cut away the chaffe (symptoms) and start dealing with root causes.

The general public believes in Death Panels and still thinks Saddam had WMD. They are not going to do well with international finance and economics, no matter how much of it is swept under the carpet first. Even though he had absolutely nothing to do with it, the genertal public would rather be told that Barney Frank caused the recession, and let it go at that. Barney Frank is easy for some people to hate. He's a liberal, he's gay, he's from the northeast (ergo, an elitist who is out of touch with mainstream America), and he has a minor speech impediment. He must have done it!

[jwm1964]

Originally Posted by saganista

The general public believes in Death Panels and still thinks Saddam had WMD. They are not going to do well with international finance and economics, no matter how much of it is swept under the carpet first. Even though he had absolutely nothing to do with it, the genertal public would rather be told that Barney Frank caused the recession, and let it go at that. Barney Frank is easy for some people to hate. He's a liberal, he's gay, he's from the northeast (ergo, an elitist who is out of touch with mainstream America), and he has a minor speech impediment. He must have done it!

I think you sum up your own ideology pretty succinctly right there.

Evil Corporatism is assailing us
(which I agree with you about).

We need big government to protect us!
(Big Government is already a partner with Big Business - on both sides of the aisle - this is the problem, not the solution)

People are too stupid to manage themselves!
(I agree that there are very sophisticated "spin" machines out there and it is confusing. I also believe that most of us are busy living our lives rather than becoming government policy wonks - however that said, people are not stupid. Givengood information people are very capable of making rational and responsible decisions.)

[CDusr]

Originally Posted by saganista

Make up your mind. 22 minutes earlier you said: Only reform I want to see in Health Care is for the govt to get out of all of it. The goal meanwhile is not to create a perfect system. Just a better one than the one we've got. Shouldn't be all that hard considering how many other countries have figured out how to do it.

No change of mind. Just to maybe clarify a statement. I do think govt has a role. People tend to think all private models have to be based on greedy corporate profit models. However, there are lot's of other models. Honestly, on the whole I am much more in favor of bottom up solutions. I have seen models here in the US that are working better and at lower costs.

Many of these countries you are alluding to w/ a broad brush have serious issues w/ their health care and tax burden. Certainly studying models is useful. I don't think "all" these other countries have figured it out either.

Only limiting yourself to what is currently "out there" is akin to what was going on when "everybody" swore the earth was flat and could tell you why.

Criteria is specific and can be measured this is how you see if your outcomes are meeting your goals. However, first you need clear goals that there is at least a relative consensus on, ideally full consensus.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by jwm1964

I think you sum up your own ideology pretty succinctly right there.

Had nothing to do with ideology. Had to do with the incapacity of many Americans to follow along at any meaningful level of sophistication. Instead, they tend to take their dose of cues from jingoists and propaganda mills and then a few of them show up on C-D every day.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

Evil Corporatism is assailing us (which I agree with you about).

No, corporations are agents that states charter to operate for the public benefit within the environment of a capitalist economy. We help them out a lot with grants and special tax breaks and corporate bankruptcy laws and so forth, and then we expect them to go out and do good works and to be fruitful and prosper. But we know the risks of their becoming too big for their britches. We have seen the results before. Taken to an extreme, the greed and power of corporations can become an ill, not a good. Something needs to be able to check them before they reach that point, and certainly once they do.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

We need big government to protect us! (Big Government is already a partner with Big Business - on both sides of the aisle - this is the problem, not the solution)

Up to the point mentioned above, it is the government's job to represent our businesses and their interests. We want them to succeed and do well. We do not want them to become uncontrollable social pariahs. Since you bring up "the aisle", one side's solution to everything is more tax cuts for the rich and mega-corporations. One side fairly survives on the money of ultra right-wing social pariahs such as the Kochs and Scaifes. The other doesn't.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

People are too stupid to manage themselves! (I agree that there are very sophisticated "spin" machines out there and it is confusing. I also believe that most of us are busy living our lives rather than becoming government policy wonks - however that said, people are not stupid. Givengood information people are very capable of making rational and responsible decisions.)

People are not equipped to understand the world they live in. They don't know good information from bad, and can't tell reason from propaganda. They take the easy way out. They are indeed busy living their lives, but for some reason, some do choose to show up here and spout off anyway. There is nothing either rational or responsible about a rote argument based on disinformation and false assumptions. When brought up short over such shortcomings you'll see them wander off into grumblings of socialist or communist or partisan bore. People are not interested in far too many cases in learning or improving or thinking things through in a different and perhaps altering light. They are interested in appearing to "win" and that is all.

[jwm1964]

Originally Posted by jwm1964

I think you sum up your own ideology pretty succinctly right there.

Evil Corporatism is assailing us
(which I agree with you about).

We need big government to protect us!
(Big Government is already a partner with Big Business - on both sides of the aisle - this is the problem, not the solution)

People are too stupid to manage themselves!
(I agree that there are very sophisticated "spin" machines out there and it is confusing. I also believe that most of us are busy living our lives rather than becoming government policy wonks - however that said, people are not stupid. Givengood information people are very capable of making rational and responsible decisions.)

Just in case you truncated my post to make it look like your statements about how dumb people are were mine - re-post of complete original post.