Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Hot Air)   The EU's plan to destroy their economy altered, new plans in place should only mostly destroy their economy   (hotair.com) divider line 342
    More: Followup, Cypriot, European debt crisis, bank rescues, deposits  
•       •       •

6395 clicks; posted to Business » on 18 Mar 2013 at 11:08 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



342 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-18 11:06:41 AM  
Don't be surprised if depositors start to move away from European banks and look for other options to protect their savings from the governments that can't solve their spending problems.

Yeah, that's right, professor. They've been "solving" their spending problems in Europe for four years now and all that's resulted is higher unemployment.
 
2013-03-18 11:10:26 AM  

Speaker2Animals: Don't be surprised if depositors start to move away from European banks and look for other options to protect their savings from the governments that can't solve their spending problems.

Yeah, that's right, professor. They've been "solving" their spending problems in Europe for four years now and all that's resulted is higher unemployment.


I don't have a gambling problem, I have a "can't win my money back problem."
 
2013-03-18 11:13:22 AM  
Silly Euroweenies.
 
2013-03-18 11:15:32 AM  
i.qkme.me
 
2013-03-18 11:16:57 AM  
Socialist people problems
images.sodahead.com
/oh wait.
 
2013-03-18 11:18:25 AM  
Done in 4
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-03-18 11:19:59 AM  
All of that means that (a) the run on banks will continue, and (b) the EU isn't going to get its €5.8 billion from the confiscation.

Why would the EU not get the full amount? Banks aren't allowing big withdrawls before the tax is implemented (according to other stories).
 
2013-03-18 11:20:12 AM  
I hate the phrase, but this is blatant privatization of profits and socialization of losses.  Seriously, who the fark would put their money in a bank under this policy?
 
2013-03-18 11:20:16 AM  
So let me get this straight. You have an issue with the banks not being able to lend because its too risky as they cannot risk the capital. So to get at that money the government is going to tax it so they can pay their debt to the banks?

....yeah good luck with that

On brighter news, I'll be offering that once in a life time experience to live like Mad Max European Tours this time next year!
 
2013-03-18 11:20:28 AM  
1.bp.blogspot.com

Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your economy here is only MOSTLY destroyed. There's a big difference between mostly destroyed and all destroyed. Mostly destroyed is slightly rebuilt. With all destroyed, well, with all destroyed there's usually only one thing you can do:  go through their central banks and look for loose change.
 
2013-03-18 11:20:41 AM  
Got a real source by any chance instead of some poo-flinger's blog? Or is this just the thing they've discussed where they basically said that it's up to Cyprus to determine how to handle raising the money as long as they raised the money?
 
2013-03-18 11:21:26 AM  

sab6300: Done in 4


I was expecting the kid in the pool, or maybe the altered the economy quote on Obama (regardless of the EU).

Close enough.
 
2013-03-18 11:25:35 AM  
Article did not capture what I saw as one of the more interesting aspects of the deal; Cyprus is alleged to have become a large money laundering operation for the Russian mob and corrupt govt officials. The response could be real interesting when the EU pulls 10% from those guys. The EU will probably be banned from adopting Russia's unwanted orphans.
 
2013-03-18 11:25:42 AM  
Grade A dimwits, the lot of 'em. Of course people are going to take their money out if you start doing this crap. That's part of what caused the Great Depression.

If Europe could stop shooting each other in the foot for a couple of months the world economy might recover. Despite the insanity in Washington right now, the US economy is one of the strongest in the world, so they're not holding everyone back. Certainly China isn't. Even Putinized Russia is doing well.
 
2013-03-18 11:29:34 AM  
Yay austerity!
 
2013-03-18 11:29:47 AM  

Ambitwistor: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 270x198]

Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your economy here is only MOSTLY destroyed. There's a big difference between mostly destroyed and all destroyed. Mostly destroyed is slightly rebuilt. With all destroyed, well, with all destroyed there's usually only one thing you can do:  go through their central banks and look for loose change.


Beautiful, just beautiful ....

Also ...

There's an App for that

static3.businessinsider.com
 
2013-03-18 11:32:34 AM  
The lunch is over and it turns out it was not free after all.  Here's the check.
 
2013-03-18 11:32:46 AM  

Clemkadidlefark: Ambitwistor: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 270x198]

Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your economy here is only MOSTLY destroyed. There's a big difference between mostly destroyed and all destroyed. Mostly destroyed is slightly rebuilt. With all destroyed, well, with all destroyed there's usually only one thing you can do:  go through their central banks and look for loose change.

Beautiful, just beautiful ....

Also ...

There's an App for that

[static3.businessinsider.com image 385x289]


I thought the Jobs marketer was dead.
 
2013-03-18 11:33:42 AM  
The upside of this will be more support of UKIP in Britain. The EU is unraveling.
 
2013-03-18 11:34:45 AM  
Hmm. This doesn't seem to be working. Should have gone for 20%.
 
2013-03-18 11:35:13 AM  

The Irresponsible Captain: Grade A dimwits, the lot of 'em. Of course people are going to take their money out if you start doing this crap. That's part of what caused the Great Depression.

If Europe could stop shooting each other in the foot for a couple of months the world economy might recover. Despite the insanity in Washington right now, the US economy is one of the strongest in the world, so they're not holding everyone back. Certainly China isn't. Even Putinized Russia is doing well.


China's banking system operates under the 'new math' method.
 
2013-03-18 11:35:22 AM  

GentlemanJ: The upside of this will be more support of UKIP in Britain. The EU is unraveling.


It's almost as if a collection of smaller governmental entities can only function when they have a strong central authority who can enforce actions across lines of demarcation.

I wonder where in the world such a thing exists?
 
2013-03-18 11:35:37 AM  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

Yeah!  I get to whip out the Keynes vs. Hayek rap battles.  :-)

//surprisingly good economic summaries for funny vids.
 
2013-03-18 11:35:48 AM  
Home safe sales will be going up.
 
2013-03-18 11:36:05 AM  
Hot Air's understanding of economics is somewhere around potato.
 
2013-03-18 11:37:53 AM  

Gdalescrboz: Speaker2Animals: Don't be surprised if depositors start to move away from European banks and look for other options to protect their savings from the governments that can't solve their spending problems.

Yeah, that's right, professor. They've been "solving" their spending problems in Europe for four years now and all that's resulted is higher unemployment.

I don't have a gambling problem, I have a "can't win my money back problem."


Your analogy is horrible and idiotic. Austerity didn't work in the 1920's is not working now and will never work as a tool for economic recovery.

1. Implement austerity measures
2. Lay off people in the public sector, stop providing services vital to maintaining a thriving workforce.
3. See consumer consumption, go down. See companies lay off more people further reducing consumer consumption. See companies drop contracts, delay expenditures in contracting economy.
4. Tax revenues have gone down.
5. Return to step 1?
 
2013-03-18 11:40:24 AM  
Can we get a photoshop of an EU flag with a Scumbag Steve hat on it?


/Scumbag EU: Bails out greedy banks - makes innocent depositors pay for it, causes bank panic.
 
2013-03-18 11:41:18 AM  
main page politics.... *backs away slowly*
 
2013-03-18 11:41:19 AM  
This is what you guys want for the US.

Funny.
 
2013-03-18 11:42:07 AM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: So let me get this straight. You have an issue with the banks not being able to lend because its too risky as they cannot risk the capital. So to get at that money the government is going to tax it so they can pay their debt to the banks?


THIS.   Seriously this is nothing more than handing money over to the banks directly from the depositors.  This money wont be freed up and used to create liquidity.  This money will stay in the coffers of the bank.

Hey Mortimer - lets open a new bank account, say we guarantee the investors 100% of their money and offer them less than 1% in returns on it.  After the suckers have given us their money lets get the government to steal 6.75% and give it back to us.  Our total profit is all the interest on what we lend out AND 6.75% risk free.  GENIUS.

fark investment banks and the governments lining their pockets.
 
2013-03-18 11:42:26 AM  
Cypress got drunk and decided it needed to use the shotgun to get the tick off its shin.

Truly the dumbest thing uttered in public since "Hey, those Tulip Bulbs will be worth something someday".
 
2013-03-18 11:42:29 AM  

monoski: Article did not capture what I saw as one of the more interesting aspects of the deal; Cyprus is alleged to have become a large money laundering operation for the Russian mob and corrupt govt officials. The response could be real interesting when the EU pulls 10% from those guys. The EU will probably be banned from adopting Russia's unwanted orphans.


And guess who will have runs on the banks? You assume only the mafia uses their banks. Just like only rich people care about the stock market.
 
2013-03-18 11:42:40 AM  
I'm so glad my plan to cause a run on the banks worked.
I'm getting so good at this.  This time was practically foolproof.
With Washington Mutual I just got lucky.
 
2013-03-18 11:43:48 AM  

monoski: Article did not capture what I saw as one of the more interesting aspects of the deal; Cyprus is alleged to have become a large money laundering operation for the Russian mob and corrupt govt officials. The response could be real interesting when the EU pulls 10% from those guys. The EU will probably be banned from adopting Russia's unwanted orphans.


I can understand wanting to seize hoards of money from the Russian mob.  I'm sure the Eurocrats thought that would be a great way to balance the books, take money from the criminal element with them having no legal recourse.

The problem is the impact on everyday Cypriots, not to mention foreigners residing in Cyprus, and the overall damage to customer confidence in the banking system that is produced by an arbitrary seizure of the funds of law abiding citizens.

It was a chainsaw solution to a problem that needed a surgeon's scalpel.
 
2013-03-18 11:44:05 AM  

Pair-o-Dice: The Irresponsible Captain: Grade A dimwits, the lot of 'em. Of course people are going to take their money out if you start doing this crap. That's part of what caused the Great Depression.

If Europe could stop shooting each other in the foot for a couple of months the world economy might recover. Despite the insanity in Washington right now, the US economy is one of the strongest in the world, so they're not holding everyone back. Certainly China isn't. Even Putinized Russia is doing well.

China's banking system operates under the 'new math' method.


China will have a collapse as well, a big one, not too far in the future. They are repeating the mistakes of the US, and the Europeans in many ways.
 
2013-03-18 11:45:18 AM  
I have a bother in law who lives in Cyprus. He is a liberal and hates the US. The irony here makes me chuckle.
 
2013-03-18 11:48:54 AM  

GentlemanJ: The upside of this will be more support of UKIP in Britain. The EU is unraveling.


Or the opposite - this is essentially the sort of thing that happened in the US before full federalization and a stronger central authority was instituted.
 
2013-03-18 11:49:44 AM  

Silverstaff: I can understand wanting to seize hoards of money from the Russian mob. I'm sure the Eurocrats thought that would be a great way to balance the books, take money from the criminal element with them having no legal recourse.


The thing that kills me here is that they're also the ones that could give a rats ass about liquidity or a run on the bank.  All they have to do is start yanking their cash out, cause a panic - runs on the banks happen.. then they dont have a problem of people not caring where their money comes from.  They do cash business.. farking with them is the wrong thing to do for many reasons.
 
2013-03-18 11:51:19 AM  
God I wish fark let you edit for spelling. sigh.
 
2013-03-18 11:53:37 AM  

Thunderpipes: This is what you guys want for the US.

Funny.


We want to tax deposits?
 
2013-03-18 11:57:03 AM  
When the Olympics moved on, taking its building projects with it, it left a little like a thief in the night. Exactly like a thief in the night in fact. It usually left in the very early hours of the morning, and the following day there always turned out to be a very great deal of stuff missing. Whole cultures and economies would collapse in its wake, often within a week, leaving once-thriving countries desolate and shell-shocked but still somehow feeling they had been part of some great adventure.
 
2013-03-18 11:59:24 AM  
Ah, Credit Unions. Ahhhhhh.

/Join them before Congress locks out new membership.
 
2013-03-18 11:59:40 AM  

skozlaw: Got a real source by any chance instead of some poo-flinger's blog? Or is this just the thing they've discussed where they basically said that it's up to Cyprus to determine how to handle raising the money as long as they raised the money?


NPR story.

I found the breaking news from a blog to be suspect also, so I went looking for confirmation.
 
2013-03-18 12:00:14 PM  

Silverstaff: It was a chainsaw solution to a problem that needed a surgeon's scalpel.


Oh don't worry about that....we've entered the wishy washy ambiguous stage now, where two perfectly likeable doctors have told you two totally different things....

Yes Mr Watson, it's perfectly fine....we're just going to amputate below the knee...
No Mr Watson, we don't need to remove your entire lower leg, we just need to make a small incision here.


Right now the patient is currently sat outside in the waiting room with their hospital gown...and they are shiatTING BRICKS on whether or not they are going to have a leg to stand on, the other side of the anaesthetic.

This is the bit I hate about european politics....inevitably all anyone does is kick the ball a few hundred yards further down the road..
 
2013-03-18 12:00:54 PM  
 xria: GentlemanJ: The upside of this will be more support of UKIP in Britain. The EU is unraveling.

Or the opposite - this is essentially the sort of thing that happened in the US before full federalization and a stronger central authority was instituted.


Nationalism wasn't nearly as much a factor here.  The extremity of nationalism in Europe never fails to surprise me.
 
2013-03-18 12:01:59 PM  

Gdalescrboz: Speaker2Animals: Don't be surprised if depositors start to move away from European banks and look for other options to protect their savings from the governments that can't solve their spending problems.

Yeah, that's right, professor. They've been "solving" their spending problems in Europe for four years now and all that's resulted is higher unemployment.

I don't have a gambling problem, I have a "can't win my money back problem."


But I think I have a plan for winning at craps, I'll just bet it all on green.

First thing I'll do is; change the rules.
 
2013-03-18 12:02:50 PM  
Austerity is like addressing a heart condition from obesity by cutting off your leg because you'll weigh less.
 
2013-03-18 12:03:43 PM  

DamnYankees: Thunderpipes: This is what you guys want for the US.

Funny.

We want to tax deposits?


You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit, and punish people for being responsible. Not much different.
 
2013-03-18 12:05:15 PM  

Thunderpipes: You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit, and punish people for being responsible. Not much different.


I do like taking money from people. It gives me a high, like when I go around and infect sleeping hobos with Kuru.
 
2013-03-18 12:05:50 PM  
EVERYBODY QUICK: HOW DOES THIS FIT IN MY MANICHEAN VIEW OF THE WORLD???
 
2013-03-18 12:06:32 PM  

Thunderpipes: You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit, and punish people for being responsible. Not much different.


dgt1.net
 
2013-03-18 12:08:36 PM  

skozlaw: Got a real source by any chance instead of some poo-flinger's blog? Or is this just the thing they've discussed where they basically said that it's up to Cyprus to determine how to handle raising the money as long as they raised the money?


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
 
2013-03-18 12:09:26 PM  

DamnYankees: Thunderpipes: This is what you guys want for the US.

Funny.

We want to tax deposits?


Well, quite a few people here always yell "tax wealth not income" and also biatch about companies who have large amoints of money in banks and not using it to make jobs. So taxing bank accounts would seem to be right up their alley
 
2013-03-18 12:10:06 PM  
The economic problems we have right now can be simply summed up.

Too many middle-men making too much money doing no productive work - essentially paper shuffling manipulating "financial instruments"

We as a society need to get back to actually making things or providing services to each other rather than just playing the stock market like a personal casino.
 
2013-03-18 12:10:51 PM  

Thunderpipes: You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit


So do you. Unless, of course, you don't want any state provided services. I suppose that's conceivably your position, but it's one that if applied in reality would result in disaster in fairly short order.
 
2013-03-18 12:11:06 PM  

mr lawson: Well, quite a few people here always yell "tax wealth not income" and also biatch about companies who have large amoints of money in banks and not using it to make jobs. So taxing bank accounts would seem to be right up their alley


I've never really heard anyone here advocate a wealth tax as opposed to an income tax, so that's neither here nor there.
 
2013-03-18 12:12:08 PM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: The economic problems we have right now can be simply summed up.

Too many middle-men making too much money doing no productive work - essentially paper shuffling manipulating "financial instruments"

We as a society need to get back to actually making things or providing services to each other rather than just playing the stock market like a personal casino.


This couldn't be more incorrect, especially the latter point. Does anyone actually believe that what we're suffering from is insufficient supply? That there's simply not enough 'stuff' in the world to fit the demand? What possible evidence is there for this? All evidence points to the exact opposite.
 
2013-03-18 12:12:14 PM  

FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit

So do you. Unless, of course, you don't want any state provided services. I suppose that's conceivably your position, but it's one that if applied in reality would result in disaster in fairly short order.


SHUT UP! TAXES ARE PUNISHMENT! YOU'RE JUST JEALOUS! THE SUCCESSFUL ARE SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE THEY'RE BETTER! I DON'T NEED ANYTHING!
 
2013-03-18 12:13:13 PM  

DamnYankees: mr lawson: Well, quite a few people here always yell "tax wealth not income" and also biatch about companies who have large amoints of money in banks and not using it to make jobs. So taxing bank accounts would seem to be right up their alley

I've never really heard anyone here advocate a wealth tax as opposed to an income tax, so that's neither here nor there.


Really? Death tax threads. Paris hilton?
 
jvl
2013-03-18 12:14:28 PM  

Speaker2Animals: Yeah, that's right, professor. They've been "solving" their spending problems in Europe for four years now and all that's resulted is higher unemployment.


Once again the critics pretend that austerity has failed because it has failed to reach the critic's imaginary goals.

The goal is to stabilize finances. No one promised employment would not be hurt, nor did they promise a pony.
 
2013-03-18 12:14:35 PM  

mr lawson: DamnYankees: mr lawson: Well, quite a few people here always yell "tax wealth not income" and also biatch about companies who have large amoints of money in banks and not using it to make jobs. So taxing bank accounts would seem to be right up their alley

I've never really heard anyone here advocate a wealth tax as opposed to an income tax, so that's neither here nor there.

Really? Death tax threads. Paris hilton?


Inheritance tax covers the transfer of wealth, not the wealth itself. And don't call it "death tax," because you sound like a complete tool.
 
2013-03-18 12:15:29 PM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: We as a society need to get back to actually making things or providing services to each other rather than just playing the stock market like a personal casino.


To do that we need to reduce offshoring. Easier said than done.

In my opinion the best* approach is to invent 'al Qaeda in the South China Sea' and start launching USS Cole style attacks on Chinese vessels as well as sabotage attacks on Chinese port infrastructure. Slow the rate of Chinese exports and increase prices by a few % and manufacturing in the west would start to look a whole lot more attractive.

*this may not, in fact, be the best approach
 
2013-03-18 12:15:37 PM  

mr lawson: Really? Death tax threads. Paris hilton?


1) The inheritance tax is not a wealth tax - it a transfer tax, like everything else. You can like it or hate it, but at least face it for what it is - taxing money when it transfers from one party (the deceased) to another (the heir).
2) I've never heard anyone say we should get rid of the income tax in favor of the inheritance tax. People always want both.
 
2013-03-18 12:17:31 PM  

jvl: Speaker2Animals: Yeah, that's right, professor. They've been "solving" their spending problems in Europe for four years now and all that's resulted is higher unemployment.

Once again the critics pretend that austerity has failed because it has failed to reach the critic's imaginary goals.

The goal is to stabilize finances. No one promised employment would not be hurt, nor did they promise a pony.


It's putting someone on chemotherapy because they're heavily burned. It's giving someone antacids because they broke their legs.  It's addressing a completely different problem from the one everyone is trying to address.

The economy starts with people working, earning, and spending money. Government budgets are secondary to keeping that going. What austerity does is change the oil because the car isn't working while ignoring the empty fuel gauge.
 
2013-03-18 12:19:22 PM  

DamnYankees: Does anyone actually believe that what we're suffering from is insufficient supply? That there's simply not enough 'stuff' in the world to fit the demand?


Plenty of people believe that diminished manufacturing competiveness in highly developed economies has resulted in a decline in real incomes together with an unsustainable trade gap. That's less an argument about how much stuff we make and more about where we make it.
 
2013-03-18 12:19:58 PM  
This might just pull the impending destruction forward.  I think their game is to threaten this to get a better deal out of the EU for the bailout.  If the EU body lets them do this it'll naturally be assumed that they're contemplating the same move in their countries.  There will be a run on all the European banks.  They have no good choices.
1. They have to boot Cypress out of the EU or pay them not to do this.  If they boot Cypress the rest of the EU may domino.
2.If they pay them the rest of the EU know extortion is ok when it comes to getting more bailout money and the downward spiral continues.
3. Let the tax on deposits go forward and you likely trigger a run on all European banks.
 
2013-03-18 12:21:59 PM  

FarkinNortherner: DamnYankees: Does anyone actually believe that what we're suffering from is insufficient supply? That there's simply not enough 'stuff' in the world to fit the demand?

Plenty of people believe that diminished manufacturing competiveness in highly developed economies has resulted in a decline in real incomes together with an unsustainable trade gap. That's less an argument about how much stuff we make and more about where we make it.


Fair enough, but I think you'd agree that's a completely different topic of discussion.
 
2013-03-18 12:22:05 PM  

DamnYankees: mr lawson: Really? Death tax threads. Paris hilton?

1) The inheritance tax is not a wealth tax - it a transfer tax, like everything else. You can like it or hate it, but at least face it for what it is - taxing money when it transfers from one party (the deceased) to another (the heir).
2) I've never heard anyone say we should get rid of the income tax in favor of the inheritance tax. People always want both.


So you are only for a tax if it transfers hands, ccorrect?
 
2013-03-18 12:23:47 PM  

mr lawson: So you are only for a tax if it transfers hands, ccorrect?


I'd need to think about it on a case by case basis - everything is contextual. As a general rule I do think transfer taxes are the easiest to implement so I generally favor them.
 
2013-03-18 12:24:36 PM  

bonobo73: Lay off people in the public sector, stop providing services vital to maintaining a thriving workforce.


It seems that you and reality have different definitions of the word vital.
 
2013-03-18 12:26:39 PM  
FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit So do you. Unless, of course, you don't want any state provided services. I suppose that's conceivably your position, but it's one that if applied in reality would result in disaster in fairly short order.

If it stopped at services I would agree with you.  But liberals don't want it to stop at services.
 
2013-03-18 12:27:24 PM  

MattStafford: bonobo73: Lay off people in the public sector, stop providing services vital to maintaining a thriving workforce.

It seems that you and reality have different definitions of the word vital.


And by "reality" you mean "right-wing, Fox News, Tea Party alternate reality"
 
2013-03-18 12:27:41 PM  
i.qkme.me
 
2013-03-18 12:28:01 PM  

Gdalescrboz: But liberals don't want it to stop at services.


Stop telling us what we want.
 
2013-03-18 12:28:53 PM  

Bloody William: Austerity is like addressing a heart condition from obesity by cutting off your leg because you'll weigh less.


Unless you are Latvia. Where it worked after all the gnashing of Keynesian teeth failed to sway their govt. Of course the fact that they are the fastest growing economy in the region now gets mostly ignored.
You are either an obdurate Krugman acolyte or ignorant. Please stop spewing these posts. We are all dumber for it.
 
2013-03-18 12:29:26 PM  

DamnYankees: This couldn't be more incorrect, especially the latter point. Does anyone actually believe that what we're suffering from is insufficient supply? That there's simply not enough 'stuff' in the world to fit the demand? What possible evidence is there for this? All evidence points to the exact opposite.


No, you are completely wrong.  Having those people who did not produce buy things works out great initially, but what happens when that money eventually tries to buy back whatever they "produced".
 
2013-03-18 12:29:42 PM  

Bloody William: jvl: Speaker2Animals: Yeah, that's right, professor. They've been "solving" their spending problems in Europe for four years now and all that's resulted is higher unemployment.

Once again the critics pretend that austerity has failed because it has failed to reach the critic's imaginary goals.

The goal is to stabilize finances. No one promised employment would not be hurt, nor did they promise a pony.

It's putting someone on chemotherapy because they're heavily burned. It's giving someone antacids because they broke their legs.  It's addressing a completely different problem from the one everyone is trying to address.

The economy starts with people working, earning, and spending money. Government budgets are secondary to keeping that going. What austerity does is change the oil because the car isn't working while ignoring the empty fuel gauge.


+eleventy on the hyperbole.

But you left out the part about the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor.
 
2013-03-18 12:30:13 PM  

MattStafford: but what happens when that money eventually tries to buy back whatever they "produced".


Someone decides to teach you how to write in English and ruin fark thread forever?
 
2013-03-18 12:31:00 PM  
This seems to really be about Cyprus taking money from citizens of other countries. Aren't they like the Cayman Islands of the Mediterranean? This new deal is just to appease the actual Cypriots. In other words: the voters. Seems like vote buying, or at least stealing less from you to gain favor as the best criminal on the ballot.
 
2013-03-18 12:31:38 PM  
I can't wrap my head around this.  They are trying to take 5-6.5% of the money... Of all their money in those accounts...
And they didn't expect a run on the banks?!  It's basically theft, undermining the entire government and the entire banking system.

Worst idea I have ever heard.  And I live in Texas, where we let our teachers carry guns.
 
2013-03-18 12:31:43 PM  

Gdalescrboz: If it stopped at services I would agree with you. But liberals don't want it to stop at services.


Yes because we want to rape your daughter, kill your puppy, kidnap your wife, and steal all your money so we can give to the crack smoking,HIV infested, herpes laden welfare abusing woman down the street living in her 8 bedroom town house subsidized with section 8, while her 32 kids by 30 different baby daddies run amok in your suburban neighborhood.

Ohh and the baby daddies start selling crack in your town as well.

Did I forget anything?
 
2013-03-18 12:32:10 PM  

Gdalescrboz: If it stopped at services I would agree with you. But liberals don't want it to stop at services.


Fairly strongly depends on what you regard as a service that the government should be providing. However, irrespective of political hue or view of the role and size of the state, Thunderpipes apparent implication that he would remove the government's capacity to raise any mandatory taxes is ludicrous.
 
2013-03-18 12:33:02 PM  
"So we're gonna go ahead and take money out of your bank accounts cause we're a little low on money"
"But...that's my money! I worked my whole life for that!"
"So yeaaaaaaaaah....we're gonna go ahead and take some of that money"
"But it's mine. You have no right to it!"
"So yeah, we're gonna go ahead and take it"
 
2013-03-18 12:35:30 PM  

jvl: Speaker2Animals: Yeah, that's right, professor. They've been "solving" their spending problems in Europe for four years now and all that's resulted is higher unemployment.

Once again the critics pretend that austerity has failed because it has failed to reach the critic's imaginary goals.

The goal is to stabilize finances. No one promised employment would not be hurt, nor did they promise a pony.


Marie Antoinette!! I thought you were beheaded! F*ck the average person -- we have to take care of the elite while we're making the 99% suffer for our sins!
 
2013-03-18 12:35:51 PM  

wildcardjack: When the Olympics moved on, taking its building projects with it, it left a little like a thief in the night. Exactly like a thief in the night in fact. It usually left in the very early hours of the morning, and the following day there always turned out to be a very great deal of stuff missing. Whole cultures and economies would collapse in its wake, often within a week, leaving once-thriving countries desolate and shell-shocked but still somehow feeling they had been part of some great adventure.


+1
 
2013-03-18 12:36:53 PM  
How to both ruin and save an economy.
Depending on who you talk to.
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-03-18 12:37:39 PM  

studs up: Unless you are Latvia. Where it worked


I wouldn't call a 20% crash followed by a 5% growth "work[ing]"
 
2013-03-18 12:37:44 PM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: The economic problems we have right now can be simply summed up.

Too many middle-men making too much money doing no productive work - essentially paper shuffling manipulating "financial instruments"

We as a society need to get back to actually making things or providing services to each other rather than just playing the stock market like a personal casino.


So drop the tax rates for production below those of investment income.  Ding!
People talk smack about the "low" investment income tax rates.  Low tax rates aren't a bad thing inherently.   It's what they do  that is bad.  So instead of increasing the tax rate on "gambling," which is political suicide for Both parties at this point, let's drop the tax rates on real production.  Close all the exemption "loopholes" while you're at it, using an even hand.  Cut the R's favorite exemptions: crop subsidies and oil.  Cut the D's favorite exemptions: experimental energy technologies and perigovernmental organizations.  The "rich" will then choose to invest a higher proportion of their money in Making Things instead of the "casino" than they do now.  They won't quit the casino altogether.  They won't shift all their portfolios into 100% corporate paper and bonds.  But it would be an incremental shift that has a permanent positive affect.  Will tax revenues suffer?  Maybe for a while.  But wouldn't you prefer that we have a Making Things economy instead of a Casino economy?
 
2013-03-18 12:37:50 PM  
www.republicain-lorrain.fr

Turns out in Cypress, when you withdraw money you always cross your legs while standing out...
 
2013-03-18 12:38:40 PM  
Just a more open-than-normal display of the idea that if you wave around some magic papers and conduct the right rituals, politicians can justify that which would otherwise be utterly criminal, in this case, overt theft.
 
2013-03-18 12:38:41 PM  

Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit So do you. Unless, of course, you don't want any state provided services. I suppose that's conceivably your position, but it's one that if applied in reality would result in disaster in fairly short order.

If it stopped at services I would agree with you.  But liberals don't want it to stop at services.


Always the liberal argument. "You don't want roads or police!". Ya, I do. I pay taxes for that. I don't want to pay taxes for methadone clinics, section 8 housing, illegal aliens' college tuition.

What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. Only way to find that is by taking more and more and more from anyone who dares to succeed. Eventually, it fails. We will be Greece within 20 years. This is a fact.

Taxes should be broad based, and provide the minimum needed for the government to function. The states, as we debate here, are over 1 trillion in debt just because of teacher pensions (completely underfunded). Did you all know that? This is not about what the government needs, or what services people need. It is about entitlement spending, and what people want. They want taxpayer money given to them. Liberals oblige because it gets them votes and damn the torpedoes!
 
2013-03-18 12:38:51 PM  

alabasterblack: How to both ruin and save an economy.
Depending on who you talk to.
[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 271x186]


Aaaand that's proof you have no understanding that macroecnomics is slightly different than microeconomics, or that there are many cases in microeconomics as well that "spending what you don't have" is the preferable option for long-term growth.
 
2013-03-18 12:40:50 PM  
jvl:Once again the critics pretend that austerity has failed because it has failed to reach the critic's imaginary goals.

The goal is to stabilize finances.


And what has happened is the economies keep getting worse and worse, making the deficits higher, leading the misguided Eurofools to double and quadruple down on their bets. That's sure the path to stabilization. Uh-huh.
 
2013-03-18 12:42:29 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: studs up: Unless you are Latvia. Where it worked

I wouldn't call a 20% crash followed by a 5% growth "work[ing]"


Actually even worse is the loss of a huge section of their younger population. That sort of drain on a population will have ramifications for the next several generations.
 
2013-03-18 12:43:13 PM  

jvl: Speaker2Animals: Yeah, that's right, professor. They've been "solving" their spending problems in Europe for four years now and all that's resulted is higher unemployment.

Once again the critics pretend that austerity has failed because it has failed to reach the critic's imaginary goals.

The goal is to stabilize finances. No one promised employment would not be hurt, nor did they promise a pony.


"As regards the economy, the idea that austerity measures could trigger stagnation is incorrect.  I firmly believe that in the current circumstances, confidence-inspiring policies will foster and not hamper economic recovery, because confidence is the key factor today."

LINK

That's a quote from Jean-Claude Trichet, then-President of the ECB, in June of 2010.  How'd that work out, slick?
 
2013-03-18 12:43:44 PM  

Thunderpipes: What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU


Stop telling us what we want.
 
2013-03-18 12:44:57 PM  

Thunderpipes: It is about entitlement spending,


So you think that the teachers don't deserve a retirement? And that the issue isn't that we have the lowest tax rates in 30 years and a growing, aging population?
 
2013-03-18 12:47:37 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU

Stop telling us what we want.


If it were untrue, you would have a point.

You want the EXACT model of the EU countries. Huge benefits, punish the wealthy, lazy people encouraged -- when things explode, grab the money. That is exactly how your boy keeps getting elected.  Promise his minions free crap, and defer the collapse because his followers are too stupid to care. 10 trillion in new debt from one President? Oh, no problem, just increase taxes....
 
2013-03-18 12:48:30 PM  

studs up: Unless you are Latvia. Where it worked after all the gnashing of Keynesian teeth failed to sway their govt. Of course the fact that they are the fastest growing economy in the region now gets mostly ignored.


Latvia's debts have quadrupled, its unemployment rate is at 12% despite a reduction in the size of its under 25 workforce (thanks to economic migration), median incomes have fallen by 35% and an already abysmal standard of education and healthcare provision has got even worse. It also suffered the largest contraction of any European economy.

Still, it's now in growth, partly as a result of selling below-cost timber into Sweden thanks to European subsidies, so that's the post-Keynesians justified...
 
2013-03-18 12:48:41 PM  

Thunderpipes: Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit So do you. Unless, of course, you don't want any state provided services. I suppose that's conceivably your position, but it's one that if applied in reality would result in disaster in fairly short order.

If it stopped at services I would agree with you.  But liberals don't want it to stop at services.

Always the liberal argument. "You don't want roads or police!". Ya, I do. I pay taxes for that. I don't want to pay taxes for methadone clinics, section 8 housing, illegal aliens' college tuition.

What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. Only way to find that is by taking more and more and more from anyone who dares to succeed. Eventually, it fails. We will be Greece within 20 years. This is a fact.

Taxes should be broad based, and provide the minimum needed for the government to function. The states, as we debate here, are over 1 trillion in debt just because of teacher pensions (completely underfunded). Did you all know that? This is not about what the government needs, or what services people need. It is about entitlement spending, and what people want. They want taxpayer money given to them. Liberals oblige because it gets them votes and damn the torpedoes!


Just FYI, paying for methadone clinics is much cheaper than paying for police investigations of the property crimes committed by addicts.  And putting people in section 8 housing is much cheaper than paying for them to be housed in jails.  There isn't that whole "fark you for making bad choices" aspect, but it is more efficient.
 
2013-03-18 12:48:44 PM  

Thunderpipes: Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: (snip)
What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. (snipped for brevity)


So my son ran for Treasurer at this school in 5th grade. He lost to a girl that promised everyone sno-cones. With a few weeks left in school he called across the playground, "Where's my firkin sno-cone?"
It caught on and the rest of the kids kept hounding her for sno-cones. She eventually quit the position and cried whenever the word sno-cone hit her ear. Sno-Cone is her nickname now. I don't think she is coming back next year.
This can be ramped up to a larger scale.
 
2013-03-18 12:50:47 PM  

Thunderpipes: That is exactly how your boy keeps getting elected.


And, there it is.
 
2013-03-18 12:51:11 PM  
Comparing this to a wealth tax is disingenuous. A wealth tax would more or less be fair (not saying it's a good idea) while this is random. Own 100k worth of shares but nothing in your bank account? No loss. Have that 100k in your bank instead? Lose 10% of it.
 
2013-03-18 12:51:57 PM  

seanpg71: Thunderpipes: Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit So do you. Unless, of course, you don't want any state provided services. I suppose that's conceivably your position, but it's one that if applied in reality would result in disaster in fairly short order.

If it stopped at services I would agree with you.  But liberals don't want it to stop at services.

Always the liberal argument. "You don't want roads or police!". Ya, I do. I pay taxes for that. I don't want to pay taxes for methadone clinics, section 8 housing, illegal aliens' college tuition.

What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. Only way to find that is by taking more and more and more from anyone who dares to succeed. Eventually, it fails. We will be Greece within 20 years. This is a fact.

Taxes should be broad based, and provide the minimum needed for the government to function. The states, as we debate here, are over 1 trillion in debt just because of teacher pensions (completely underfunded). Did you all know that? This is not about what the government needs, or what services people need. It is about entitlement spending, and what people want. They want taxpayer money given to them. Liberals oblige because it gets them votes and damn the torpedoes!

Just FYI, paying for methadone clinics is much cheaper than paying for police investigations of the property crimes committed by addicts.  And putting people in section 8 housing is much cheaper than paying for them to be housed in jails.  There isn't that whole "fark you for making bad choices" aspect, but it is more efficient.


Would cost even less if you simply beat down criminals and made being poor so tough they had no choice but to work.
 
2013-03-18 12:55:05 PM  

Thunderpipes: If it were untrue, you would have a point.

You want the EXACT model of the EU countries.


I'm a liberal and I've lived in an EU country, and I don't want the exact model of the EU countries.

So, stop telling us what we want.
 
2013-03-18 12:55:42 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Comparing this to a wealth tax is disingenuous. A wealth tax would more or less be fair (not saying it's a good idea) while this is random. Own 100k worth of shares but nothing in your bank account? No loss. Have that 100k in your bank instead? Lose 10% of it.


They are still taking from wealthy foreigners. Likely not a good move for a small country.
 
2013-03-18 12:56:32 PM  

Thunderpipes: seanpg71: Thunderpipes: Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit So do you. Unless, of course, you don't want any state provided services. I suppose that's conceivably your position, but it's one that if applied in reality would result in disaster in fairly short order.

If it stopped at services I would agree with you.  But liberals don't want it to stop at services.

Always the liberal argument. "You don't want roads or police!". Ya, I do. I pay taxes for that. I don't want to pay taxes for methadone clinics, section 8 housing, illegal aliens' college tuition.

What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. Only way to find that is by taking more and more and more from anyone who dares to succeed. Eventually, it fails. We will be Greece within 20 years. This is a fact.

Taxes should be broad based, and provide the minimum needed for the government to function. The states, as we debate here, are over 1 trillion in debt just because of teacher pensions (completely underfunded). Did you all know that? This is not about what the government needs, or what services people need. It is about entitlement spending, and what people want. They want taxpayer money given to them. Liberals oblige because it gets them votes and damn the torpedoes!

Just FYI, paying for methadone clinics is much cheaper than paying for police investigations of the property crimes committed by addicts.  And putting people in section 8 housing is much cheaper than paying for them to be housed in jails.  There isn't that whole "fark you for making bad choices" aspect, but it is more efficient.

Would cost even less if you simply beat down criminals and made being poor so tough they had no choice but to work.


Because jobs always fall from job trees whenever someone "wants" to work.
 
2013-03-18 12:57:12 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: It is about entitlement spending,

So you think that the teachers don't deserve a retirement? And that the issue isn't that we have the lowest tax rates in 30 years and a growing, aging population?


I've noticed that the either-or fallacy is your favorite.  I'm going to start pointing it out.

You have implied that Thunderpipes' claim that teachers are owed too much in pensions means that he thinks "that the teachers don't deserve a retirement ."  You have no reason to believe this claim.  Perhaps he simply believes that teachers deserve some, but less, pensions for their retirement.  Thus there is a third option.  That is why your assertion is an either-or fallacy.
 
2013-03-18 12:58:43 PM  
People still respond to Trollerpipes?
 
2013-03-18 12:59:08 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: If it were untrue, you would have a point.

You want the EXACT model of the EU countries.

I'm a liberal and I've lived in an EU country, and I don't want the exact model of the EU countries.

So, stop telling us what we want.


Only thing I want is a universal healthcare system... and redheads... blondes too.. with big tits... that like to go to the range with me and shot guns that make those big tits jiggle for a while...

/worse Liberal ever I guess...
 
2013-03-18 12:59:16 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I'm a liberal and I've lived in an EU country, and I don't want the exact model of the EU countries.


Always assuming there was one model to choose from. The variation in income and employment related benefits, healthcare, even median retirement age is enormous. Ironically part of the reason the euro doesn't work in its current form is the lack of homogeneity.
 
2013-03-18 12:59:31 PM  
THUNDERPIPES tells it like it is.  Take that, libs.
 
2013-03-18 12:59:59 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: If it were untrue, you would have a point.

You want the EXACT model of the EU countries.

I'm a liberal and I've lived in an EU country, and I don't want the exact model of the EU countries.

So, stop telling us what we want.


Then stop voting into office people who campaign on and are making us the EU.
 
2013-03-18 01:01:21 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Gdalescrboz: If it stopped at services I would agree with you. But liberals don't want it to stop at services.

Yes because we want to rape your daughter, kill your puppy, kidnap your wife, and steal all your money so we can give to the crack smoking,HIV infested, herpes laden welfare abusing woman down the street living in her 8 bedroom town house subsidized with section 8, while her 32 kids by 30 different baby daddies run amok in your suburban neighborhood.

Ohh and the baby daddies start selling crack in your town as well.

Did I forget anything?


Brains?

Checking your penis at the door?

Logging out of the HuffPos at the local library?
 
2013-03-18 01:02:15 PM  
So, let me get this straight.

The EU is offering a €13 billion bailout, but they want Cypriots to pay for half the bailout with the money in bank accounts.  By taking money from Cyprus bank accounts and giving it back to Cyprus banks . . . isn't that kinda circular that the money is already in the banks?

Am I missing something?  Isn't this like bailing water from one end of a pool, pouring it into the other end, and saying that you're filling the pool up more?

Why can't the compromise be a half-sized bailout from the EU that doesn't take the half from private bank accounts?
 
2013-03-18 01:02:18 PM  
"Stop telling us what we want!"
"Stop telling us what we want!"
"Stop telling us what we want!"

Stop asking for it, dipshiat.
 
2013-03-18 01:02:32 PM  

Thunderpipes: cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: If it were untrue, you would have a point.

You want the EXACT model of the EU countries.

I'm a liberal and I've lived in an EU country, and I don't want the exact model of the EU countries.

So, stop telling us what we want.

Then stop voting into office people who campaign on and are making us the EU.


So i'll stop voting for exactly nobody then. Thanks for the help!
 
2013-03-18 01:03:05 PM  

Thunderpipes: Would cost even less if you simply beat down criminals and made being poor so tough they had no choice but to work.


ROFL no choice but to work?  Is this guy serious?

They'll just come beat  you down and take  your stuff.  Believe it or not, this is a problem people have been working on for thousands of years.
 
2013-03-18 01:03:11 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: seanpg71: Thunderpipes: Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit So do you. Unless, of course, you don't want any state provided services. I suppose that's conceivably your position, but it's one that if applied in reality would result in disaster in fairly short order.

If it stopped at services I would agree with you.  But liberals don't want it to stop at services.

Always the liberal argument. "You don't want roads or police!". Ya, I do. I pay taxes for that. I don't want to pay taxes for methadone clinics, section 8 housing, illegal aliens' college tuition. 

What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. Only way to find that is by taking more and more and more from anyone who dares to succeed. Eventually, it fails. We will be Greece within 20 years. This is a fact.

Taxes should be broad based, and provide the minimum needed for the government to function. The states, as we debate here, are over 1 trillion in debt just because of teacher pensions (completely underfunded). Did you all know that? This is not about what the government needs, or what services people need. It is about entitlement spending, and what people want. They want taxpayer money given to them. Liberals oblige because it gets them votes and damn the torpedoes!

Just FYI, paying for methadone clinics is much cheaper than paying for police investigations of the property crimes committed by addicts.  And putting people in section 8 housing is much cheaper than paying for them to be housed in jails.  There isn't that whole "fark you for making bad choices" aspect, but it is more efficient.

Would cost even less if you simply beat down criminals and made being poor so tough they had no choice but to work.

Because jobs always fall from job trees whenever someone "wa ...


camaroncrazy1984, you have just employed the either-or fallacy.   You have implied that Thunderpipes' assertion that anyone who wants a job can only get one by the benevolence of government programs, or by one falling from a job tree.  There is a third option: perhaps governments could issue an employment tax break during recessions, such as the one Obama extended when he came into office in 2009, which loosened a government impediment to employment.  You choose to ignore this third option--that of actually decreasing the scope of a recognized governmental intervention.  That is why your assertion is an either-or fallacy.
 
2013-03-18 01:03:22 PM  

mrmopar5287: The EU is offering a €13 billion bailout, but they want Cypriots to pay for half the bailout with the money in bank accounts.  By taking money from Cyprus bank accounts and giving it back to Cyprus banks . . . isn't that kinda circular that the money is already in the banks?


They are basically saying they will only give a loan of 6 billion, and that loan is conditioned on this haircut.

It's dumb, yes,
 
2013-03-18 01:03:51 PM  

OregonVet: "Stop telling us what we want!"
"Stop telling us what we want!"
"Stop telling us what we want!"

Stop asking for it, dipshiat.


Nice namecalling.

Who's asking for it, specifically? Name one single Democratic politician in the federal government who has campaigned on "making the US exactly like the EU"

ONE.
 
2013-03-18 01:04:15 PM  

studs up: Thunderpipes: Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: (snip)
What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. (snipped for brevity)

So my son ran for Treasurer at this school in 5th grade. He lost to a girl that promised everyone sno-cones. With a few weeks left in school he called across the playground, "Where's my firkin sno-cone?"
It caught on and the rest of the kids kept hounding her for sno-cones. She eventually quit the position and cried whenever the word sno-cone hit her ear. Sno-Cone is her nickname now. I don't think she is coming back next year.
This can be ramped up to a larger scale.


In reality she would've taken out a loan and bought the sno-cones. She could get reelected and do that in perpetuity until she was out of the school and leaving the problem behind and everyone remembering the free sno-cones while she only paid the interest on the loan. The other kids would figure out that doing that was how to get elected. This would keep happening until the lender figured out this was a bad idea or they could no longer pay the interest. Then the whole system would collapse.
 
2013-03-18 01:04:59 PM  

Wangiss: You have implied that Thunderpipes' assertion that anyone who wants a job can only get one by the benevolence of government programs,


I haven't implied it, I flat-out said it. And that was his assertion. "Make being por so hard that he has no choice but to work"
 
2013-03-18 01:05:02 PM  

KellyX: cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: If it were untrue, you would have a point.

You want the EXACT model of the EU countries.

I'm a liberal and I've lived in an EU country, and I don't want the exact model of the EU countries.

So, stop telling us what we want.

Only thing I want is a universal healthcare system... and redheads... blondes too.. with big tits... that like to go to the range with me and shot guns that make those big tits jiggle for a while...

/worse Liberal ever I guess...


To the range? The range is the DEVIL!!! Guns kill you.

You know, I am as conservative as they come in all things but religion (idiots). I would favor a universal health care system, if it was broadly funded. The problem is, when liberals talk about single payer or Obamacare or whatever, it is just a gigantic wealth redistribution. If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing. I know people ignore it, but we have an excellent health care system here if you actually are a hard working family. I should be getting a plate and 13 screws removed from my tibia soon, wait time for a completely elective operation like this is 5-6 weeks here. Try that in Canada.
 
2013-03-18 01:06:40 PM  

FarkinNortherner: studs up: Unless you are Latvia. Where it worked after all the gnashing of Keynesian teeth failed to sway their govt. Of course the fact that they are the fastest growing economy in the region now gets mostly ignored.

Latvia's debts have quadrupled, its unemployment rate is at 12% despite a reduction in the size of its under 25 workforce (thanks to economic migration), median incomes have fallen by 35% and an already abysmal standard of education and healthcare provision has got even worse. It also suffered the largest contraction of any European economy.

Still, it's now in growth, partly as a result of selling below-cost timber into Sweden thanks to European subsidies, so that's the post-Keynesians justified...


Um no , no , no....I could keep going, but your devout obstinance in the face of facts bores me. Keep spewing, useful idiot. Even your own team is admits that they did the right thing. I do love however that you think that the standard of healthcare and education is so poor after years of Keynesian economics. I'm sure you didn't mean to say that you expected this new recovery to have all of that fixed in the first few years after decades of mismanagement and failed policies. Have faith, things will improve under a more free economy.
 
2013-03-18 01:07:08 PM  

DamnYankees: Someone decides to teach you how to write in English and ruin fark thread forever?


It isn't a complicated idea to grasp.  Imagine the economy divided into two parts, an individual and every other actor in the economy.  You are suggesting that if we give the individual currency in exchange for nothing, and allow him to buy something from the second part of the economy, that second part will be better off for it in the long run.  In other words, an exchange of a piece of paper for a real good somehow makes the group receiving the piece of paper better off.
 
2013-03-18 01:07:36 PM  

Thunderpipes: If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing.


Really? Because Canada, Japan, Belgium, the UK, all of these countries have single-payer healthcare and not everyone pays in. And you know what is in common with all of these countries? They all get better healthcare at a lower cost per-capita than the US of A.
 
2013-03-18 01:07:37 PM  

Alonjar: Thunderpipes: Would cost even less if you simply beat down criminals and made being poor so tough they had no choice but to work.

ROFL no choice but to work?  Is this guy serious?

They'll just come beat  you down and take  your stuff.  Believe it or not, this is a problem people have been working on for thousands of years.


And it would end very badly for them. The weak will always be weak and easily slapped around. That is your goddamn argument, really? Give money to the lazy or they will attack you?

Jesus Christ. No wonder we are failing.
 
2013-03-18 01:07:43 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: You have implied that Thunderpipes' assertion that anyone who wants a job can only get one by the benevolence of government programs,

I haven't implied it, I flat-out said it. And that was his assertion. "Make being por so hard that he has no choice but to work"


And your assertion was about a job tree.  Are you in a unilateral competition to be less sensible than he, or do you perhaps gain a sort of emotional spiff from making fun of people?
 
2013-03-18 01:07:45 PM  

Bloody William: alabasterblack: How to both ruin and save an economy.
Depending on who you talk to.
[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 271x186]

Aaaand that's proof you have no understanding that macroecnomics is slightly different than microeconomics, or that there are many cases in microeconomics as well that "spending what you don't have" is the preferable option for long-term growth.


I think you missed my point.
 
2013-03-18 01:08:04 PM  

MattStafford: that second part will be better off for it in the long run.  In other words, an exchange of a piece of paper for a real good somehow makes the group receiving the piece of paper better off.


I know, fiat currency is pretty amazing.
 
2013-03-18 01:08:22 PM  

studs up: devout obstinance in the face of facts bores me


Who is the one who is being obstinate in the face of facts, here? He's right, you're wrong, get over it.
 
2013-03-18 01:08:58 PM  

Thunderpipes: should be getting a plate and 13 screws removed from my tibia soon, wait time for a completely elective operation like this is 5-6 weeks here.


A 'completely elective' major orthopaedic intervention??

I'm not even going to start on how you seemingly think insurance a) works and b) makes a profit.
 
2013-03-18 01:09:01 PM  

Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: You have implied that Thunderpipes' assertion that anyone who wants a job can only get one by the benevolence of government programs,

I haven't implied it, I flat-out said it. And that was his assertion. "Make being por so hard that he has no choice but to work"

And your assertion was about a job tree.  Are you in a unilateral competition to be less sensible than he, or do you perhaps gain a sort of emotional spiff from making fun of people?


I enjoy the fact that you're freaking out about a valid point I made, and that it wasn't even to you.
 
2013-03-18 01:09:27 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: You have implied that Thunderpipes' assertion that anyone who wants a job can only get one by the benevolence of government programs,

I haven't implied it, I flat-out said it. And that was his assertion. "Make being por so hard that he has no choice but to work"


cameroncrazy1984, you're employing the either-or fallacy by drawing attention to Thunderpipes' use of the either-or fallacy. Stupid libs.
 
2013-03-18 01:09:57 PM  
THUNDERR THE DERPARIAN
 
2013-03-18 01:10:04 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing.

Really? Because Canada, Japan, Belgium, the UK, all of these countries have single-payer healthcare and not everyone pays in. And you know what is in common with all of these countries? They all get better healthcare at a lower cost per-capita than the US of A.


False.  Japan has an individual mandate system somewhat similar to the private-provider system we are about to experience in the USA.  It is not single-payer healthcare.
 
2013-03-18 01:10:17 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing.

Really? Because Canada, Japan, Belgium, the UK, all of these countries have single-payer healthcare and not everyone pays in. And you know what is in common with all of these countries? They all get better healthcare at a lower cost per-capita than the US of A.


And I already posted about that. I have excellent health care. try getting an elective knee surgery done in Canada, see how long it takes you.

People always making crap up any way. The poor here have excellent health care as well.
 
2013-03-18 01:10:21 PM  
FarkinNortherner Gdalescrboz: If it stopped at services I would agree with you. But liberals don't want it to stop at services. Fairly strongly depends on what you regard as a service that the government should be providing. However, irrespective of political hue or view of the role and size of the state, Thunderpipes apparent implication that he would remove the government's capacity to raise any mandatory taxes is ludicrous.

I
am of the opinion that if the gov't is offering to spend money on a person specifically because they meet a requirement, such as you earn bellow XXX, it is not a service.  What that is, is a bribe with other people's money.  For example, we will pay for your health insurance with so-and-so's money.  Or, we will pay for your food with so-and-so's money, etc., all you have to do is vote for me.  The left would have an argument if such bribes came with strings attached; forcing people to go to school for example.  But they don't, they give away what other people have earned in exchange for a vote.  When only certain people qualify for funding, and that funding is another persons money, you aren't providing a service you are bribing.
 
2013-03-18 01:10:32 PM  

Thunderpipes: Would cost even less if you simply beat down criminals and made being poor so tough they had no choice but to work.


Wow, know how I know you've never been poor before?

It's people like you who buy into the myth that anyone on welfare doesn't need to work and choose not to work.  Some people do, but it's the vast minority.

dick.
 
2013-03-18 01:11:06 PM  

Bloody William: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: You have implied that Thunderpipes' assertion that anyone who wants a job can only get one by the benevolence of government programs,

I haven't implied it, I flat-out said it. And that was his assertion. "Make being por so hard that he has no choice but to work"

cameroncrazy1984, you're employing the either-or fallacy by drawing attention to Thunderpipes' use of the either-or fallacy. Stupid libs.


Just when I managed to loose five pounds from my butt.
 
2013-03-18 01:11:08 PM  

MadMattressMack: studs up: Thunderpipes: Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: (snip)
What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. (snipped for brevity)

So my son ran for Treasurer at this school in 5th grade. He lost to a girl that promised everyone sno-cones. With a few weeks left in school he called across the playground, "Where's my firkin sno-cone?"
It caught on and the rest of the kids kept hounding her for sno-cones. She eventually quit the position and cried whenever the word sno-cone hit her ear. Sno-Cone is her nickname now. I don't think she is coming back next year.
This can be ramped up to a larger scale.

In reality she would've taken out a loan and bought the sno-cones. She could get reelected and do that in perpetuity until she was out of the school and leaving the problem behind and everyone remembering the free sno-cones while she only paid the interest on the loan. The other kids would figure out that doing that was how to get elected. This would keep happening until the lender figured out this was a bad idea or they could no longer pay the interest. Then the whole system would collapse.


Scary as hell isn't it? THE perfect reason to keep things small and transparent.
 
2013-03-18 01:11:50 PM  

Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing.

Really? Because Canada, Japan, Belgium, the UK, all of these countries have single-payer healthcare and not everyone pays in. And you know what is in common with all of these countries? They all get better healthcare at a lower cost per-capita than the US of A.

False.  Japan has an individual mandate system somewhat similar to the private-provider system we are about to experience in the USA.  It is not single-payer healthcare.


Sorry, what I should've said is universal healthcare.

It's not like I used the either-or fallacy, amirite?
 
2013-03-18 01:12:49 PM  

Thunderpipes: try getting an elective knee surgery done in Canada, see how long it takes you.


I have friends in Canada who have had elective knee surgery. The were sent here to Buffalo a couple of days later, all paid for by the healthcare system.
 
2013-03-18 01:13:35 PM  

KellyX: [www.republicain-lorrain.fr image 680x481]

Turns out in Cypress, when you withdraw money you always cross your legs while standing out...


The lines to get your money out are so long that they had to make a choice between ATM or bathroom.
 
2013-03-18 01:14:30 PM  

Thunderpipes: And it would end very badly for them. The weak will always be weak and easily slapped around. That is your goddamn argument, really? Give money to the lazy or they will attack you?



Well your argument was that we could beat criminals and the poor into submission.  So your plan does rely on a large number of people being weak and easily slapped around.
 
2013-03-18 01:14:44 PM  

FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: should be getting a plate and 13 screws removed from my tibia soon, wait time for a completely elective operation like this is 5-6 weeks here.

A 'completely elective' major orthopaedic intervention??

I'm not even going to start on how you seemingly think insurance a) works and b) makes a profit.


Correct me then. it is causing me discomfort when I run. But I can run. We have already blown through our deductibles for the year, which are pretty big. I just want this done. I want it done now, not in the Fall or Winter.

Not really major either, spinal, cut me, take a screwdriver and get the screws out, yank the plate, staple it. Actual cost? Probably a few hundred bucks. Billed to insurance? Probably around $4,000.

But of course, I am telling the doctors I cannot function with the plate any more, crippling, etc. Heck, maybe I should tell them it makes me smoke crack, get a whole bunch of extra free stuff.
 
2013-03-18 01:15:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: You have implied that Thunderpipes' assertion that anyone who wants a job can only get one by the benevolence of government programs,

I haven't implied it, I flat-out said it. And that was his assertion. "Make being por so hard that he has no choice but to work"

And your assertion was about a job tree.  Are you in a unilateral competition to be less sensible than he, or do you perhaps gain a sort of emotional spiff from making fun of people?

I enjoy the fact that you're freaking out about a valid point I made, and that it wasn't even to you.


You didn't make a point unless your point was that your opponent's argument was as silly as your "job tree" proposal.  Calling someone silly is hardly anything to be proud of, or consider a "valid point."

And if you think I'm freaking out, I can understand why you do this.  It must be fun to imagine people going ape over a few strategic phrases.  I'm not sorry to disappoint you: the people on the other end of the monitor are not making Jim Carrey-esque bug eyes faces; they are not reconsidering their life choices; they are not feeling inferior to you.  We read your logical fallacies and facepalm sometimes, though.  If you're clever, and actually want to change the world for the better, you should employ logic instead of flout it.  But then again, that's just my opinion, man.
 
2013-03-18 01:15:58 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: studs up: devout obstinance in the face of facts bores me

Who is the one who is being obstinate in the face of facts, here? He's right, you're wrong, get over it.


Based on what? I don't think you have even a basic understanding of what is being debated. I like the way you pound the floor insisting you are right. Amusing troll is amusing.
3.8/10
 
2013-03-18 01:16:10 PM  

Bloody William: alabasterblack: How to both ruin and save an economy.
Depending on who you talk to.
[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 271x186]

Aaaand that's proof you have no understanding that macroecnomics is slightly different than microeconomics, or that there are many cases in microeconomics as well that "spending what you don't have" is the preferable option for long-term growth.


Aaaand there's the proof that you never paid attention in your economics class.

Even my beloved Keynes warned against protracted debt.

If the US had little debt going into this 'crisis' then, yes, spending money may have pulled us out.

But for myriad reasons, we where already indebted beyond the gills, and now spending at a rate that will hurt our finacial future for decades.
 
2013-03-18 01:16:21 PM  

DamnYankees: I know, fiat currency is pretty amazing.


Is there a limit to how amazing it is?  If we printed, say, one trillion dollars and gave it to that individual, would the effects be any different?  Two trillion?
 
2013-03-18 01:17:41 PM  

Wangiss: It must be fun to imagine people going ape over a few strategic phrases.  I'm not sorry to disappoint you:


Yeah, except you have gone ape over every single one of my posts so far.
 
2013-03-18 01:18:34 PM  

studs up: cameroncrazy1984: studs up: devout obstinance in the face of facts bores me

Who is the one who is being obstinate in the face of facts, here? He's right, you're wrong, get over it.

Based on what? I don't think you have even a basic understanding of what is being debated. I like the way you pound the floor insisting you are right. Amusing troll is amusing.
3.8/10


Which part of what he said was wrong? Does Latvia not have trillions more in debt now? Do they not have a young population that is fleeing the country? What part was wrong, specifically?
 
2013-03-18 01:18:41 PM  

JK47: Thunderpipes: And it would end very badly for them. The weak will always be weak and easily slapped around. That is your goddamn argument, really? Give money to the lazy or they will attack you?


Well your argument was that we could beat criminals and the poor into submission.  So your plan does rely on a large number of people being weak and easily slapped around.


You can. Not literally a physical beating.... But, did you know people go back to work within a short period of time of their unemployment running out? 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, doesn't matter, there is a direct relationship between benefits running out and people deciding to work again. So why do we give them 2 years of benefits? Why not shorten it to 3 months? That is the kind of "beatings"I mean. Make things hard to be poor, don't encourage it.

Imagine if when the great depression hit, people just got unlimited welfare, free housing, free health care, free food and smokes, cash to spend? Think we would have bounced back nearly as well? Obama has given people all kinds of stuff, where are we at? We are limping by when we should be running full speed.
 
2013-03-18 01:18:45 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing.

Really? Because Canada, Japan, Belgium, the UK, all of these countries have single-payer healthcare and not everyone pays in. And you know what is in common with all of these countries? They all get better healthcare at a lower cost per-capita than the US of A.

False.  Japan has an individual mandate system somewhat similar to the private-provider system we are about to experience in the USA.  It is not single-payer healthcare.

Sorry, what I should've said is universal healthcare.

It's not like I used the either-or fallacy, amirite?


Correct.  If you had, I would probably have pointed it out.  Thank you for correcting your statement.
 
2013-03-18 01:19:13 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: I know, fiat currency is pretty amazing.

Is there a limit to how amazing it is?  If we printed, say, one trillion dollars and gave it to that individual, would the effects be any different?  Two trillion?


Don't you get tired of being smacked down over this?
 
2013-03-18 01:19:50 PM  

Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing.

Really? Because Canada, Japan, Belgium, the UK, all of these countries have single-payer healthcare and not everyone pays in. And you know what is in common with all of these countries? They all get better healthcare at a lower cost per-capita than the US of A.

False.  Japan has an individual mandate system somewhat similar to the private-provider system we are about to experience in the USA.  It is not single-payer healthcare.

Sorry, what I should've said is universal healthcare.

It's not like I used the either-or fallacy, amirite?

Correct.  If you had, I would probably have pointed it out.  Thank you for correcting your statement.


You mean you would've freaked out about it because the point of my post was so far over your head that you couldn't understand why I used it.
 
2013-03-18 01:21:07 PM  
Why can't the EU do what Iceland did?.
 
2013-03-18 01:22:35 PM  

CygnusDarius: Why can't the EU do what Iceland did?.


Because the EU is not a unified whole. Doing what Iceland did would be great for Cyprus but bad for Germany. And Germany has more clout than Cyprus.
 
2013-03-18 01:22:53 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: It must be fun to imagine people going ape over a few strategic phrases.  I'm not sorry to disappoint you:

Yeah, except you have gone ape over every single one of my posts so far.


We must have different opinions on the definitions of "going ape" and "every."
 
2013-03-18 01:22:53 PM  
People, remember: Thunderpipes is someone who thinks only rich people should be able to vote.

/at least in federal elections
 
2013-03-18 01:23:10 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Don't you get tired of being smacked down over this?


Do you think there is a limit to the magic of fiat currency?  If we gave an individual several trillion dollars for no goods produced or services rendered, how would it affect the rest of the economy?
 
2013-03-18 01:24:13 PM  

studs up: your devout obstinance in the face of facts bores me


I can only assume you haven't read the results of the first link. Let me help:

Each side has a point. 2008 and 2009 were traumatic years for Latvia.  Unemployment surged to over 20 percent, and poverty rates remain high by EU standards.

You're confusing the facts of the level of pain Latvia has suffered and is suffering with the ideological argument that the end justifies the means.
 
2013-03-18 01:24:55 PM  

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Don't you get tired of being smacked down over this?

Do you think there is a limit to the magic of fiat currency?  If we gave an individual several trillion dollars for no goods produced or services rendered, how would it affect the rest of the economy?


Can you two get a room?
 
2013-03-18 01:25:13 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing.

Really? Because Canada, Japan, Belgium, the UK, all of these countries have single-payer healthcare and not everyone pays in. And you know what is in common with all of these countries? They all get better healthcare at a lower cost per-capita than the US of A.

False.  Japan has an individual mandate system somewhat similar to the private-provider system we are about to experience in the USA.  It is not single-payer healthcare.

Sorry, what I should've said is universal healthcare.

It's not like I used the either-or fallacy, amirite?

Correct.  If you had, I would probably have pointed it out.  Thank you for correcting your statement.

You mean you would've freaked out about it because the point of my post was so far over your head that you couldn't understand why I used it.


No, that is not what I mean.  If you can support that assertion with anything I've written, I would be interested to see how you reached that conclusion.
 
2013-03-18 01:25:20 PM  

Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: It must be fun to imagine people going ape over a few strategic phrases.  I'm not sorry to disappoint you:

Yeah, except you have gone ape over every single one of my posts so far.

We must have different opinions on the definitions of "going ape" and "every."


No you've pretty much responded to every one of my posts since you've been in the thread. I don't know what else to tell you, man.
 
2013-03-18 01:25:20 PM  

Alonjar: Thunderpipes: Would cost even less if you simply beat down criminals and made being poor so tough they had no choice but to work.

ROFL no choice but to work?  Is this guy serious?

They'll just come beat  you down and take  your stuff.  Believe it or not, this is a problem people have been working on for thousands of years.


That's what the 2nd Amendment is for.

For me to keep what I have taken from those that are not able to resist me.

I am the perfect Anarchist, the one with a gun.
 
2013-03-18 01:26:11 PM  

MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Don't you get tired of being smacked down over this?

Do you think there is a limit to the magic of fiat currency?  If we gave an individual several trillion dollars for no goods produced or services rendered, how would it affect the rest of the economy?


Considering that A) I've never said that fiat currency was magic and B) Your proposition will never ever happen, I don't know what you're talking about.
 
2013-03-18 01:27:00 PM  

skozlaw: Got a real source by any chance instead of some poo-flinger's blog? Or is this just the thing they've discussed where they basically said that it's up to Cyprus to determine how to handle raising the money as long as they raised the money?


Try these & there are a whole bunch of related stories too:

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/cyprus-bailout-puts-new-press ur e-on-european-banks/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/debt-crisis-live/9936737/Cyprus-b ai lout-live.html

http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Page/Home/en/LIVE
 
2013-03-18 01:27:04 PM  

I_C_Weener: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Don't you get tired of being smacked down over this?

Do you think there is a limit to the magic of fiat currency?  If we gave an individual several trillion dollars for no goods produced or services rendered, how would it affect the rest of the economy?

Can you two get a room?


If you believe in magic
Come along with me
We'll dance until morning, just you and me
and maybe, if the music is right
I'll meet ya tomorrow
so late at night
 
2013-03-18 01:27:17 PM  

Wangiss: No, that is not what I mean.  If you can support that assertion with anything I've written, I would be interested to see how you reached that conclusion.


You pointed out that I used an either-or fallacy, which is true. However, the reason I did so was to highlight the stupidity of  Thunderpipes' claim.

You see, sometimes logical fallacies are worthwhile to oh forget it you won't get it.
 
2013-03-18 01:27:26 PM  

Gdalescrboz: I am of the opinion that if the gov't is offering to spend money on a person specifically because they meet a requirement, such as you earn bellow XXX, it is not a service. What that is, is a bribe with other people's money. For example, we will pay for your health insurance with so-and-so's money. Or, we will pay for your food with so-and-so's money, etc., all you have to do is vote for me. The left would have an argument if such bribes came with strings attached; forcing people to go to school for example. But they don't, they give away what other people have earned in exchange for a vote. When only certain people qualify for funding, and that funding is another persons money, you aren't providing a service you are bribing.


Fair enough. I don't altogether disagree. One of the problems with 'liberals believe' or 'conservatives believe' is that real people generally have, like you, more nuanced views.
 
2013-03-18 01:29:43 PM  
cameroncrazy1984:

Nice namecalling.

Who's asking for it, specifically? Name one single Democratic politician in the federal government who has campaigned on "making the US exactly like the EU"

ONE.


As far as making healthcare exactly like those foolish systems (and Canadia)... just about the entire Dem block in the Senate and the President. Throw in the Sec of State too.

NAFTA was supported by the majority of both parties back in the 90s.

I don't think any have had  "making the US exactly like the EU" as a campaign slogan though.
 
2013-03-18 01:30:05 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: It must be fun to imagine people going ape over a few strategic phrases.  I'm not sorry to disappoint you:

Yeah, except you have gone ape over every single one of my posts so far.

We must have different opinions on the definitions of "going ape" and "every."

No you've pretty much responded to every one of my posts since you've been in the thread. I don't know what else to tell you, man.


You've switched to "pretty much."  Since that's a very vague definition, your new goalposts sufficiently couch your assertion to a point beyond scrutiny.  This is better than logical fallacy; it's obfuscation.  You may or may not have a point.  That's much safer for you, emotionally, than the potential of facing your own wrongness.  But sadly, it has very little potential for others.  If you are clever and want to make the world a better place, you should employ truth rather than avoiding it.  But again, that's just my opinion, man.
 
2013-03-18 01:31:25 PM  

Thunderpipes: The problem is, when liberals talk about single payer or Obamacare or whatever, it is just a gigantic wealth redistribution. If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing. I know people ignore it, but we have an excellent health care system here if you actually are a hard working family. I should be getting a plate and 13 screws removed from my tibia soon, wait time for a completely elective operation like this is 5-6 weeks here. Try that in Canada.



As an insurance professional let me say you are off base.  In general Insurance companies are very well funded on account of the strict oversight of state regulatory agencies.  However, their underwriting practices and the premium charged varies depending on the risk level of the pool of insureds they are writing.  The problem is that the risk pools vary widely because the market itself is fragmented into a number large and small groups (individual employers of varying size) each with different risk profiles and financial capacity (e.g. willingness to shoulder more or less of the premium charged before passing the remainder to the employees/insureds).  However, once you move outside the group market, you have individuals attempting to purchase insurance policies on their own and since they are not allocated into a group they bear the risk burden on their own.  That means insurers, who are concerned about maintaining generally positive loss ratios (e.g. the ratio of loss & costs incurred under the policy versus premium charged) can't spread risk over many individuals and therefore must focus on collecting enough premium from a single individual.

This varies from the underwriting practices regarding property and casualty (e.g. homeowners, auto, umbrella liability, etc) practices due to the fact that "risk" is slightly different in those contexts.  Under P&C insurers tend to evaluate the performance of their portfolio of a given policy line (e.g. all homeowners or all auto policies) in a given jurisdiction.  While the loss history of a given policy has an impact it is much smaller than what one sees in the health insurance market and the underwriting decisions are focused on maintaining positive loss ratios across the entire policy line (e.g. risk is being shared amongst all such policies in a state).  The reason being that under P&C losses are not a given or a certainty...there is a risk that a loss may occur but it's equally likely that no loss will occur.  On the contrary, with health insurance, it's extremely likely that there will be a loss to any given policy during the policy year.  An individual insured can go for several years before calling upon their property or auto insurer for coverage but it's quite likely they'll call on their health insurer for coverage several times a year.

So whether you have excellent health coverage depends entirely on the size of your employer.  If you are an individual payer you do not have excellent coverage nor do you have affordable coverage.  If your employer is a small business your coverage is definitely going to be more expensive and provide less coverage overall than what is being offered to a larger employer with a more desirable population of insureds.  This variation could be evened out if risk were distributed over an entire population through a universal health care method but...
 
2013-03-18 01:31:29 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: MattStafford: cameroncrazy1984: Don't you get tired of being smacked down over this?

Do you think there is a limit to the magic of fiat currency?  If we gave an individual several trillion dollars for no goods produced or services rendered, how would it affect the rest of the economy?

Considering that A) I've never said that fiat currency was magic and B) Your proposition will never ever happen, I don't know what you're talking about.


This is what I'm talking about.  See?  You've won.  He has to start the argument over again because his assertion is utterly untenable.  This is logic; this is helpful.  And, as a bonus, you are right.
 
2013-03-18 01:31:57 PM  

InstaZen25: As far as making healthcare exactly like those foolish systems (and Canadia)... just about the entire Dem block in the Senate and the President.


The assertion wasn't healthcare. It was "exactly like the EU"
 
2013-03-18 01:32:34 PM  

Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: It must be fun to imagine people going ape over a few strategic phrases.  I'm not sorry to disappoint you:

Yeah, except you have gone ape over every single one of my posts so far.

We must have different opinions on the definitions of "going ape" and "every."

No you've pretty much responded to every one of my posts since you've been in the thread. I don't know what else to tell you, man.

You've switched to "pretty much."  Since that's a very vague definition, your new goalposts sufficiently couch your assertion to a point beyond scrutiny.  This is better than logical fallacy; it's obfuscation.  You may or may not have a point.  That's much safer for you, emotionally, than the potential of facing your own wrongness.  But sadly, it has very little potential for others.  If you are clever and want to make the world a better place, you should employ truth rather than avoiding it.  But again, that's just my opinion, man.


You've responded to every single one of my posts in this thread except for one. You're obsessed. It's kind of weird.
 
2013-03-18 01:33:56 PM  

Ilmarinen: People, remember: Thunderpipes is someone who thinks only rich people should be able to vote.

/at least in federal elections


no, I think you should have to pay a voting fee, or at least pay a certain amount of federal taxes. Not rich people, just people who actually pay taxes or have earned the right by paying taxes in the past (for retirees).

Sorry, but I don't think people who have no stake in the game should be able to directly vote themselves money. This will just get worse as the losers breed faster and the hard working people slow down. Not to mention you guys can just vote 6 times for Obama if you want too.

Just common sense. As much as liberals would love it, the guy in the mail room should not be involved in major policy decisions of a Fortune 500 company. He is in the mail room for a reason. You won the Presidency, in major part, because being a successful business man, giving millions to charity and paying millions in taxes was painted as evil. Really think about that.
 
2013-03-18 01:34:19 PM  
Saw the Hot Air icon and quickly realized this wasn't a link worth following.
 
2013-03-18 01:34:38 PM  

DamnYankees: CygnusDarius: Why can't the EU do what Iceland did?.

Because the EU is not a unified whole. Doing what Iceland did would be great for Cyprus but bad for Germany. And Germany has more clout than Cyprus.



Merkel is facing Federal elections in September; the German taxpayers are going "WTF" over continuously underwriting the cr$ppy countries debts.  This is her way of saying we're helping hold the EU together, but you won't get stiffed with the bill.  Much of the Greek bail-out money has "vanished" into the black hole which is the current Greek economy; so this bail-out came with pain shared by all.

And ultimately it's a way for the nutjobs running the EU to demand closer fiscal & political union.  It's essentially a power-grab.
 
2013-03-18 01:35:35 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: studs up: cameroncrazy1984: studs up: devout obstinance in the face of facts bores me

Who is the one who is being obstinate in the face of facts, here? He's right, you're wrong, get over it.

Based on what? I don't think you have even a basic understanding of what is being debated. I like the way you pound the floor insisting you are right. Amusing troll is amusing.
3.8/10

Which part of what he said was wrong? Does Latvia not have trillions more in debt now? Do they not have a young population that is fleeing the country? What part was wrong, specifically?


I'm sorry, are you saying that all that debt just accrued since austerity was implemented? Well, here is that conservative rag, the NYT saying you, once again, are talking out your ass. You really need to stop posting your ignorance for the world to see. It's got to start getting embarrassing soon.
And yes, the young are fleeing the country. It happens when the free ride is over. A generation raised on the dole will go somewhere else when there is no more dole. They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.
 
2013-03-18 01:36:43 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Considering that A) I've never said that fiat currency was magic and B) Your proposition will never ever happen, I don't know what you're talking about.


What if we replace the individual with a group of people?  Maybe retired people over the age of 65?  Would that change your opinion on whether or not it will ever happen?  Does the fact that it was done via a group of people as opposed to an individual change the ramifications?
 
2013-03-18 01:37:25 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: No, that is not what I mean.  If you can support that assertion with anything I've written, I would be interested to see how you reached that conclusion.

You pointed out that I used an either-or fallacy, which is true. However, the reason I did so was to highlight the stupidity of  Thunderpipes' claim.

You see, sometimes logical fallacies are worthwhile to oh forget it you won't get it.


I already acknowledged what you just wrote before you even wrote it.  I asked, "Are you in a unilateral competition to be less sensible than he[?]"
You didn't say yes until now, so now we have it: the truth.  Thanks for that.
 
2013-03-18 01:37:28 PM  

studs up: They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.


Austerity!

Confidently farking your country in the ass, then kicking the can down the road for your kids!
 
2013-03-18 01:37:54 PM  
Have we had a discussion regarding the tanking European economy, their crazy union and socialized ways, their 30 hour work weeks, their 50 weeks of vacation between 50 bank holidays, and the fact that the Euro is better than a US Dollar?  Should I ,like, read a book or something?
 
2013-03-18 01:38:32 PM  

JK47: Thunderpipes: The problem is, when liberals talk about single payer or Obamacare or whatever, it is just a gigantic wealth redistribution. If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing. I know people ignore it, but we have an excellent health care system here if you actually are a hard working family. I should be getting a plate and 13 screws removed from my tibia soon, wait time for a completely elective operation like this is 5-6 weeks here. Try that in Canada.


As an insurance professional let me say you are off base.  In general Insurance companies are very well funded on account of the strict oversight of state regulatory agencies.  However, their underwriting practices and the premium charged varies depending on the risk level of the pool of insureds they are writing.  The problem is that the risk pools vary widely because the market itself is fragmented into a number large and small groups (individual employers of varying size) each with different risk profiles and financial capacity (e.g. willingness to shoulder more or less of the premium charged before passing the remainder to the employees/insureds).  However, once you move outside the group market, you have individuals attempting to purchase insurance policies on their own and since they are not allocated into a group they bear the risk burden on their own.  That means insurers, who are concerned about maintaining generally positive loss ratios (e.g. the ratio of loss & costs incurred under the policy versus premium charged) can't spread risk over many individuals and therefore must focus on collecting enough premium from a single individual.

This varies from the underwriting practices regarding property and casualty (e.g. homeowners, auto, umbrella liability, etc) practices due to the fact that "risk" is slightly different in those contexts.  Under P&C insurers tend to evaluate the performance of their portfolio of a given policy line (e.g. all homeowners or all auto polic ...


Number 1: where you are employed is your choice. How much money you make, is your choice.
Number 2:. There will be no more underwriting. Obamacare means a fat smoking alcoholic will get the same rates as a 27 year old marathon runner. Who wins there? Choice is now gone.

You know who really gets shafted with Obamacare? Healthy young people. They can't afford it on their own unless they are poor. They will likely never get the good coverage via their employer without getting a big reduction in salary. Once again, we take from the good, give to the bad (take from healthy people, give to unhealthy. Just like everything else liberal, it takes away incentive to care.
 
2013-03-18 01:38:34 PM  

JK47: Thunderpipes: The problem is, when liberals talk about single payer or Obamacare or whatever, it is just a gigantic wealth redistribution. If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing. I know people ignore it, but we have an excellent health care system here if you actually are a hard working family. I should be getting a plate and 13 screws removed from my tibia soon, wait time for a completely elective operation like this is 5-6 weeks here. Try that in Canada.


As an insurance professional let me say you are off base.  In general Insurance companies are very well funded on account of the strict oversight of state regulatory agencies.  However, their underwriting practices and the premium charged varies depending on the risk level of the pool of insureds they are writing.  The problem is that the risk pools vary widely because the market itself is fragmented into a number large and small groups (individual employers of varying size) each with different risk profiles and financial capacity (e.g. willingness to shoulder more or less of the premium charged before passing the remainder to the employees/insureds).  However, once you move outside the group market, you have individuals attempting to purchase insurance policies on their own and since they are not allocated into a group they bear the risk burden on their own.  That means insurers, who are concerned about maintaining generally positive loss ratios (e.g. the ratio of loss & costs incurred under the policy versus premium charged) can't spread risk over many individuals and therefore must focus on collecting enough premium from a single individual.

This varies from the underwriting practices regarding property and casualty (e.g. homeowners, auto, umbrella liability, etc) practices due to the fact that "risk" is slightly different in those contexts.  Under P&C insurers tend to evaluate the performance of their portfolio of a given policy line (e.g. all homeowners or all auto polic ...


You, yes you.

Mr./Mrs./Ms. Sensible.

Just leave, there is hyperbole in progress, and you don't want to stand in the way of progress.
 
2013-03-18 01:40:08 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: It must be fun to imagine people going ape over a few strategic phrases.  I'm not sorry to disappoint you:

Yeah, except you have gone ape over every single one of my posts so far.

We must have different opinions on the definitions of "going ape" and "every."

No you've pretty much responded to every one of my posts since you've been in the thread. I don't know what else to tell you, man.

You've switched to "pretty much."  Since that's a very vague definition, your new goalposts sufficiently couch your assertion to a point beyond scrutiny.  This is better than logical fallacy; it's obfuscation.  You may or may not have a point.  That's much safer for you, emotionally, than the potential of facing your own wrongness.  But sadly, it has very little potential for others.  If you are clever and want to make the world a better place, you should employ truth rather than avoiding it.  But again, that's just my opinion, man.

You've responded to every single one of my posts in this thread except for one. You're obsessed. It's kind of weird.


Is this in some way significantly dissimilar to what you have done to Thunderpipes, or is this perhaps in some way an admission that you admit to being obsessed and weird?  Where is the line drawn, and is it static by some principle or does it move with you?
 
2013-03-18 01:41:44 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: studs up: They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.

Austerity!

Confidently farking your country in the ass, then kicking the can down the road for your kids!


I don't think you get it. The country was already farked. They just finally admitted it. There was no future for the young, just a false promise of one that the country could not afford.
 
2013-03-18 01:42:09 PM  

Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: It must be fun to imagine people going ape over a few strategic phrases.  I'm not sorry to disappoint you:

Yeah, except you have gone ape over every single one of my posts so far.

We must have different opinions on the definitions of "going ape" and "every."

No you've pretty much responded to every one of my posts since you've been in the thread. I don't know what else to tell you, man.

You've switched to "pretty much."  Since that's a very vague definition, your new goalposts sufficiently couch your assertion to a point beyond scrutiny.  This is better than logical fallacy; it's obfuscation.  You may or may not have a point.  That's much safer for you, emotionally, than the potential of facing your own wrongness.  But sadly, it has very little potential for others.  If you are clever and want to make the world a better place, you should employ truth rather than avoiding it.  But again, that's just my opinion, man.

You've responded to every single one of my posts in this thread except for one. You're obsessed. It's kind of weird.

Is this in some way significantly dissimilar to what you have done to Thunderpipes, or is this perhaps in some way an admission that you admit to being obsessed and weird?  Where is the line drawn, and is it static by some principle or does it move with you?


I haven't even responded to most of his posts.
 
2013-03-18 01:42:55 PM  

InstaZen25: MyKingdomForYourHorse: studs up: They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.

Austerity!

Confidently farking your country in the ass, then kicking the can down the road for your kids!

I don't think you get it. The country was already farked. They just finally admitted it. There was no future for the young, just a false promise of one that the country could not afford.


There was a future, they just squandered it away because they were too afraid to raise taxes. And now they lost most of a generation.
 
2013-03-18 01:42:55 PM  

ACunningPlan: DamnYankees: CygnusDarius: Why can't the EU do what Iceland did?.

Because the EU is not a unified whole. Doing what Iceland did would be great for Cyprus but bad for Germany. And Germany has more clout than Cyprus.


Merkel is facing Federal elections in September; the German taxpayers are going "WTF" over continuously underwriting the cr$ppy countries debts.  This is her way of saying we're helping hold the EU together, but you won't get stiffed with the bill.  Much of the Greek bail-out money has "vanished" into the black hole which is the current Greek economy; so this bail-out came with pain shared by all.

And ultimately it's a way for the nutjobs running the EU to demand closer fiscal & political union.  It's essentially a power-grab.


It is working the same way here. Instead of individual countries, we have large groups of people. Some work, some don't. Some pay their bills, some don't. Some want to be responsible, some don't. In the end, the slackers need bailouts, and the only way to do that is to take from those that have been responsible. It is working the same here as there. Fail.
 
2013-03-18 01:43:18 PM  
Stupid question:

Some companies make a payrole deposit per month. X goes in, X typically goes rights out after everyone cash their check.

Sooo, if they do this 5,10% or whatever, what stops someone's pay from bouncing?
 
2013-03-18 01:45:37 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: InstaZen25: MyKingdomForYourHorse: studs up: They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.

Austerity!

Confidently farking your country in the ass, then kicking the can down the road for your kids!

I don't think you get it. The country was already farked. They just finally admitted it. There was no future for the young, just a false promise of one that the country could not afford.

There was a future, they just squandered it away because they were too afraid to raise taxes. And now they lost most of a generation.


And you are the problem.

You think they just needed to raise taxes. You are just like American liberals. You completely ignore the real problems, spending, entitlements, work ethic, responsibility. Your solution to anything is just to raise taxes. You cannot continue to do that forever.
 
2013-03-18 01:46:04 PM  

Thunderpipes: You can. Not literally a physical beating.... But, did you know people go back to work within a short period of time of their unemployment running out? 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, doesn't matter, there is a direct relationship between benefits running out and people deciding to work again. So why do we give them 2 years of benefits? Why not shorten it to 3 months? That is the kind of "beatings"I mean. Make things hard to be poor, don't encourage it.

Imagine if when the great depression hit, people just got unlimited welfare, free housing, free health care, free food and smokes, cash to spend? Think we would have bounced back nearly as well? Obama has given people all kinds of stuff, where are we at? We are limping by when we should be running full speed.



Regarding your first point, people are leery about returning to work because doing so would void the remainder of their unemployment benefit at which point they must remain at their current employment for a period of time before they become eligible once again.  So taking on temporary or contract work (which is popular at this time) is incredibly risky because your term could end without an offer and leave you without unemployment benefits.  Quite frankly, what you should notice is that people ride their benefits to the end regardless of the length.  If it's two years then they will last two years.  If two months then they will last two months.  The problem isn't that unemployment allows a free ride, the problem is puts people in a position where they need to find a full time permanent replacement for the income they lost on the first attempt.  In any event we give people two years because in the current economic climate where employers are attempting to nickle and dime workers on salary it can easily take that long to find a job that replaces the income an individual was earning at their old job.  Given that federal and state revenues rely on income tax receipts assisting individuals in attaining high paying work is more desirable than forcing them to compromise by taking temp work that pays much less and forces them to rely heavily on social services for basic needs.

When the Great Depression hit we had breadlines and shanty towns.  By your logic we would never have escaped from the Great Depression if we kept giving free food to the poor.  The Federal Gov't also increased the income tax rates to fund massive public works projects in an effort to put the poor to work.  However current conservative philosophy would argue against such programs citing them as evidence of government "waste".  The Great Depression itself was caused by financial practices that were advocated by conservatives in the late 90's and the Depression itself lasted from 1929 till 1941.  We didn't "bounce back" from the Depression nearly as fast as you seem to think.
 
2013-03-18 01:46:56 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: studs up: They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.

Austerity!

Confidently farking your country in the ass, then kicking the can down the road for your kids!


I think you are confusing that with debt. Nice try!
 
2013-03-18 01:47:09 PM  

Thunderpipes: It is working the same way here. Instead of individual countries, we have large groups of people. Some work, some don't. Some pay their bills, some don't. Some want to be responsible, some don't. In the end, the slackers need bailouts, and the only way to do that is to take from those that have been responsible. It is working the same here as there. Fail.


If I lend you a shiat-ton of money that we both know you won't be able to pay back, in what way are you being irresponsible, but I'm very responsible?
 
2013-03-18 01:47:18 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: It must be fun to imagine people going ape over a few strategic phrases.  I'm not sorry to disappoint you:

Yeah, except you have gone ape over every single one of my posts so far.

We must have different opinions on the definitions of "going ape" and "every."

No you've pretty much responded to every one of my posts since you've been in the thread. I don't know what else to tell you, man.

You've switched to "pretty much."  Since that's a very vague definition, your new goalposts sufficiently couch your assertion to a point beyond scrutiny.  This is better than logical fallacy; it's obfuscation.  You may or may not have a point.  That's much safer for you, emotionally, than the potential of facing your own wrongness.  But sadly, it has very little potential for others.  If you are clever and want to make the world a better place, you should employ truth rather than avoiding it.  But again, that's just my opinion, man.

You've responded to every single one of my posts in this thread except for one. You're obsessed. It's kind of weird.

Is this in some way significantly dissimilar to what you have done to Thunderpipes, or is this perhaps in some way an admission that you admit to being obsessed and weird?  Where is the line drawn, and is it static by some principle or does it move with you?

I haven't even responded to most of his posts.


So the line is drawn at "most," which unless you correct me I will admit to being a simple majority.  If I find a thread wherein you have replied to most of a poster's posts, will that define you as "obsessed" and "weird"?  Or will you employ a No True Scotsman fallacy to protect your emotions?  Or would you like to take an early opportunity to admit that you ware wrong--that there is a possible other reason a person might respond to a majority of your posts?
 
2013-03-18 01:50:26 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: InstaZen25: MyKingdomForYourHorse: studs up: They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.

Austerity!

Confidently farking your country in the ass, then kicking the can down the road for your kids!

I don't think you get it. The country was already farked. They just finally admitted it. There was no future for the young, just a false promise of one that the country could not afford.

There was a future, they just squandered it away because they were too afraid to raise taxes. And now they lost most of a generation.


People leave if you tax away their income too. This will be especially prevalent in the Euro-zone, where the wealthy aren't the only ones who can leave easily.

This is why the middle class usually takes the brunt of the tax burden in terms of %'s and real effect.
 
2013-03-18 01:57:46 PM  
The job is not done until their status as a tax evasion domicile is gone.

That's the biggest reason there's a desire for devastation to visit Cyprus.
 
2013-03-18 01:59:10 PM  

InstaZen25: cameroncrazy1984: InstaZen25: MyKingdomForYourHorse: studs up: They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.

Austerity!

Confidently farking your country in the ass, then kicking the can down the road for your kids!

I don't think you get it. The country was already farked. They just finally admitted it. There was no future for the young, just a false promise of one that the country could not afford.

There was a future, they just squandered it away because they were too afraid to raise taxes. And now they lost most of a generation.

People leave if you tax away their income too. This will be especially prevalent in the Euro-zone, where the wealthy aren't the only ones who can leave easily.

This is why the middle class usually takes the brunt of the tax burden in terms of %'s and real effect.


Just look at the mass exodus out of the northeast US.

My state, VT just lost population. Many high taxed northern states are having the same things happen. Where are people going? South and Southwestern states with lower tax burdens. Those states are also where the job growth is. It is not a coincidence. People (and business)  move from harsh tax environments to those that are more friendly. Now states, like mine, faced with aging work forces, more retirees, and lack of young people need to raise taxes further, which drives more people away. it is so painfully simple, but people are so stupid. You want jobs, growth, healthy middle class? Lower your farking taxes.
 
2013-03-18 01:59:19 PM  

Thunderpipes: Number 1: where you are employed is your choice. How much money you make, is your choice.
Number 2:. There will be no more underwriting. Obamacare means a fat smoking alcoholic will get the same rates as a 27 year old marathon runner. Who wins there? Choice is now gone.

You know who really gets shafted with Obamacare? Healthy young people. They can't afford it on their own unless they are poor. They will likely never get the good coverage via their employer without getting a big reduction in salary. Once again, we take from the good, give to the bad (take from healthy people, give to unhealthy. Just like everything else liberal, it takes away incentive to care.



Perhaps you missed this from my earlier point since it was implied so I will make it clear.  Underwriting (individual) risk in the health insurance context is a misnomer.  There is no risk that health insurance won't be called upon for coverage in a given year, it's almost a certainty.  Certainly, absent risk sharing, there is no possible way an individual will pay enough premium to give the insurer a reasonable chance at maintaining a positive loss ratio over a five to ten year period.

You however seem to be under a misapprehension that, since individual risk factors cannot be considered, there will be no actual underwriting involved.  The price which will be charged for the insurance policies offered will reflect the underwriting efforts of the insurer as they evaluate the population as a whole.  Meaning, while they can't assign a price to individuals based on their individual characteristics, they will assess the pool of insureds as a whole, meaning the marathon runner and the fat smokers, to see what the total cost of insuring them was (and will be) in order to assign a price that each of them will pay.  So the fat smoker will pay a little less and the marathon runner will pay a little more.  However, over time this will begin to balance out as the marathon runner gets pregnant, the fat smoker contracts diabetes, and the marathon runner is diagnosed with cancer.

The real benefit to all parties is the muted impact that catastrophic events will have.  While the marathon runner is less likely to have a major medical event its still possible that they could, say, get struck by a car.  Now, if individual risk factors were evaluated, their injuries and secondary issues would be taken into account upon renewal and their premium would be increased to 1) recoup the losses of the insurer since they had not assessed a high risk factor and therefore had not built up a large premium buffer and 2) to begin building up a higher premium balance in anticipation of future medical issues.  Now of course the marathon runner went from being low risk to being a high risk and faces, on top of the other expensive issues to be grappled with, a much higher health insurance premium.
 
2013-03-18 01:59:29 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: studs up: They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.

Austerity!

Confidently farking your country in the ass, then kicking the can down the road for your kids!


THIS.

Austerity is just simply a way to use financial solvency as an excuse to push the burden away from those that caused it to the people that can't avoid it.
 
2013-03-18 02:00:24 PM  

DamnYankees: Yay austerity!


In Cyprus? Haha. Silly Krugmanoid. Printing pieces of paper with symbols on it doesn't solve fiscal messes; it just papers over the problem.
 
2013-03-18 02:02:43 PM  
d38zt8ehae1tnt.cloudfront.net

Been saying it all along.
 
2013-03-18 02:04:15 PM  

Shryke: DamnYankees: Yay austerity!

In Cyprus? Haha. Silly Krugmanoid. Printing pieces of paper with symbols on it doesn't solve fiscal messes; it just papers over the problem.


But causing great pain to the banks that caused the mess works - see Iceland.

/Austerity for me, but not for thee?
 
2013-03-18 02:04:20 PM  

JK47: Thunderpipes: Number 1: where you are employed is your choice. How much money you make, is your choice.
Number 2:. There will be no more underwriting. Obamacare means a fat smoking alcoholic will get the same rates as a 27 year old marathon runner. Who wins there? Choice is now gone.

You know who really gets shafted with Obamacare? Healthy young people. They can't afford it on their own unless they are poor. They will likely never get the good coverage via their employer without getting a big reduction in salary. Once again, we take from the good, give to the bad (take from healthy people, give to unhealthy. Just like everything else liberal, it takes away incentive to care.


Perhaps you missed this from my earlier point since it was implied so I will make it clear.  Underwriting (individual) risk in the health insurance context is a misnomer.  There is no risk that health insurance won't be called upon for coverage in a given year, it's almost a certainty.  Certainly, absent risk sharing, there is no possible way an individual will pay enough premium to give the insurer a reasonable chance at maintaining a positive loss ratio over a five to ten year period.

You however seem to be under a misapprehension that, since individual risk factors cannot be considered, there will be no actual underwriting involved.  The price which will be charged for the insurance policies offered will reflect the underwriting efforts of the insurer as they evaluate the population as a whole.  Meaning, while they can't assign a price to individuals based on their individual characteristics, they will assess the pool of insureds as a whole, meaning the marathon runner and the fat smokers, to see what the total cost of insuring them was (and will be) in order to assign a price that each of them will pay.  So the fat smoker will pay a little less and the marathon runner will pay a little more.  However, over time this will begin to balance out as the marathon runner gets pregnant, the fat ...


And you just proved my point.....

The marathon runner pays more, the fattie pays less. And this is not because of profit or loss, it is because the government makes it so, using trillions of taxpayer dollars. It is not even close to a real risk system. You also assume the marathon runner will somehow get less healthy than the average person over time. Well, statistically, they will always be more healthy, but their will never get a better rate. Statistically, the fattie will always be less healthy, but will always get a better rate.

It is just a gigantic kick in the groin to healthy people. Just like it is a gigantic kick in the wallet to responsible people and businesses. It has no basis from an economic point of view, but it gets votes.
 
2013-03-18 02:10:35 PM  

sethstorm: MyKingdomForYourHorse: studs up: They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.

Austerity!

Confidently farking your country in the ass, then kicking the can down the road for your kids!

THIS.

Austerity is just simply a way to use financial solvency as an excuse to push the burden away from those that caused it to the people that can't avoid it.


In a free society you elect those that caused the problem, ultimately making you responsible. The children for the most part really are the ones who can't avoid any of this debt crap. You can't pick where or to whom you are born.
 
2013-03-18 02:10:43 PM  

Thunderpipes: ACunningPlan: DamnYankees: CygnusDarius: Why can't the EU do what Iceland did?.

Because the EU is not a unified whole. Doing what Iceland did would be great for Cyprus but bad for Germany. And Germany has more clout than Cyprus.


Merkel is facing Federal elections in September; the German taxpayers are going "WTF" over continuously underwriting the cr$ppy countries debts.  This is her way of saying we're helping hold the EU together, but you won't get stiffed with the bill.  Much of the Greek bail-out money has "vanished" into the black hole which is the current Greek economy; so this bail-out came with pain shared by all.

And ultimately it's a way for the nutjobs running the EU to demand closer fiscal & political union.  It's essentially a power-grab.

It is working the same way here. Instead of individual countries, we have large groups of people. Some work, some don't. Some pay their bills, some don't. Some want to be responsible, some don't. In the end, the slackers need bailouts, and the only way to do that is to take from those that have been responsible. It is working the same here as there. Fail.


It's worse in Europe though, because this is empire-building on a massive scale.  There is too much power concentrated in too few hands & they all live inside an echo-chamber & feed off the EU monster.  Unfortunately there is no way out ; it will end in tears - probably not for quite a while yet - but eventually the whole thing will collapse under it's own dead weight.
 
jvl
2013-03-18 02:12:52 PM  

Speaker2Animals: jvl: Speaker2Animals: Yeah, that's right, professor. They've been "solving" their spending problems in Europe for four years now and all that's resulted is higher unemployment.

Once again the critics pretend that austerity has failed because it has failed to reach the critic's imaginary goals.

The goal is to stabilize finances. No one promised employment would not be hurt, nor did they promise a pony.

Marie Antoinette!! I thought you were beheaded! F*ck the average person -- we have to take care of the elite while we're making the 99% suffer for our sins!


As soon as we find a magic pony which farts money, then government can spend freely without consequence.  In the meantime, there is reality.
 
2013-03-18 02:13:40 PM  
RIP NATIONALIST COMMUNAZI EU EMPIRE
 
2013-03-18 02:15:04 PM  

sethstorm: THIS.

Austerity is just simply a way to use financial solvency as an excuse to push the burden away from those that caused it to the people that can't avoid it.


tada
default on the loans and fark the banks for lending your the money in the first place.
if enough countries do this, the banks will properly collapse as the card houses that they are.
The rich people who get screwed by this MIGHT learn to not lend money to just anyone.

/bah - of course we have been told that if we do this, the world economy would collapse. so there is that.
 
2013-03-18 02:17:34 PM  
News site called "Hot Air"

Sounds legit.
 
2013-03-18 02:20:33 PM  

InstaZen25: sethstorm: MyKingdomForYourHorse: studs up: They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.

Austerity!

Confidently farking your country in the ass, then kicking the can down the road for your kids!

THIS.

Austerity is just simply a way to use financial solvency as an excuse to push the burden away from those that caused it to the people that can't avoid it.

In a free society you elect those that caused the problem, ultimately making you responsible. The children for the most part really are the ones who can't avoid any of this debt crap. You can't pick where or to whom you are born.


That presumes too many things that are not present in the population - age being irrelevant.  Even if you're of voting and majority age, you're assuming that people have perfect knowledge when it comes to the ballot box.  On the other hand, restricting the vote any further(as a bid to try to solve that problem) makes for perverse incentives.  Third parties would be able to control whether some people can vote through employment status or property ownership - despite the presence of a secret ballot - in ways worse than Tammany Hall.

It's a case of "it's a bad system, but it's better than the rest".   As for austerity, bankers are trying to offload it with political measures to people that realistically have no power - due to a broken political system in their country.
 
2013-03-18 02:21:39 PM  

sethstorm: But causing great pain to the banks that caused the mess works - see Iceland.


Oh? Is that so? And by "causing great pain to the banks", you mean "depositors", right?
 
2013-03-18 02:21:50 PM  

Thunderpipes: KellyX: cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: If it were untrue, you would have a point.

You want the EXACT model of the EU countries.

I'm a liberal and I've lived in an EU country, and I don't want the exact model of the EU countries.

So, stop telling us what we want.

Only thing I want is a universal healthcare system... and redheads... blondes too.. with big tits... that like to go to the range with me and shot guns that make those big tits jiggle for a while...

/worse Liberal ever I guess...

To the range? The range is the DEVIL!!! Guns kill you.

You know, I am as conservative as they come in all things but religion (idiots). I would favor a universal health care system, if it was broadly funded. The problem is, when liberals talk about single payer or Obamacare or whatever, it is just a gigantic wealth redistribution. If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing. I know people ignore it, but we have an excellent health care system here if you actually are a hard working family. I should be getting a plate and 13 screws removed from my tibia soon, wait time for a completely elective operation like this is 5-6 weeks here. Try that in Canada.


Probably why I said a universal healthcare system, i.e. part of your taxes from every paycheck go into it, with there being a scaled tax depending on what you make. To me that's not that complex, yes, the poor would pay little to no taxes for it or get refunded a large amount back and the rich would pay a lot more, but if there's rich people whining about paying 15% tax or something, I'll gladly trade you paychecks and pay the taxes.
 
2013-03-18 02:22:20 PM  

NephilimNexus: News site called "Hot Air"

Sounds legit.


They're tame compared to Free Republic.
 
2013-03-18 02:23:04 PM  

ACunningPlan: Thunderpipes: ACunningPlan: DamnYankees: CygnusDarius: Why can't the EU do what Iceland did?.

Because the EU is not a unified whole. Doing what Iceland did would be great for Cyprus but bad for Germany. And Germany has more clout than Cyprus.


Merkel is facing Federal elections in September; the German taxpayers are going "WTF" over continuously underwriting the cr$ppy countries debts.  This is her way of saying we're helping hold the EU together, but you won't get stiffed with the bill.  Much of the Greek bail-out money has "vanished" into the black hole which is the current Greek economy; so this bail-out came with pain shared by all.

And ultimately it's a way for the nutjobs running the EU to demand closer fiscal & political union.  It's essentially a power-grab.

It is working the same way here. Instead of individual countries, we have large groups of people. Some work, some don't. Some pay their bills, some don't. Some want to be responsible, some don't. In the end, the slackers need bailouts, and the only way to do that is to take from those that have been responsible. It is working the same here as there. Fail.

It's worse in Europe though, because this is empire-building on a massive scale.  There is too much power concentrated in too few hands & they all live inside an echo-chamber & feed off the EU monster.  Unfortunately there is no way out ; it will end in tears - probably not for quite a while yet - but eventually the whole thing will collapse under it's own dead weight.


It is not really any worse over there. The entire EU union is close enough in terms of GDP and population to be a reasonable comparison to the US. You describe our political system too, power concentrated in few hands, sounds perfect for us. And we too, will collapse under our own weight. Most people just don't really think about the numbers, because it does not effect them right here and now. But the numbers for the US are indeed a monster. Unless we make massive, massive cuts right now, we cannot escape the inevitable collapse.
 
2013-03-18 02:24:59 PM  

bonobo73: Gdalescrboz: Speaker2Animals: Don't be surprised if depositors start to move away from European banks and look for other options to protect their savings from the governments that can't solve their spending problems.

Yeah, that's right, professor. They've been "solving" their spending problems in Europe for four years now and all that's resulted is higher unemployment.

I don't have a gambling problem, I have a "can't win my money back problem."

Your analogy is horrible and idiotic. Austerity didn't work in the 1920's is not working now and will never work as a tool for economic recovery.

1. Implement austerity measures
2. Lay off people in the public sector, stop providing services vital to maintaining a thriving workforce.
3. See consumer consumption, go down. See companies lay off more people further reducing consumer consumption. See companies drop contracts, delay expenditures in contracting economy.
4. Tax revenues have gone down.
5. Return to step 1?


You forgot the Profit step. Someone, somewhere, is getting rich in this process. Otherwise, it wouldn't continually be pushed by the people who are already rich.

Local, or small state, governments go broke, look to sell off assets. Rich assholes buy them up at pennies on the dollar. Yay! Depressions!
 
2013-03-18 02:25:16 PM  

KellyX: Thunderpipes: KellyX: cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: If it were untrue, you would have a point.

You want the EXACT model of the EU countries.

I'm a liberal and I've lived in an EU country, and I don't want the exact model of the EU countries.

So, stop telling us what we want.

Only thing I want is a universal healthcare system... and redheads... blondes too.. with big tits... that like to go to the range with me and shot guns that make those big tits jiggle for a while...

/worse Liberal ever I guess...

To the range? The range is the DEVIL!!! Guns kill you.

You know, I am as conservative as they come in all things but religion (idiots). I would favor a universal health care system, if it was broadly funded. The problem is, when liberals talk about single payer or Obamacare or whatever, it is just a gigantic wealth redistribution. If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing. I know people ignore it, but we have an excellent health care system here if you actually are a hard working family. I should be getting a plate and 13 screws removed from my tibia soon, wait time for a completely elective operation like this is 5-6 weeks here. Try that in Canada.

Probably why I said a universal healthcare system, i.e. part of your taxes from every paycheck go into it, with there being a scaled tax depending on what you make. To me that's not that complex, yes, the poor would pay little to no taxes for it or get refunded a large amount back and the rich would pay a lot more, but if there's rich people whining about paying 15% tax or something, I'll gladly trade you paychecks and pay the taxes.


And that, to you is fair. That is why we fail. Rather than have poor people work and chip in a little, just take more from the "rich", because fark you, that's why.
 
2013-03-18 02:27:45 PM  
If you liberals are right, why not just spend 20-40 trillion right now and give it to the poor? Would solve all our problems, right? After all, government spending 1 dollar somehow makes us get 2 in return. So we would be able to wipe out the deficit now, by spending 40 trillion this year!!! Then we spend 80 trillion, than 160!!! Next thing you know, we are all millionaires.
 
2013-03-18 02:30:14 PM  

Thunderpipes: If you liberals are right, why not just spend 20-40 trillion right now and give it to the poor? Would solve all our problems, right? After all, government spending 1 dollar somehow makes us get 2 in return. So we would be able to wipe out the deficit now, by spending 40 trillion this year!!! Then we spend 80 trillion, than 160!!! Next thing you know, we are all millionaires.


Now ask them to analyze the concept of governmental redistribution and moral hazards. Lulz.
 
2013-03-18 02:36:23 PM  

FarkinNortherner: The variation in income and employment related benefits, healthcare, even median retirement age is enormous. Ironically part of the reason the euro doesn't work in its current form is the lack of homogeneity.


Or rather the EU not admitting the lack of homogeneity and not factoring it in. This is not just a Euro question it goes all across the EU project, what is an acceptable standard of driving to pass a test in one country is laughably crap in another. Same for standards of police, evidence, judges etc.

Diversity should be a great EU strength overall but for it to work long term we have to admit that some EU countries have higher standards than others and they should not have to lower their sights because Goatherdia can't be bothered to change their culture of corruption and incompetance.
 
2013-03-18 02:38:54 PM  
The next european wAr .. Greek Nazis vs Germany. Lol
 
2013-03-18 02:39:09 PM  
It can't happen here, right?
 
2013-03-18 02:43:11 PM  

ethics-gradient: we have to admit that some EU countries have higher standards than others and they should not have to lower their sights because Goatherdia can't be bothered to change their culture of corruption and incompetance.


Troll! Britain totally maintains its lead in the twin areas of corruption and incompatance!!! Liberals believe such BS.
 
2013-03-18 02:47:12 PM  

ethics-gradient: FarkinNortherner: The variation in income and employment related benefits, healthcare, even median retirement age is enormous. Ironically part of the reason the euro doesn't work in its current form is the lack of homogeneity.

Or rather the EU not admitting the lack of homogeneity and not factoring it in. This is not just a Euro question it goes all across the EU project, what is an acceptable standard of driving to pass a test in one country is laughably crap in another. Same for standards of police, evidence, judges etc.

Diversity should be a great EU strength overall but for it to work long term we have to admit that some EU countries have higher standards than others and they should not have to lower their sights because Goatherdia can't be bothered to change their culture of corruption and incompetance.


Once again, can be completely true for groups of people within the US. Some have higher standards, some lower. But here, the liberal view is, the people with high standards should indeed be lowered because another group can't be bothered to change their culture of laziness and incompetence. If the EU should have standards, shouldn't we?
 
2013-03-18 02:48:02 PM  

Xaneidolon: It can't happen here, right?


they wouldn't try it. You are all armed with guns and mentally unstable and ready to have a reason to shoot at your government.
 
2013-03-18 02:49:09 PM  

monoski: Article did not capture what I saw as one of the more interesting aspects of the deal; Cyprus is alleged to have become a large money laundering operation for the Russian mob and corrupt govt officials. The response could be real interesting when the EU pulls 10% from those guys. The EU will probably be banned from adopting Russia's unwanted orphans.


I think Russian mob money has already been factored into this deal. If the taxation had been limited to the uninsured deposits and left the insured ones alone, the uninsured (presumably heavily represented by the Russian Tony Sopranos) would be looking at about a 20% haircut instead of 10%. I don't know whether the architects of this feared massive Russian flight or just getting their kneecaps smashed, but it looks like they decided to sting the little guys in order to give the big guys a break.

I think they massivly mishandled this mess in any case. Anyone with money in a European bank, particularly one in Spain or Italy, must be hauling it out of there as fast as they can by now. Nice bank run you've created, idiots.
 
2013-03-18 02:49:13 PM  

Thunderpipes: JK47: Thunderpipes: Number 1: where you are employed is your choice. How much money you make, is your choice.
Number 2:. There will be no more underwriting. Obamacare means a fat smoking alcoholic will get the same rates as a 27 year old marathon runner. Who wins there? Choice is now gone.

You know who really gets shafted with Obamacare? Healthy young people. They can't afford it on their own unless they are poor. They will likely never get the good coverage via their employer without getting a big reduction in salary. Once again, we take from the good, give to the bad (take from healthy people, give to unhealthy. Just like everything else liberal, it takes away incentive to care.


Perhaps you missed this from my earlier point since it was implied so I will make it clear.  Underwriting (individual) risk in the health insurance context is a misnomer.  There is no risk that health insurance won't be called upon for coverage in a given year, it's almost a certainty.  Certainly, absent risk sharing, there is no possible way an individual will pay enough premium to give the insurer a reasonable chance at maintaining a positive loss ratio over a five to ten year period.

You however seem to be under a misapprehension that, since individual risk factors cannot be considered, there will be no actual underwriting involved.  The price which will be charged for the insurance policies offered will reflect the underwriting efforts of the insurer as they evaluate the population as a whole.  Meaning, while they can't assign a price to individuals based on their individual characteristics, they will assess the pool of insureds as a whole, meaning the marathon runner and the fat smokers, to see what the total cost of insuring them was (and will be) in order to assign a price that each of them will pay.  So the fat smoker will pay a little less and the marathon runner will pay a little more.  However, over time this will begin to balance out as the marathon runner gets pregnant, th ...


Ironically - actual empirical data shows that both fatties and smokers are less of a burden on the medical system.

So, while I agree with your point; you've got it completely backwards.  I don't blame you, most everyone does.  But it's absolutely true - healthy people (fit, non-smokers) will live longer and rack up more medical expenses than unhealthy folk.

The marathon runner is getting a good deal.  The fatties/smokers are not.  Well, that's assuming equal lifetime earnings, I dunno if that's a valid assumption or not.  Regardless though, in terms of absolute cost - smokers and fatties (and especially fat smokers) are costing less.
 
2013-03-18 02:51:18 PM  

Evil High Priest: 1. Implement austerity measures
2. Lay off people in the public sector, stop providing services vital to maintaining a thriving workforce.
3. See consumer consumption, go down. See companies lay off more people further reducing consumer consumption. See companies drop contracts, delay expenditures in contracting economy.
4. Tax revenues have gone down.
5. Return to step 1?

You forgot the Profit step. Someone, somewhere, is getting rich in this process. Otherwise, it wouldn't continually be pushed by the people who are already rich.


It is the royalty trap.
As long as we have royalty, this problem will continually reappear.
High enough taxes on the TOP. On their wealth. On their inheritances
(It doesnt have to be the crazy 90%, but it can be 50%)

During periods where this is true, where the royalty is kept from taking everything, have been periods of prosperity. When we let the royalty run wide, we suffer.

Prediction:
Things will stay crappy while the royalty and their wealth is untaxed.
Things will improve greatly once we tax properly again.
The socialist/communist extreme is just as bad.
 
2013-03-18 02:52:20 PM  

JK47: ...


lh3.ggpht.com
 
2013-03-18 02:53:08 PM  

ontariolightning: Xaneidolon: It can't happen here, right?

they wouldn't try it. You are all armed with guns and mentally unstable and ready to have a reason to shoot at your government.


It's always interesting to get a viewpoint regarding some manufactured reality  from a representative of our poutine-sucking neighbor to the North.
 
2013-03-18 02:53:44 PM  

jjorsett: I think Russian mob money has already been factored into this deal. If the taxation had been limited to the uninsured deposits and left the insured ones alone, the uninsured (presumably heavily represented by the Russian Tony Sopranos) would be looking at about a 20% haircut instead of 10%. I don't know whether the architects of this feared massive Russian flight or just getting their kneecaps smashed, but it looks like they decided to sting the little guys in order to give the big guys a break.


this could have been so FULL OF WIN
cut the uninsured by 20%
the russians kneecap a ton of bankers
win-win
 
2013-03-18 02:54:15 PM  

InstaZen25: cameroncrazy1984: InstaZen25: MyKingdomForYourHorse: studs up: They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.

Austerity!

Confidently farking your country in the ass, then kicking the can down the road for your kids!

I don't think you get it. The country was already farked. They just finally admitted it. There was no future for the young, just a false promise of one that the country could not afford.

There was a future, they just squandered it away because they were too afraid to raise taxes. And now they lost most of a generation.

People leave if you tax away their income too. This will be especially prevalent in the Euro-zone, where the wealthy aren't the only ones who can leave easily.

This is why the middle class usually takes the brunt of the tax burden in terms of %'s and real effect.


Reagan raised taxes 11 times in the 80s. Please explain why the economy got better after that?
 
2013-03-18 02:55:04 PM  

QuietMan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

Yeah!  I get to whip out the Keynes vs. Hayek rap battles.  :-)

//surprisingly good economic summaries for funny vids.


Disclaimer: vids funded by Geo. Mason U., the C students' U. of Chicago.  Keynes didn't hope for war to get his govt. funding on.
 
2013-03-18 03:02:47 PM  

jjorsett: ontariolightning: Xaneidolon: It can't happen here, right?

they wouldn't try it. You are all armed with guns and mentally unstable and ready to have a reason to shoot at your government.

It's always interesting to get a viewpoint regarding some manufactured reality  from a representative of our poutine-sucking neighbor to the North.


it isn't a manufactured reality.. It is reality.
Just the talk of banning assault rifles leads everyone to go buy guns and ammo they don't need.
A run on guns if you will, now imagine them talking bout siphoning money from your savings accounts
Rofl

Not ever gonna happen
 
2013-03-18 03:03:00 PM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: The economic problems we have right now can be simply summed up.

Too many middle-men making too much money doing no productive work - essentially paper shuffling manipulating "financial instruments"

We as a society need to get back to actually making things or providing services to each other rather than just playing the stock market like a personal casino.


I like you.
 
2013-03-18 03:06:34 PM  

BigNumber12: Day_Old_Dutchie: The economic problems we have right now can be simply summed up.

Too many middle-men making too much money doing no productive work - essentially paper shuffling manipulating "financial instruments"

We as a society need to get back to actually making things or providing services to each other rather than just playing the stock market like a personal casino.

I like you.


Why? This is a buggy-whip argument, as well as a strawman.
 
2013-03-18 03:06:52 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: InstaZen25: cameroncrazy1984: InstaZen25: MyKingdomForYourHorse: studs up: They will grow up eventually and get jobs when economic freedom returns in full force. I have faith in the youth to recover quickly.

Austerity!

Confidently farking your country in the ass, then kicking the can down the road for your kids!

I don't think you get it. The country was already farked. They just finally admitted it. There was no future for the young, just a false promise of one that the country could not afford.

There was a future, they just squandered it away because they were too afraid to raise taxes. And now they lost most of a generation.

People leave if you tax away their income too. This will be especially prevalent in the Euro-zone, where the wealthy aren't the only ones who can leave easily.

This is why the middle class usually takes the brunt of the tax burden in terms of %'s and real effect.

Reagan raised taxes 11 times in the 80s. Please explain why the economy got better after that?


Because the minor tax increases he did were much less than the huge lowering of taxes he did. Might want to read. When you lower taxes by gigantic margins, but increase other very little, it does not mean you are increasing taxes the way you imply. Overall, he greatly lowered taxes, the country came out of a nasty recession and kicked butt.

Liberals want the opposite.
 
2013-03-18 03:07:54 PM  

Thunderpipes: Because the minor tax increases he did were much less than the huge lowering of taxes he did


[citation needed]
 
2013-03-18 03:10:24 PM  

Thunderpipes: Liberals want the opposite.


Obama raised taxes and now the recovery is really gaining steam. How do you explain that?
 
2013-03-18 03:11:27 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: Because the minor tax increases he did were much less than the huge lowering of taxes he did

[citation needed]


Good lord.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
 
2013-03-18 03:12:32 PM  
Mattress > bank
 
2013-03-18 03:12:35 PM  

BigNumber12: Day_Old_Dutchie: The economic problems we have right now can be simply summed up.

Too many middle-men making too much money doing no productive work - essentially paper shuffling manipulating "financial instruments"

We as a society need to get back to actually making things or providing services to each other rather than just playing the stock market like a personal casino.

I like you.


That world? Where we dominated all manufacturing after WWII? That's never coming back. Nev. Er. All we have left is software dev and high-speed pizza delivery.
 
2013-03-18 03:12:35 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: InstaZen25: 
People leave if you tax away their income too. This will be especially prevalent in the Euro-zone, where the wealthy aren't the only ones who can leave easily.

This is why the middle class usually takes the brunt of the tax burden in terms of %'s and real effect.

Reagan raised taxes 11 times in the 80s. Please explain why the economy got better after that?


He raised them for the cold war that ended. Sadly, wars bring folks together and tend to boost prosperity or at least the feeling thereof. See WWII when the U.S. was threatened. People will accept tax raises to beat up commies or nazis. They tend to dislike it when it when they are raised to pay off the debts of the stupid.
Also, tax raise = economy good is a little simplistic there.
 
2013-03-18 03:15:59 PM  

InstaZen25: Also, tax raise = economy good is a little simplistic there.


But I thought you said if you raise taxes then people will leave?
 
2013-03-18 03:17:37 PM  
It has become blindly obvious to me, thanks to this thread, that a whole metric ton of people have no idea how currency systems and macroeconomics work.

But whatever, you all keep on farking that chicken and being shills for those that took risks and do not wish to pay for them.
 
2013-03-18 03:19:44 PM  

Thunderpipes: ACunningPlan: Thunderpipes: ACunningPlan: DamnYankees: CygnusDarius: Why can't the EU do what Iceland did?.

Because the EU is not a unified whole. Doing what Iceland did would be great for Cyprus but bad for Germany. And Germany has more clout than Cyprus.


Merkel is facing Federal elections in September; the German taxpayers are going "WTF" over continuously underwriting the cr$ppy countries debts.  This is her way of saying we're helping hold the EU together, but you won't get stiffed with the bill.  Much of the Greek bail-out money has "vanished" into the black hole which is the current Greek economy; so this bail-out came with pain shared by all.

And ultimately it's a way for the nutjobs running the EU to demand closer fiscal & political union.  It's essentially a power-grab.

It is working the same way here. Instead of individual countries, we have large groups of people. Some work, some don't. Some pay their bills, some don't. Some want to be responsible, some don't. In the end, the slackers need bailouts, and the only way to do that is to take from those that have been responsible. It is working the same here as there. Fail.

It's worse in Europe though, because this is empire-building on a massive scale.  There is too much power concentrated in too few hands & they all live inside an echo-chamber & feed off the EU monster.  Unfortunately there is no way out ; it will end in tears - probably not for quite a while yet - but eventually the whole thing will collapse under it's own dead weight.

It is not really any worse over there. The entire EU union is close enough in terms of GDP and population to be a reasonable comparison to the US. You describe our political system too, power concentrated in few hands, sounds perfect for us. And we too, will collapse under our own weight. Most people just don't really think about the numbers, because it does not effect them right here and now. But the numbers for the US are indeed a monster. Unless we make massive, mas ...


I do agree with you in part about the similarities; although I've always cherished the notion US citizens are somewhat safeguarded from their political class:)  The trouble with the EU is it's meddling with national identities and cultures at the same time.  The states here have individual rights, but ultimately they do all see themselves as Americans.

In the EU that uniformity is less established which causes friction throughout the whole entity: e.g. the Greeks are pissed at the Germans for imposing austerity which puzzles the Germans who are in effect funding the Greeks.  The Greeks [naturally have national pride] are resentful [unfairly really] of German interference and of having an unelected troika oversee their economy.  Meanwhile the Germans don't understand why the Greeks can't be more German.....   Add an entrenched, blinkered bureaucracy committed to the vision no matter what, and it's a recipe for disaster.  Plus those in charge won't sacrifice their egos to consider the possibility of error.

At least in the US, it's Americans trying to solve America's troubles.
 
2013-03-18 03:25:12 PM  

Evil High Priest: BigNumber12: Day_Old_Dutchie: The economic problems we have right now can be simply summed up.

Too many middle-men making too much money doing no productive work - essentially paper shuffling manipulating "financial instruments"

We as a society need to get back to actually making things or providing services to each other rather than just playing the stock market like a personal casino.

I like you.

That world? Where we dominated all manufacturing after WWII? That's never coming back. Nev. Er. All we have left is software dev and high-speed pizza delivery.


Okay, well, how fast is the pizza delivery?
 
2013-03-18 03:25:33 PM  
Can we just start the apocalypse already? That'd be fun.
 
2013-03-18 03:29:33 PM  

robohobo: Can we just start the apocalypse already? That'd be fun.


Props for the name-comment combo.
 
2013-03-18 03:33:41 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: InstaZen25: Also, tax raise = economy good is a little simplistic there.

But I thought you said if you raise taxes then people will leave?


Yeah, if you raise to a point. Everyone has there threshold. Price, pain, taxes, whatever.
People don't like paying for other people's mistakes, or even their own really.
 
2013-03-18 03:40:00 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: But it's absolutely true - healthy people (fit, non-smokers) will live longer and rack up more medical expenses than unhealthy folk.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-03-18 03:41:40 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Gdalescrboz: But liberals don't want it to stop at services.

Stop telling us what we want.


Ladies first.
 
2013-03-18 03:41:51 PM  

Thunderpipes: ACunningPlan: Thunderpipes: ACunningPlan: DamnYankees: CygnusDarius: Why can't the EU do what Iceland did?.

Because the EU is not a unified whole. Doing what Iceland did would be great for Cyprus but bad for Germany. And Germany has more clout than Cyprus.


Merkel is facing Federal elections in September; the German taxpayers are going "WTF" over continuously underwriting the cr$ppy countries debts.  This is her way of saying we're helping hold the EU together, but you won't get stiffed with the bill.  Much of the Greek bail-out money has "vanished" into the black hole which is the current Greek economy; so this bail-out came with pain shared by all.

And ultimately it's a way for the nutjobs running the EU to demand closer fiscal & political union.  It's essentially a power-grab.

It is working the same way here. Instead of individual countries, we have large groups of people. Some work, some don't. Some pay their bills, some don't. Some want to be responsible, some don't. In the end, the slackers need bailouts, and the only way to do that is to take from those that have been responsible. It is working the same here as there. Fail.

It's worse in Europe though, because this is empire-building on a massive scale.  There is too much power concentrated in too few hands & they all live inside an echo-chamber & feed off the EU monster.  Unfortunately there is no way out ; it will end in tears - probably not for quite a while yet - but eventually the whole thing will collapse under it's own dead weight.

It is not really any worse over there. The entire EU union is close enough in terms of GDP and population to be a reasonable comparison to the US. You describe our political system too, power concentrated in few hands, sounds perfect for us. And we too, will collapse under our own weight. Most people just don't really think about the numbers, because it does not effect them right here and now. But the numbers for the US are indeed a monster. Unless we make massive, massive cuts right now, we cannot escape the inevitable collapse.


Question. If you don't get the massive cuts, and the only way to avoid a collapse is raising taxes, will you raise taxes?
 
2013-03-18 03:51:04 PM  

BolshyGreatYarblocks: QuietMan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc

Yeah!  I get to whip out the Keynes vs. Hayek rap battles.  :-)

//surprisingly good economic summaries for funny vids.

Disclaimer: vids funded by Geo. Mason U., the C students' U. of Chicago.  Keynes didn't hope for war to get his govt. funding on.


Hmmmm.  What to do?  My understanding is that back when these vids were made, supporters of both Keynes & Hayek agreed that the men's views were being accurately shown.  But what review to link to?  I don't know what sites are 'liberal' or 'conservative' and cause people to stop listening.  (I was not aware, for instance, that the University of Chicago was off limits for polite discussion.)  Wikipedia has a brief review but doesn't discuss this.  Is it the source that needs a disclaimer or is it only Keynes view on war that you think is misrepresented?
 
2013-03-18 03:54:37 PM  
Any fark independents come in to ruin this thread yet or am I too late?

its stuff like this that creates doomsday preppers.

also, punishing people who save while bailing out people who spend will just lead to more debt, less saving, more bubbles and more financial calamities in our future.  it will just encourage more of the kind of behavior that got us here.  why do you think it continues to happen?

the banks in the USA behaved badly and as punishment we bailed them out.  We used taxpayer money to do so.  Indirectly it has the same effect as simply stealing money from bank accounts - now Americans pay higher tax rates.  And we have bigger deficits and more national debt that we will have to cover.  And the people who were most responsible will be penalized the most.

Where's the incentive for the banks not to behave badly in the future?
where's the incentive to save for people who behave right?
 
2013-03-18 03:55:22 PM  
this thread
thecampofthesaints.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-18 03:55:25 PM  

FARK rebel soldier: Fark_Guy_Rob: But it's absolutely true - healthy people (fit, non-smokers) will live longer and rack up more medical expenses than unhealthy folk.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 800x600]


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9359212/Obese-and-smoke rs -less-of-a-burden-on-the-NHS-than-the-healthy-who-live-longer-report.h tml

Short version: fatties and smokers die considerably younger, and are thus less expensive.
 
2013-03-18 03:57:14 PM  

SlothB77: the banks in the USA behaved badly and as punishment we bailed them out.


This is half of the reality.  Legions of consumers took out loans far larger than they could ever afford over the long term, in hopes of flipping their properties for a profit.
 
2013-03-18 03:58:35 PM  

ACunningPlan: Thunderpipes: ACunningPlan: Thunderpipes: ACunningPlan: DamnYankees: CygnusDarius: Why can't the EU do what Iceland did?.

Because the EU is not a unified whole. Doing what Iceland did would be great for Cyprus but bad for Germany. And Germany has more clout than Cyprus.


Merkel is facing Federal elections in September; the German taxpayers are going "WTF" over continuously underwriting the cr$ppy countries debts.  This is her way of saying we're helping hold the EU together, but you won't get stiffed with the bill.  Much of the Greek bail-out money has "vanished" into the black hole which is the current Greek economy; so this bail-out came with pain shared by all.

And ultimately it's a way for the nutjobs running the EU to demand closer fiscal & political union.  It's essentially a power-grab.

It is working the same way here. Instead of individual countries, we have large groups of people. Some work, some don't. Some pay their bills, some don't. Some want to be responsible, some don't. In the end, the slackers need bailouts, and the only way to do that is to take from those that have been responsible. It is working the same here as there. Fail.

It's worse in Europe though, because this is empire-building on a massive scale.  There is too much power concentrated in too few hands & they all live inside an echo-chamber & feed off the EU monster.  Unfortunately there is no way out ; it will end in tears - probably not for quite a while yet - but eventually the whole thing will collapse under it's own dead weight.

It is not really any worse over there. The entire EU union is close enough in terms of GDP and population to be a reasonable comparison to the US. You describe our political system too, power concentrated in few hands, sounds perfect for us. And we too, will collapse under our own weight. Most people just don't really think about the numbers, because it does not effect them right here and now. But the numbers for the US are indeed a monster. Unless we mak ...


Is it really any different? Once again, our subcultures can be compared to their countries. Teachers are pissed if you dare suggest pension cuts. Liberals pissed at Pubs if you dare mention entitlement cuts. Pubs pissed at Dems for refusing to tackle the debt. Blacks pissed at whites for being white. Women pissed at men for being men. Men pissed at themselves for losing their balls. North pissed at the South because of slavery a few years ago. Poor people pissed at rich people for making it. Rich people pissed at poor people for stealing their stuff.

If anything, I would say we are more divided than they. We intentionally divide ourselves in an effort to win public office.
 
2013-03-18 04:02:00 PM  

Shryke: This is half of the reality. Legions of consumers took out loans far larger than they could ever afford over the long term, in hopes of flipping their properties for a profit.


Of course there were no loan officers who approved these shoddy loans, and the underwriters were never told to ignore all the warning signs and instead to just get the loan pushed through.

Credit scoring, you can't explain how that farking works
 
2013-03-18 04:02:30 PM  
Question. If you don't get the massive cuts, and the only way to avoid a collapse is raising taxes, will you raise taxes?

My quote ability sucks.

You cannot possibly raise taxes enough. You do realize, in a couple decades, if you raised taxes a full 50%, it would not even cover entitlement spending alone? Compounding interest is working against us, and it absolutely will not stop, ever. Even if you raised them enough to temporally postpone the collapse, it will just collapse later and be worse.
 
2013-03-18 04:03:23 PM  
When you are ignorant to reality... blame austerity! Ignore the fact that all but 3 EU countries have continued to increase spending. Ignore the fact that many have tried the liberal approach of raise taxes and grow spending. Blame austerity! So much easier that way.
 
2013-03-18 04:05:49 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Of course there were no loan officers who approved these shoddy loans


I am not arguing that. I am pointing out that the other legal half of these contracts also were acting badly.
 
2013-03-18 04:06:04 PM  

Thunderpipes: Compounding interest is working against us


Yes of course, that horrible compounding interest of the money we borrow at near record levels. Did you know that for every 100 dollars we borrow, we need only have to pay back .01 of a cent? NO seriously over the entire course of the bond, we only pay that much.

Of course you wouldn't know, because you've gone full derp.
 
2013-03-18 04:06:07 PM  

DamnYankees: mr lawson: Well, quite a few people here always yell "tax wealth not income" and also biatch about companies who have large amoints of money in banks and not using it to make jobs. So taxing bank accounts would seem to be right up their alley

I've never really heard anyone here advocate a wealth tax as opposed to an income tax, so that's neither here nor there.


You are absolutely lying. Many on fark advocate taxing wealth. Then there is a subset who post wealth distribution threads in tax threads to prove taxation isn't truly progressive... thus linking wealth to taxes.

Basically you are lying.
 
2013-03-18 04:06:53 PM  

Shryke: I am not arguing that. I am pointing out that the other legal half of these contracts also were acting badly.


True, to be fair though this is like complaining about putting a meth head into an ephedrine factory in Thailand and then complaining when the place blows up.
 
2013-03-18 04:07:40 PM  
cameroncrazy1984
 Thunderpipes: Liberals want the opposite.
Obama raised taxes and now the recovery is really gaining steam. How do you explain that?


1/3d of the recovery went in to the bank accounts of the richest 15,600 households.  If you think either party is looking out forth, you are nothing short of retarded.
 
2013-03-18 04:09:01 PM  

MyRandomName: You are absolutely lying. Many on fark advocate taxing wealth. Then there is a subset who post wealth distribution threads in tax threads to prove taxation isn't truly progressive... thus linking wealth to taxes.

Basically you are lying.


I never said people don't advocate wealth taxes. I said they don't do so as a replacement for income taxes. If you can show me someone who has argued for that, I'll obviously retract, but I don't recall ever seeing it.
 
2013-03-18 04:09:51 PM  
Curious, at what level of debt to GDP would you liberals actually be worried about? 100%? 125%? 150%? 200%?

Honest question.

Keep in mind, the CBO's  multi-year projections are wrong 80% of the time, and usually understate the actual deficit by 40%.
 
2013-03-18 04:10:31 PM  

MyRandomName: When you are ignorant to reality... blame austerity! Ignore the fact that all but 3 EU countries have continued to increase spending. Ignore the fact that many have tried the liberal approach of raise taxes and grow spending. Blame austerity! So much easier that way.


Raising taxes is a form of austerity.
 
2013-03-18 04:11:29 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Shryke: I am not arguing that. I am pointing out that the other legal half of these contracts also were acting badly.

True, to be fair though this is like complaining about putting a meth head into an ephedrine factory in Thailand and then complaining when the place blows up.


You are comparing normal consumers to meth heads.  This is intellectually lazy.  The banks weren't the reason why all these loans were being funded, and thus continuing the giant spiral of death we now know as the F/F collapse. The real reason was F/F was guaranteeing huge swaths of these shiat loans, thus erasing/improving their appropriate risk ratings.
 
2013-03-18 04:12:00 PM  

Thunderpipes: Curious, at what level of debt to GDP would you liberals actually be worried about? 100%? 125%? 150%? 200%?

Honest question.

Keep in mind, the CBO's  multi-year projections are wrong 80% of the time, and usually understate the actual deficit by 40%.


There's no correlation between debt to GDP ratio and debt crisis, so that's simply not a relevant factor. I'd look to bond market activity and interest rates. The ratio to GDP is not a relevant factor.
 
2013-03-18 04:12:09 PM  

MyRandomName: When you are ignorant to reality... blame austerity! Ignore the fact that all but 3 EU countries have continued to increase spending. Ignore the fact that many have tried the liberal approach of raise taxes and grow spending. Blame austerity! So much easier that way.


Maybe you could just list a few of the known success stories, where austerity measures did in fact lead to financial upturns. We'll all wait.
 
2013-03-18 04:12:54 PM  

Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: It is about entitlement spending,

So you think that the teachers don't deserve a retirement? And that the issue isn't that we have the lowest tax rates in 30 years and a growing, aging population?

I've noticed that the either-or fallacy is your favorite.  I'm going to start pointing it out.

You have implied that Thunderpipes' claim that teachers are owed too much in pensions means that he thinks "that the teachers don't deserve a retirement ."  You have no reason to believe this claim.  Perhaps he simply believes that teachers deserve some, but less, pensions for their retirement.  Thus there is a third option.  That is why your assertion is an either-or fallacy.


That's the only fallacy you found? What about his straight obfuscation on taxes? CBO estimates tax revenue to be 19.1% of GDP next year. A full percent above historic averages.

Libe rals like to manipulate facta in order to sound smart. Fallacies are truly all they have.
 
2013-03-18 04:16:13 PM  

Shryke: You are comparing normal consumers to meth heads. This is intellectually lazy. The banks weren't the reason why all these loans were being funded, and thus continuing the giant spiral of death we now know as the F/F collapse. The real reason was F/F was guaranteeing huge swaths of these shiat loans, thus erasing/improving their appropriate risk ratings.


Have you walked around Walmart recently? I think I am being generous using the meth head comparison.

But I do agree with you on point.
 
2013-03-18 04:16:38 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Thunderpipes: Compounding interest is working against us

Yes of course, that horrible compounding interest of the money we borrow at near record levels. Did you know that for every 100 dollars we borrow, we need only have to pay back .01 of a cent? NO seriously over the entire course of the bond, we only pay that much.

Of course you wouldn't know, because you've gone full derp.


Is this a serious post? Really? You really think our current interest payments are only 160 billion a year?

Here is the US treasury website. Oh, an "adjustment" was made in 2013 that removed 75 billion somehow from the interest for 2013. That will not happen again. Interest rates will rise in the future. Obama is adding a trillion a year to the debt.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

Interest owed on the debt for year ending:

2012 $359,796,008,919.492011 $454,393,280,417.032010 $413,954,825,362 .172009 $383,071,060,815.42
 
2013-03-18 04:16:45 PM  

Shryke: SlothB77: the banks in the USA behaved badly and as punishment we bailed them out.

This is half of the reality.  Legions of consumers took out loans far larger than they could ever afford over the long term, in hopes of flipping their properties for a profit.


Ultimately, it is up to the banks not to assume risk they cannot handle.  They weren't forced into making those contracts, were they?
 
2013-03-18 04:16:47 PM  

MyRandomName: CBO estimates tax revenue to be 19.1% of GDP next year. A full percent above historic averages.


Historic averages of the last 30 years?
 
2013-03-18 04:17:53 PM  

Thunderpipes: Obama is adding a trillion a year to the debt.


Interest owed on previous debt is not due to Obama.
 
2013-03-18 04:18:56 PM  

Thunderpipes: Obama is adding a trillion a year to the debt.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm


The deficit as a percentage of GDP has gone down every year Obama has been in office.
 
2013-03-18 04:20:21 PM  

Shryke: SlothB77: the banks in the USA behaved badly and as punishment we bailed them out.

This is half of the reality.  Legions of consumers took out loans far larger than they could ever afford over the long term, in hopes of flipping their properties for a profit.


Not just that, but the Home Equity Line of Credit became a house-sized credit card for a lot of people.  The aggregate rise of home-owner equity slowed significantly, compounding our liquidity problems.
 
2013-03-18 04:22:11 PM  

MyRandomName: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: It is about entitlement spending,

So you think that the teachers don't deserve a retirement? And that the issue isn't that we have the lowest tax rates in 30 years and a growing, aging population?

I've noticed that the either-or fallacy is your favorite.  I'm going to start pointing it out.

You have implied that Thunderpipes' claim that teachers are owed too much in pensions means that he thinks "that the teachers don't deserve a retirement ."  You have no reason to believe this claim.  Perhaps he simply believes that teachers deserve some, but less, pensions for their retirement.  Thus there is a third option.  That is why your assertion is an either-or fallacy.

That's the only fallacy you found? What about his straight obfuscation on taxes? CBO estimates tax revenue to be 19.1% of GDP next year. A full percent above historic averages.

Libe rals like to manipulate facta in order to sound smart. Fallacies are truly all they have.


CBO is wrong almost all of the time. If you look at their projections, say, on the debt, they have been wrong almost 80% of the time in their forecasts. They have been wrong up to 40%. Also, if tax revenue is higher as a percent of GDP due to tax hikes, why would anyone doubt that, especially when the economy is barely growing but taxes are growing a lot? Says nothing about the next year. Heck, could raise taxes by 50% and expect a bigger revenue next year. Doesn't mean it is smart.
 
2013-03-18 04:22:25 PM  

Thunderpipes: Is this a serious post? Really? You really think our current interest payments are only 160 billion a year?


Inflation is a two way street, its bad for goods and services and great for debt.

Again, fiat currency, you can farking explain that!
 
2013-03-18 04:23:44 PM  

DamnYankees: The deficit as a percentage of GDP has gone down every year Obama has been in office.


Stop trying, you're arguing with a person who has at best a grade school level of economics understanding
 
2013-03-18 04:24:59 PM  

DamnYankees: Thunderpipes: Obama is adding a trillion a year to the debt.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

The deficit as a percentage of GDP has gone down every year Obama has been in office.



So? You are really proud of trillion dollar deficits because they are a tiny bit less trilliony than last year? Great, balanced budget in what, 125 years?

I spend $25,000 I didn't have last year, but this year I will only spend $24,000 I don't have!!! I am a financial genius!!!!

DERP!!!
 
2013-03-18 04:25:38 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Thunderpipes: Is this a serious post? Really? You really think our current interest payments are only 160 billion a year?

Inflation is a two way street, its bad for goods and services and great for debt.


Inflation isn't necessarily bad for goods and services as long as wages keep pace. What it's unequivocally bad for is savings (i.e. lenders).
 
2013-03-18 04:26:14 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: DamnYankees: The deficit as a percentage of GDP has gone down every year Obama has been in office.

Stop trying, you're arguing with a person who has at best a grade school level of economics understanding


Then you and he are stuck in the uterus. The moron is arguing that Obama is financially responsible. Only a retarded spider monkey would think that.
 
2013-03-18 04:26:44 PM  

SlothB77: Ultimately, it is up to the banks not to assume risk they cannot handle. They weren't forced into making those contracts, were they?


I've not absolved the banks. I am implicating the accomplices. Loans are (basically) two party contracts. Both parties have an obligation to proceed cautiously.
 
2013-03-18 04:26:47 PM  

Evil High Priest: That world? Where we dominated all manufacturing after WWII? That's never coming back.


Not with that kind of attitude it isn't.
 
2013-03-18 04:27:09 PM  

Thunderpipes: So? You are really proud of trillion dollar deficits because they are a tiny bit less trilliony than last year? Great, balanced budget in what, 125 years?


I'm not proud of it, but I'm not worried about it. Our current deficits are a little bit high, but close to sustainable.
 
2013-03-18 04:29:29 PM  

Evil High Priest: BigNumber12: Day_Old_Dutchie: The economic problems we have right now can be simply summed up.

Too many middle-men making too much money doing no productive work - essentially paper shuffling manipulating "financial instruments"

We as a society need to get back to actually making things or providing services to each other rather than just playing the stock market like a personal casino.

I like you.

That world? Where we dominated all manufacturing after WWII? That's never coming back. Nev. Er. All we have left is software dev and high-speed pizza delivery.


And Jimmie John's, sammiches, freakishly fast.

/#9, with pep

MyKingdomForYourHorse: It has become blindly obvious to me, thanks to this thread, that a whole metric ton of people have no idea how currency systems and macroeconomics work.

But whatever, you all keep on farking that chicken and being shills for those that took risks and do not wish to pay for them.


Why leave out the takers that won't produce?

The 48,000,000 that is just sitting there is dragging down the economy.

Go ahead, Macronaut, explain there externalities of the deadbeats, if you dare.
 
2013-03-18 04:33:32 PM  

DamnYankees: Thunderpipes: So? You are really proud of trillion dollar deficits because they are a tiny bit less trilliony than last year? Great, balanced budget in what, 125 years?

I'm not proud of it, but I'm not worried about it. Our current deficits are a little bit high, but close to sustainable.


Wow.

I give up.

We are doomed.
 
2013-03-18 04:33:38 PM  

BigNumber12: Evil High Priest: That world? Where we dominated all manufacturing after WWII? That's never coming back.

Not with that kind of attitude it isn't.


Exactly. We could easily bomb all of Europe back into the stone age again if we wanted to.
 
2013-03-18 04:34:56 PM  

DamnYankees: Inflation isn't necessarily bad for goods and services as long as wages keep pace. What it's unequivocally bad for is savings (i.e. lenders).


True, I guess a more apt statement would be could be bad, but yes it is universally bad for savings and universally great for those with debt.

Slam1263: Go ahead, Macronaut, explain there externalities of the deadbeats, if you dare.


That generally speaking the deadbeat meme is a myth. Chew on this for size before you go railing on welfare dead beats. A large and significant portion of Walmarts workers are on public assistance because they do not make enough. They often do not make enough because they are kept at the legally defined part time status thus making them ineligible for health care plans and other benefits. Those needs, because they are needs...you know food, clothing, medicine, roofs... are subsidized through public assistance instead of them being paid a living wage that could sustain themselves as an individual.

So basically the biggest deadbeats out there, are corporate whores and multinational corporations.

But its ok, keep farking that chicken man!

Thunderpipes: Then you and he are stuck in the uterus. The moron is arguing that Obama is financially responsible. Only a retarded spider monkey would think that.


I didn't say I agree with him, but you two look like a team of cerebral palsy people trying to play water polo
 
2013-03-18 04:35:53 PM  

DamnYankees: Our current deficits are a little bit high, but close to sustainable growing exponentially.


Fixed it for you.
 
2013-03-18 04:36:52 PM  

Thunderpipes: DamnYankees: Thunderpipes: So? You are really proud of trillion dollar deficits because they are a tiny bit less trilliony than last year? Great, balanced budget in what, 125 years?

I'm not proud of it, but I'm not worried about it. Our current deficits are a little bit high, but close to sustainable.

Wow.

I give up.

We are doomed.


Doomed? What, exactly do you think will happen if the deficit increases? Specifically.
 
2013-03-18 04:37:19 PM  

MonoChango: DamnYankees: Our current deficits are a little bit high, but close to sustainable growing exponentially.

Fixed it for you.


Yes, economics does become easier when you make stuff up.
 
2013-03-18 04:37:32 PM  

MonoChango: DamnYankees: Our current deficits are a little bit high, but close to sustainable growing exponentially.

Fixed it for you.


Fixed, but wrong. The deficit has decreased every year Obama has been in office.
 
2013-03-18 04:38:10 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Doomed? What, exactly do you think will happen if the deficit increases? Specifically.


Why even grant him that? The deficit has been decreasing. If it increases, it'll be due to another recession/economic crash. And if that happens, our debt/surplus numbers will hardly be our biggest problem.
 
2013-03-18 04:42:08 PM  

DamnYankees: cameroncrazy1984: Doomed? What, exactly do you think will happen if the deficit increases? Specifically.

Why even grant him that? The deficit has been decreasing. If it increases, it'll be due to another recession/economic crash. And if that happens, our debt/surplus numbers will hardly be our biggest problem.


Also a good point.
 
2013-03-18 04:45:06 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: DamnYankees: Thunderpipes: So? You are really proud of trillion dollar deficits because they are a tiny bit less trilliony than last year? Great, balanced budget in what, 125 years?

I'm not proud of it, but I'm not worried about it. Our current deficits are a little bit high, but close to sustainable.

Wow.

I give up.

We are doomed.

Doomed? What, exactly do you think will happen if the deficit increases? Specifically.


Even the very generous CBO predicts around 2030 to 2040 just mandatory government spending will take up 100% of revenue. After that it spirals out of control as interest begins to spike. At that point, nothing you can do.  We don't have, and won't have growth like we did in the past. Everything liberals do is forecast with rosy growth numbers that don't come to be.

Because, you know, deficits add to the debt. I mean, are people really that farking dumb here? You really are so farking dumb you think if you keep adding debt to your credit card, it is okay because you only added a little more than last year? Is that how you run your household?

When Chumpy McHopeChange leaves, he will have added a full 10 trillion dollars to the debt. Doubled it. Did the economy double in size?
 
2013-03-18 04:45:48 PM  

MyRandomName: Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: It is about entitlement spending,

So you think that the teachers don't deserve a retirement? And that the issue isn't that we have the lowest tax rates in 30 years and a growing, aging population?

I've noticed that the either-or fallacy is your favorite.  I'm going to start pointing it out.

You have implied that Thunderpipes' claim that teachers are owed too much in pensions means that he thinks "that the teachers don't deserve a retirement ."  You have no reason to believe this claim.  Perhaps he simply believes that teachers deserve some, but less, pensions for their retirement.  Thus there is a third option.  That is why your assertion is an either-or fallacy.

That's the only fallacy you found? What about his straight obfuscation on taxes? CBO estimates tax revenue to be 19.1% of GDP next year. A full percent above historic averages.

Libe rals like to manipulate facta in order to sound smart. Fallacies are truly all they have.


I was only pointing out either-or fallacies today.  You can join and pick up obfuscation or anything else you like.  I'm not Atlas, for fark's sake.
 
2013-03-18 04:47:49 PM  

SlothB77: Shryke: SlothB77: the banks in the USA behaved badly and as punishment we bailed them out.

This is half of the reality.  Legions of consumers took out loans far larger than they could ever afford over the long term, in hopes of flipping their properties for a profit.

Ultimately, it is up to the banks not to assume risk they cannot handle.  They weren't forced into making those contracts, were they?


Ultimately, the person who pays is the one who gets shafted.  The banks did not pay.  So "ultimately," NO.
 
2013-03-18 04:48:06 PM  

Thunderpipes: You really are so farking dumb you think if you keep adding debt to your credit card, it is okay because you only added a little more than last year? Is that how you run your household?


Most people incur more debt as they get older - that's because they make more money. Income goes up, ability to borrow goes up (i.e. nicer house, bigger mortgage). Is there some reason this does not apply to the US government?

They key metric is whether or not your deficits are bigger or smaller than your economic growth. If you grow your economy 3%, and deficits grow 2%, you're completely fine doing that forever. Literally, forever.
 
2013-03-18 04:59:05 PM  

Shryke: Short version: fatties and smokers die considerably younger, and are thus less expensive.


OIC
 
2013-03-18 05:00:00 PM  
came for vader.

/leaving before i get force choked.
 
2013-03-18 05:01:55 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: DamnYankees: Inflation isn't necessarily bad for goods and services as long as wages keep pace. What it's unequivocally bad for is savings (i.e. lenders).

True, I guess a more apt statement would be could be bad, but yes it is universally bad for savings and universally great for those with debt.

Slam1263: Go ahead, Macronaut, explain there externalities of the deadbeats, if you dare.

That generally speaking the deadbeat meme is a myth. Chew on this for size before you go railing on welfare dead beats. A large and significant portion of Walmarts workers are on public assistance because they do not make enough. They often do not make enough because they are kept at the legally defined part time status thus making them ineligible for health care plans and other benefits. Those needs, because they are needs...you know food, clothing, medicine, roofs... are subsidized through public assistance instead of them being paid a living wage that could sustain themselves as an individual.

So basically the biggest deadbeats out there, are corporate whores and multinational corporations.

But its ok, keep farking that chicken man!

Thunderpipes: Then you and he are stuck in the uterus. The moron is arguing that Obama is financially responsible. Only a retarded spider monkey would think that.

I didn't say I agree with him, but you two look like a team of cerebral palsy people trying to play water polo


You don't see this as a group effort?  WalMart didn't write the laws, and the overclassers in DC aren't changing them.  Keeping the poor poor helps the elites of both political parties.
 
2013-03-18 05:06:32 PM  

Wangiss: You don't see this as a group effort? WalMart didn't write the laws, and the overclassers in DC aren't changing them. Keeping the poor poor helps the elites of both political parties.


So why is it that one side wishes to increase the minimum wage and establish a working wage tied to inflation?

Stop it with the tired third rail both sides do it bull shiat already.
 
2013-03-18 05:13:13 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Wangiss: You don't see this as a group effort? WalMart didn't write the laws, and the overclassers in DC aren't changing them. Keeping the poor poor helps the elites of both political parties.

So why is it that one side wishes to increase the minimum wage and establish a working wage tied to inflation?

Stop it with the tired third rail both sides do it bull shiat already.


I am assuming this 'side' is the D party. This so-called working wage would still leave them VERY dependent on the gov't. That is why. Maybe b/c they hate teenagers getting job experience? I know they hate fast food, or at least they do in New Francisco and San York City.
 
2013-03-18 05:22:23 PM  

InstaZen25: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Wangiss: You don't see this as a group effort? WalMart didn't write the laws, and the overclassers in DC aren't changing them. Keeping the poor poor helps the elites of both political parties.

So why is it that one side wishes to increase the minimum wage and establish a working wage tied to inflation?

Stop it with the tired third rail both sides do it bull shiat already.

I am assuming this 'side' is the D party. This so-called working wage would still leave them VERY dependent on the gov't. That is why. Maybe b/c they hate teenagers getting job experience? I know they hate fast food, or at least they do in New Francisco and San York City.


VERY dependent is somewhat better than COMPLETELY dependent.
Let's hear your better solution then....
 
2013-03-18 05:25:39 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Thunderpipes: Compounding interest is working against us

Yes of course, that horrible compounding interest of the money we borrow at near record levels. Did you know that for every 100 dollars we borrow, we need only have to pay back .01 of a cent? NO seriously over the entire course of the bond, we only pay that much.

Of course you wouldn't know, because you've gone full derp.


BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

No, you pay an ROR of .01 cent, but you still owe the Ben Franklin. But it does show where you get your misguided ideas about economics.

DamnYankees: MyRandomName: When you are ignorant to reality... blame austerity! Ignore the fact that all but 3 EU countries have continued to increase spending. Ignore the fact that many have tried the liberal approach of raise taxes and grow spending. Blame austerity! So much easier that way.

Raising taxes is a form of austerity.


As is understating inflation. Is anyone buying into the notion that inflation is only 4%?

SlothB77: Shryke: SlothB77: the banks in the USA behaved badly and as punishment we bailed them out.

This is half of the reality.  Legions of consumers took out loans far larger than they could ever afford over the long term, in hopes of flipping their properties for a profit.

Ultimately, it is up to the banks not to assume risk they cannot handle.  They weren't forced into making those contracts, were they?


Uhm, the whole community banking act thingmabob escaped your attention, didn't it? Or maybe the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act.

C'mon, our regulators/legislators let their industries get 'too big tooo fail'.

DamnYankees: Thunderpipes: Obama is adding a trillion a year to the debt.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

The deficit as a percentage of GDP has gone down every year Obama has been in office.


Fire up the printing presses, we'll print our way out of debt!!!

I blame everyone, in a way I even blame myself, because I am sitting on top of a substantial amount of capital. Why? Well, when I ask my accountant a simple question, such as; how will the Affordable Care Act affect me, and my employees? She starts to cry, and tells me to ask the government for more money, because they are tossing it out like, well, rubber checks.

How many of you actually have businesses? I don't care if it selling thrift store finds on Ebay, how many of you?

How many of you have employees? I had six, one left, won't be replaced for a while because each and everyone of my peeps are paid on a 'as full time' contract. In other words, they get paid for 40 hours a week, even if I can only fine 20 hour of work.

Why does this greedy far right ahole do this? Because I value them as humans. They are not my friends, they are my employees, they have families, and lives. Hell, I've been on this site all damned day now, and maybe tomorrow, because there is no work. I got a couple of jobs coming up Wed - Fri that'll cover their wages.

My ROI, and the taxes, I'll take it out of my capital investment fund.

OK, now you have farked me off, quarterlys are due at the end of the month, $78,345.21, combined. Next quarter I'll get the privledge of writing another check.

I am paying the absolute minimum, and taking the risk that I will owe a large penalty. Why? The farking IRS cannot give me, or my crying accountant, guidance on what the true bill will be until OCTOBER, but they wants their money now.

But do go on, you idiots are telling me what I want to know; most of you don't know dick about business.

You should run for elected office, they don't either.
 
2013-03-18 05:31:08 PM  

Ambitwistor: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 270x198]

Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your economy here is only MOSTLY destroyed. There's a big difference between mostly destroyed and all destroyed. Mostly destroyed is slightly rebuilt. With all destroyed, well, with all destroyed there's usually only one thing you can do:  go through their central banks and look for loose change.


My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my currency. Prepare to die.

/Never mind. You win.
 
2013-03-18 05:32:02 PM  

DamnYankees: Thunderpipes: You really are so farking dumb you think if you keep adding debt to your credit card, it is okay because you only added a little more than last year? Is that how you run your household?

Most people incur more debt as they get older - that's because they make more money. Income goes up, ability to borrow goes up (i.e. nicer house, bigger mortgage). Is there some reason this does not apply to the US government?

They key metric is whether or not your deficits are bigger or smaller than your economic growth. If you grow your economy 3%, and deficits grow 2%, you're completely fine doing that forever. Literally, forever.


Number 1, that is not what we are doing. Number 2, you completely ignore the debt, and the interest on the debt.
 
2013-03-18 05:33:40 PM  

Klom Dark: InstaZen25: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Wangiss: You don't see this as a group effort? WalMart didn't write the laws, and the overclassers in DC aren't changing them. Keeping the poor poor helps the elites of both political parties.

So why is it that one side wishes to increase the minimum wage and establish a working wage tied to inflation?

Stop it with the tired third rail both sides do it bull shiat already.

I am assuming this 'side' is the D party. This so-called working wage would still leave them VERY dependent on the gov't. That is why. Maybe b/c they hate teenagers getting job experience? I know they hate fast food, or at least they do in New Francisco and San York City.

VERY dependent is somewhat better than COMPLETELY dependent.
Let's hear your better solution then....


Alas I don't have one for the particular problems around the minimum wage. But, thankfully, I am not an elected leader charged with solving them. Ideally no one would be at a minimum wage part-time job for long unless they wanted to be. (teenagers, retired folk, etc. who like the hours and low responsibility)

I seriously think Wal-Mart would disappear with something like a 'working wage'. Anything with razor thin margins like that wouldn't adjust.
 
2013-03-18 05:36:40 PM  

Slam1263: As is understating inflation. Is anyone buying into the notion that inflation is only 4%?


No, it's nowhere near 4%. It was around 2% last year.
 
2013-03-18 05:39:29 PM  

Slam1263: Why? Well, when I ask my accountant a simple question, such as; how will the Affordable Care Act affect me, and my employees? She starts to cry, and tells me to ask the government for more money, because they are tossing it out like, well, rubber checks.


You have an accountant who cries at basic accounting questions? You need to hire a new accountant.
 
2013-03-18 05:49:48 PM  

DamnYankees: Slam1263: As is understating inflation. Is anyone buying into the notion that inflation is only 4%?

No, it's nowhere near 4%. It was around 2% last year.


InstaZen25: I seriously think Wal-Mart would disappear with something like a 'working wage'.


Good.
 
2013-03-18 05:55:06 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: DamnYankees: Thunderpipes: So? You are really proud of trillion dollar deficits because they are a tiny bit less trilliony than last year? Great, balanced budget in what, 125 years?

I'm not proud of it, but I'm not worried about it. Our current deficits are a little bit high, but close to sustainable.

Wow.

I give up.

We are doomed.

Doomed? What, exactly do you think will happen if the deficit increases? Specifically.


Okay, everybody, repeat after Dick and Karl:
Deficits Don't Matter.


Thank you.
 
2013-03-18 05:56:22 PM  
Japans damaged nuke reactor is days away from melting down again. The Euro Zone is soon to collapse and set off wars within the continent. Asia is gearing up for wars. The Middle East is bound to implode with the major proxy war going on. Natural disasters are becoming more common. Food is becoming more expensive. Water is becoming less and less.

Scary times. All we need now is to get attacked by the Cylons
 
2013-03-18 06:00:10 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: Wangiss: You don't see this as a group effort? WalMart didn't write the laws, and the overclassers in DC aren't changing them. Keeping the poor poor helps the elites of both political parties.

So why is it that one side wishes to increase the minimum wage and establish a working wage tied to inflation?

Stop it with the tired third rail both sides do it bull shiat already.


Increasing the minimum wage won't necessarily benefit the underclass.  Sorry.
 
2013-03-18 06:00:53 PM  

DamnYankees: Slam1263: As is understating inflation. Is anyone buying into the notion that inflation is only 4%?

No, it's nowhere near 4%. It was around 2% last year.


Again, understating inflation, my cost for wire, connectors and other consumables, are up 14%.

But hey! My taxes are down! Because business is down 40% month over month, from last year.


DamnYankees: Slam1263: Why? Well, when I ask my accountant a simple question, such as; how will the Affordable Care Act affect me, and my employees? She starts to cry, and tells me to ask the government for more money, because they are tossing it out like, well, rubber checks.

You have an accountant who cries at basic accounting questions? You need to hire a new accountant.


You must be a liberal. Or a dolt, but I digress.
 
2013-03-18 06:14:53 PM  
Socialists and Communists don't believe in Private Property.
 
2013-03-18 06:51:00 PM  

Slam1263: Again, understating inflation, my cost for wire, connectors and other consumables, are up 14%.


You do realize that inflation is the general price level, and not "the price of stuff Slam1263 has to buy"? The world dis bigger than you.
 
2013-03-18 07:43:34 PM  

MyKingdomForYourHorse: A large and significant portion of Walmarts workers are on public assistance because they do not make enough. They often do not make enough because they are kept at the legally defined part time status thus making them ineligible for health care plans and other benefits.


Having worked at Wal-Mart for 4 years when I was in college, during a "good" time to work for that company, I can offer a little bit of commentary.  There are two sides to every story.

I worked for Wal-Mart from 1999 to 2003 as an auto technician.  Oil changes, tires, batteries, etc.  Nothing special like anything near ASE work in a real shop.  I was paid $9.50 a hour when I started working there, and that was at a time when minimum wage was something like $6.50, so that was a pretty good deal.  I got overtime each week as well, so the paychecks weren't bad for being work immediately after high school.

The health insurance that Wal-Mart offered wasn't bad either.  I got a budget plan from them for some pretty low premiums.  Coverage was good for reasonable prices.  At that point Wal-Mart gave health coverage eligibility after 90 days of employment.

Sometime about mid-2002 I got the new health brochures and noticed that they had moved to a two-tier benefits plan.  Anyone hired after a certain date had higher premiums for the coverage.  Sometime after that (and after I was done working there) Wal-Mart changed their eligibility for health coverage to 6 months of employment for full-time employees and 2 years for part-time employment.  That was a HUGE news story about how part-time Wal-Mart employees would have to work 2 years before qualifying for health coverage.  When I asked one of my Wal-Mart managers what the deal about that was, the HR person explained to me: "Wal-Mart has a sizable number of people who used the company for welfare.  They'd get a part-time job to work 90 days, get health coverage, get an expensive operation they needed, and then quit their job and leave the company OWING MONEY for health premiums on their last paychecks that their wages couldn't cover.  Simple explanation is that this company isn't a welfare organization and we need to cut down on our health bills that people are literally STEALING from Wal-Mart."

That's kinda harsh, but it is what it is.  You can't be handing huge payroll benefits out the door to tons of people taking advantage.

So the flip side of the story is that Wal-Mart really isn't responsible for providing huge pay and benefits for basic, shelf-stocking jobs.  If my job were to cut boxes open and stack stuff on the shelf, I couldn't come up with any argument about why I should be paid more than minimum wage.  Fixing social ills such as low wages isn't Wal-Mart's responsibility.  Being a shelf-stocker or cashier at Wal-Mart isn't supposed to be a 30+ year career.  You are supposed to gain experience, gain some education, and be upwardly mobile in the economy.And that is largely what Wal-Mart employees do as their turnover is something like 50% each year.  They aren't career jobs unless people are making movement up into management.
 
2013-03-18 07:50:05 PM  

Slam1263: DamnYankees: Slam1263: As is understating inflation. Is anyone buying into the notion that inflation is only 4%?

No, it's nowhere near 4%. It was around 2% last year.

Again, understating inflation, my cost for wire, connectors and other consumables, are up 14%.

But hey! My taxes are down! Because business is down 40% month over month, from last year.


DamnYankees: Slam1263: Why? Well, when I ask my accountant a simple question, such as; how will the Affordable Care Act affect me, and my employees? She starts to cry, and tells me to ask the government for more money, because they are tossing it out like, well, rubber checks.

You have an accountant who cries at basic accounting questions? You need to hire a new accountant.

You must be a liberal. Or a dolt, but I digress.


I hope you get work soon. What you're doing here sucks.
 
2013-03-18 08:45:06 PM  

DamnYankees: MyRandomName: When you are ignorant to reality... blame austerity! Ignore the fact that all but 3 EU countries have continued to increase spending. Ignore the fact that many have tried the liberal approach of raise taxes and grow spending. Blame austerity! So much easier that way.

Raising taxes is a form of austerity.


Yet you/Krugman are calling for the same policies that are failing Europe, raising taxes on the rich, increased spending, for the U.S.

And raising taxes is only austerity of the tax raises are above increases to spending.  There is a requirement of some sort of reduction in deficit.  You could argue deficit as a % of GDP is decreasing, but that is hardly the austerity you liberals love to yell when the GOP calls for the reduction in increased spending.

You know as well as everyone else, than when the DNC yells "AUSTERITY!" they are talking about increased reductions in further spending, not raising taxes.  How can you argue Krugman talking about the failures of austerity against the liberal/Senate plans of raising taxes by 1.2 Trillion.

The let has blamed austerity for the slow growth, while at the same time (According to your last reply) advocating for further austerity.  Make up your minds.

The fact is the EU has mostly implemented the current Senate plan of increased taxes/increased spending.  The EU is not growing.  How about for once there is an attempt to cut spending before it is required (Estonia versus Greece).
 
2013-03-18 08:48:11 PM  

DamnYankees: Thunderpipes: So? You are really proud of trillion dollar deficits because they are a tiny bit less trilliony than last year? Great, balanced budget in what, 125 years?

I'm not proud of it, but I'm not worried about it. Our current deficits are a little bit high, but close to sustainable.


Current payment for interest on debt is 224 Billion. This is maintained through short term interest rates.  This short term interest rates being this low is not sustainable against inflation.  The CBO has estimated in 10 years this cost will raise to over 500 Billion.  That alone should worry you.  It is not sustainable.

By 2023 the CBO has the deficits skyrocketing from two sources: Increased aging of the population (Medicare/SS/Aid costs) and increased costs from interest payments from both the debt and increasing interest rates.
 
2013-03-18 08:55:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: CBO estimates tax revenue to be 19.1% of GDP next year. A full percent above historic averages.

Historic averages of the last 30 years?


Since 1947, yes.  You are free to look up the facts.

The average of all tax revenue has been 18% of GDP.
 
2013-03-18 09:06:54 PM  

MyRandomName: Yet you/Krugman are calling for the same policies that are failing Europe, raising taxes on the rich, increased spending, for the U.S.


Raising taxes on the rich is a difficult issue - I think its a good policy, all else being equal, but probably a bad idea during a slow recovery. Ideally I'd love a policy which kept rates are they are for a few more years, and then raised them across the board when the economy recovered more. But that's not really possible. Whether or not its a good idea to therefore get them now when possible? Tough call, but I err on the side of doing it now.

'Europe' hasn't been increasing spending. You need to look at it country by country, since each county controls its own fiscal policies.

MyRandomName: How can you argue Krugman talking about the failures of austerity against the liberal/Senate plans of raising taxes by 1.2 Trillion.


I don't understand this sentence.
 
2013-03-18 09:40:20 PM  
Austerity always works. Why, just look at all these examples:
 
2013-03-18 10:08:05 PM  

InstaZen25: I am assuming this 'side' is the D party. This so-called working wage would still leave them VERY dependent on the gov't. That is why. Maybe b/c they hate teenagers getting job experience? I know they hate fast food, or at least they do in New Francisco and San York City.


<Tommy Lee Jones Newspaper>

mrmopar5287: Fixing social ills such as low wages isn't Wal-Mart's responsibility


I don't disagree, but you have to have the step ladders at some reasonable level. Fact of the matter is that the ladder rungs have distanced themselves in the last 30 years and though correct this is not Wal-Mart's responsibility, it is the responsibility of a government who's explicit job is to look towards the welfare of the people.

I'm just sick and tired of libertarians wearing the GOP clothing thinking that each instance we live in a bubble, cherry picking arguments and ignoring obvious facts.

Wangiss: Increasing the minimum wage won't necessarily benefit the underclass. Sorry.


Actually its been pretty well proven that increasing minimum wage drives wage rates up, which in turn drives wages for the underclass up. See states who have already raised their rates above federal minimum.

Slam1263: No, you pay an ROR of .01 cent, but you still owe the Ben Franklin. But it does show where you get your misguided ideas about economics.


By all means keep ignoring basic math, its done your side so well so far. I'll see you in Greece where we burn the forest just to stay alive.

DamnYankees: I don't understand this sentence.


No worries, when backed into an intellectual corner its perfectly reasonable for them to go full chimp and start throwing shiat at the walls.
 
2013-03-18 10:08:59 PM  

Evil High Priest: Austerity always works. Why, just look at all these examples:


What criteria qualify as "working"? I'll try to avoid Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc if you will be specific and keep the goalposts in place. If Fark can find an example that meets your criteria, will you change your opinion?
 
2013-03-18 10:15:01 PM  

Wangiss: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Wangiss: You don't see this as a group effort? WalMart didn't write the laws, and the overclassers in DC aren't changing them. Keeping the poor poor helps the elites of both political parties.

So why is it that one side wishes to increase the minimum wage and establish a working wage tied to inflation?

Stop it with the tired third rail both sides do it bull shiat already.

Increasing the minimum wage won't necessarily benefit the underclass.  Sorry.


Speaking as a member of the (near) underclass, I'm willing to take the risk.
 
2013-03-18 10:34:00 PM  

enemy of the state: Wangiss: MyKingdomForYourHorse: Wangiss: You don't see this as a group effort? WalMart didn't write the laws, and the overclassers in DC aren't changing them. Keeping the poor poor helps the elites of both political parties.

So why is it that one side wishes to increase the minimum wage and establish a working wage tied to inflation?

Stop it with the tired third rail both sides do it bull shiat already.

Increasing the minimum wage won't necessarily benefit the underclass.  Sorry.

Speaking as a member of the (near) underclass, I'm willing to take the risk.


You probably believe you have nothing at stake, so of course you would. But irreversible globalization means you could price yourself right out of a job. Even jobs you think are non-relocatable like waitstaffing are being replaced by machines in technophilic countries.
 
2013-03-18 10:59:12 PM  

Wangiss: You probably believe you have nothing at stake, so of course you would. But irreversible globalization means you could price yourself right out of a job. Even jobs you think are non-relocatable like waitstaffing are being replaced by machines in technophilic countries.


Perfectly fixable by that magical thing called tariffs, especially when your currency is what most of the world trades in and invests in.

wait..OMG, I said the dirty T word!
 
2013-03-18 11:59:58 PM  
Finally, a choice with no downside!
 
2013-03-19 01:51:06 AM  

Thunderpipes: Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit So do you. Unless, of course, you don't want any state provided services. I suppose that's conceivably your position, but it's one that if applied in reality would result in disaster in fairly short order.

If it stopped at services I would agree with you.  But liberals don't want it to stop at services.

Always the liberal argument. "You don't want roads or police!". Ya, I do. I pay taxes for that. I don't want to pay taxes for methadone clinics, section 8 housing, illegal aliens' college tuition.

What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. Only way to find that is by taking more and more and more from anyone who dares to succeed. Eventually, it fails. We will be Greece within 20 years. This is a fact.

Taxes should be broad based, and provide the minimum needed for the government to function. The states, as we debate here, are over 1 trillion in debt just because of teacher pensions (completely underfunded). Did you all know that? This is not about what the government needs, or what services people need. It is about entitlement spending, and what people want. They want taxpayer money given to them. Liberals oblige because it gets them votes and damn the torpedoes!


Who underfunded them?  I forgot that contract obligations only apply when it's a golden parachute.  Pensions and such are free to be disposed of at the easiest and earliest convenience, even though the members paid in a great deal to those funds also.  Maybe if the states quit lowering their taxes to attract businesses that only go there because they get over on them they could fund their obligations.
 
2013-03-19 07:38:52 AM  

DarkLancelot: Thunderpipes: Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit So do you. Unless, of course, you don't want any state provided services. I suppose that's conceivably your position, but it's one that if applied in reality would result in disaster in fairly short order.

If it stopped at services I would agree with you.  But liberals don't want it to stop at services.

Always the liberal argument. "You don't want roads or police!". Ya, I do. I pay taxes for that. I don't want to pay taxes for methadone clinics, section 8 housing, illegal aliens' college tuition.

What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. Only way to find that is by taking more and more and more from anyone who dares to succeed. Eventually, it fails. We will be Greece within 20 years. This is a fact.

Taxes should be broad based, and provide the minimum needed for the government to function. The states, as we debate here, are over 1 trillion in debt just because of teacher pensions (completely underfunded). Did you all know that? This is not about what the government needs, or what services people need. It is about entitlement spending, and what people want. They want taxpayer money given to them. Liberals oblige because it gets them votes and damn the torpedoes!

Who underfunded them?  I forgot that contract obligations only apply when it's a golden parachute.  Pensions and such are free to be disposed of at the easiest and earliest convenience, even though the members paid in a great deal to those funds also.  Maybe if the states quit lowering their taxes to attract businesses that only go there because they get over on them they could fund their obligations.


Paid in a great deal?

Grow up. Teachers' unions here went on strike because they were asked to pay in a few percent. Oh, their average salary was $68,000 a year and the average retired teacher pulled down $50,000 a year for life. I believe the salary amount they paid in was 2.5%

Farking liberals.

The states that are lowering their taxes are doing much better than those that are not. How is CA doing?
 
Displayed 342 of 342 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report