Obama plans to charge wounded military members for health care.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by ikaris

It actually demonizes insurances companies more so then affecting military veterans. The veterans will receive the care that they require, and then it will become a massive PR issue for insurance companies that try to raise rates.

Many people have been aware of all the loopholes insurance companies and HMOs have been using to ensure that they don't have to pay for the proper care for the ill. No one seems to care because the majority of people are healthy and do not have to experience this problem.

Let's see the insurance companies try to do this to veterans. The outrage will expose the hypocrisy of the system for all to see because no one can ignore those who have served their country and performed the ultimate sacrifice.

Pretty shrewd move by Obama.

Wouldn't he be putting the health, safety and finances of the vets at risk to prove a point. I mean outrage won't build until well into the screwing.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Wouldn't he be putting the health, safety and finances of the vets at risk to prove a point. I mean outrage won't build until well into the screwing.

Maybe this, but certainly not the other two. The reality is that it would never get that far to even effect their finances.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Unemployment rates by year during the first Roosevelt administration:

1933: 20.6
1934: 16.0
1935: 14.2
1936: 9.9
1937: 9.1

Sorry--I guess you had some kind of a point, but I couldn't hear you over all the facts.

Yeah, by "creating" jobs in the public sector. These jobs (salaries) had to supported by crippled private sector (actual taxpayers).

FDR did nothing to stimulate real, wealth creating economy.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Yeah, by "creating" jobs in the public sector. These jobs (salaries) had to supported by crippled private sector (actual taxpayers).

FDR did nothing to stimulate real, wealth creating economy.

So you prefer a different metric--like, say, GDP?

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

So you prefer a different metric--like, say, GDP?

So, you can't argue the point, you come up with a new one?

Do you know how is the GDP calculated? It includes public spending.

If FDR had build a pyramid that would cost $10 billion, it would add $10 billion to the GDP. You tell me if it would be $10 billion well spent battling the recession...?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

So, you can't argue the point, you come up with a new one?

Do you know how is the GDP calculated? It includes public spending.

If FDR had build a pyramid that would cost $10 billion, it would add $10 billion to the GDP. You tell me if it would be $10 billion well spent battling the recession...?

Uhh... yeah. I know how GDP is calculated. You're honestly claiming that even though by every metric wealth was generated in huge amounts during the Roosevelt years, that his policies somehow "extended" the recovery just because you want to believe in some discredited supply-side ideology?

I assume that since you know how GDP is calculated, you can also do math. Public spending as a percentage of GNP increased by 4% under Roosevelt between 33 and 36. Overall GDP increased by 34%. By 1940 it would increase by 58%, on the basis of a relatively much smaller increase in government spending--resulting in a national debt that was basically flat until it skyrocketed during the war.

[Canuck-Hater]

Originally Posted by Azure

You're kidding right? These are people who are willing to give up their lives for their country, and their employer can't provide them with decent health care?

They give up their lives for a big fkin LIE. Hate to be brutally honest but its true. These are probably the same soldiers that think "its cool" to kill people with an automatic weapon. That said, I wouldnt deny them of healthcare.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

They give up their lives for a big fkin LIE. Hate to be brutally honest but its true. These are probably the same soldiers that think "its cool" to kill people with an automatic weapon. That said, I wouldnt deny them of healthcare.

What an unbelievably revolting point of view.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Uhh... yeah. I know how GDP is calculated. You're honestly claiming that even though by every metric wealth was generated in huge amounts during the Roosevelt years, that his policies somehow "extended" the recovery just because you want to believe in some discredited supply-side ideology?

I assume that since you know how GDP is calculated, you can also do math. Public spending as a percentage of GNP increased by 4% under Roosevelt between 33 and 36. Overall GDP increased by 34%. By 1940 it would increase by 58%, on the basis of a relatively much smaller increase in government spending--resulting in a national debt that was basically flat until it skyrocketed during the war.

So please explain this magic formula... Small percentages of increased public spending not only serve to stabilize economies but multiply growth. Sounds impossible.

My point is that Keynesians are very short-sighted and are using incremental and self-serving periods of history in which to justify their positions.

FDR may have temporarily brought the US out of the Great Depression, but I've heard very convincing arguments that his policies only served to heighten the double digit inflation and subsequent near collapse of the American economy during the 1960s and 1970s.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Somehow I'm unconvinced by the sincerity of your outrage. In any case, Obama's overall plans for the health care system in the U.S. are an entirely separate topic.

What's weird to me is how everything gets exaggerated with this guy. He wants to raise taxes on the top portion of income for the wealthiest Americans by 3%, and suddenly "he's a socialist!" (never mind that that same rate was 11% higher under Reagan!) He proposes a pragmatic (overly so, in my view) solution to an obviously broken health care system, and "he's a radical!" He ask private insurers to take on some of the health care costs for veterans and "he's a callous fiscal conservative!" He proposes spending money on the ailing infrastructure to stimulate the economy and "he spends too much money!"

For some people, he can't win. I guess for others, maybe he can't lose. My own view is that he's just a guy trying to govern--an exceptional person in many ways, but in every sense an imperfect human being doing his best to do what he thinks is right. But then I think that about most politicians.

I guess what I'm suggesting is that we all be a little less trigger-happy about judging Obama's character until we've seen what he's capable of.

Great post. I wish I could articulate myself as well. Well done.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by peter12

It was meant to be a slight parody of outrage directed at the poster.

To be honest, the guy is just a run-of-the-mill Keynesian Liberal. Nothing more or nothing less. In terms of domestic policy, he has been incredibly mediocre so far.

nm

Kinda cranky when I wrote it. Sorry for any offense.

[Jedi Ninja]

Originally Posted by peter12

So please explain this magic formula... Small percentages of increased public spending not only serve to stabilize economies but multiply growth. Sounds impossible.

My point is that Keynesians are very short-sighted and are using incremental and self-serving periods of history in which to justify their positions.

FDR may have temporarily brought the US out of the Great Depression, but I've heard very convincing arguments that his policies only served to heighten the double digit inflation and subsequent near collapse of the American economy during the 1960s and 1970s.

There was no near-collapse of the American economy in the 1960s and 1970s. The hyperinflation of the late '70s was attributable to supply side shocks from the oil embargo, the Vietnam war, and of the entry of the boomer population into the consuming and employment population. There is, however, a near collapse of the economy happening now, and that is after the longest extended era of ultra conservative economic and tax policies... so what does that say?

Timeline of the Great Depression for the uninitiated:
http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n...epression.html

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Uhh... yeah. I know how GDP is calculated. You're honestly claiming that even though by every metric wealth was generated in huge amounts during the Roosevelt years, that his policies somehow "extended" the recovery just because you want to believe in some discredited supply-side ideology?

I assume that since you know how GDP is calculated, you can also do math. Public spending as a percentage of GNP increased by 4% under Roosevelt between 33 and 36. Overall GDP increased by 34%. By 1940 it would increase by 58%, on the basis of a relatively much smaller increase in government spending--resulting in a national debt that was basically flat until it skyrocketed during the war.

And FoL takes the shameful march to the showers.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by peter12

So please explain this magic formula... Small percentages of increased public spending not only serve to stabilize economies but multiply growth. Sounds impossible.

My point is that Keynesians are very short-sighted and are using incremental and self-serving periods of history in which to justify their positions.

FDR may have temporarily brought the US out of the Great Depression, but I've heard very convincing arguments that his policies only served to heighten the double digit inflation and subsequent near collapse of the American economy during the 1960s and 1970s.

Before you were saying that the growth during the Roosevelt years was an illusory "bubble." Well, any period of prosperity can be seen as a "bubble" if it can be of any length that you choose. I might as easily say that the Reagan years ushered in a "bubble" that is ending now, 30 years later.

But now you're claiming that the growth was "magical"--that it didn't happen. But the fact is, it did happen. Explaining it is a job for historians--and for that I depend on the work of people much smarter than myself. I merely rely on the explanation that most closely suits the facts.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Before you were saying that the growth during the Roosevelt years was an illusory "bubble." Well, any period of prosperity can be seen as a "bubble" if it can be of any length that you choose. I might as easily say that the Reagan years ushered in a "bubble" that is ending now, 30 years later.

But now you're claiming that the growth was "magical"--that it didn't happen. But the fact is, it did happen. Explaining it is a job for historians--and for that I depend on the work of people much smarter than myself. I merely rely on the explanation that most closely suits the facts.

Or economists. Dammit, there are a couple of really good economists doing some good debunking and I can't seem to find the links to their work. I do have a podcast, but I'll be darned if I can remember their names or institutions.

Anyway, my point was not to be directly contradicting your POV, only to raise questions surrounding current orthodoxy of the Keynesian worldview, which is in my view very shaky.

[driveway]

Q: If government spending prior to WWII did not end the depression, how could government spending during WWII do so?

A: They spent more.

Conclusion: TOTAL WAR!!!! (I'm lookin' at you, Edmonton).

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Unemployment rates by year during the first Roosevelt administration:

1933: 20.6
1934: 16.0
1935: 14.2
1936: 9.9
1937: 9.1

Sorry--I guess you had some kind of a point, but I couldn't hear you over all the facts.

I looked up these numbers, and I need to ask you - care to provide your source? Because I found different numbers:

It needs to be recalled that at no time during the 1930s did the percentage of Americans unemployed drop below double digits. From 1933-1940 it averaged a whopping 18 percent. FDR’s best year was 1937, when the rate dropped temporarily to 14.3 percent, but by the end of the year the economy was nearly as bad as it had been when he entered office. By the time of American entry into World War II, unemployment was still at 18 percent – the same rate that obtained during Roosevelt's first year as President!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/woods2.html

Numbers lifted from this book:

John T. Flynn, The Roosevelt Myth
50th anniversary edition, with a new introduction by Ralph Raico
San Francisco: Fox & Wilkes, 1998,

Further reading:

Jim Powell, FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression

http://www.amazon.com/FDRs-Folly-Roo.../dp/0761501657


"Admirers of FDR credit his New Deal with restoring the American economy after the disastrous contraction of 1929-33. Truth to tell - as Powell demonstrates without a shadow of a doubt - the New Deal hampered recovery from the contraction, prolonged and added to unemployment, and set the stage for ever more intrusive and costly government. Powell's analysis is thoroughly documented, relying on an impressive variety of popular and academic literature both contemporary and historical."
Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate, Hoover Institution

"Jim Powell draws together voluminous economic research on the effects of all of Roosevelt's major policies. Along the way, Powell gives fascinating thumbnail sketches of the major players. The result is a devastating indictment, compellingly told. Those who think that government intervention helped get the U.S. economy out of the depression should read this book."
David R. Henderson, editor of The Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics and author of The Joy of Freedom

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You're honestly claiming that even though by every metric wealth was generated in huge amounts during the Roosevelt years, that his policies somehow "extended" the recovery just because you want to believe in some discredited supply-side ideology?

Not just me. Listen to Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of the treasury under Roosevelt:

Burton Folsom quotes Morgenthau, testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee in May 1939: "We are spending more money than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgenthau,_Jr.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by peter12

Or economists. Dammit, there are a couple of really good economists doing some good debunking and I can't seem to find the links to their work. I do have a podcast, but I'll be darned if I can remember their names or institutions.

Anyway, my point was not to be directly contradicting your POV, only to raise questions surrounding current orthodoxy of the Keynesian worldview, which is in my view very shaky.

No...

Economists are not the ideal choice for explaining things that happened 50 years ago. They are not trained in historical analysis meaning their opinions regarding past events are largely dubious.

Economic Historians is what you need: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history

One of the more interesting historians to read is Niall Ferguson. Here is an awesome article/interview from a few week ago: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...drecovery/home

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

I looked up these numbers, and I need to ask you - care to provide your source? Because I found different numbers:

It needs to be recalled that at no time during the 1930s did the percentage of Americans unemployed drop below double digits. From 1933-1940 it averaged a whopping 18 percent. FDR’s best year was 1937, when the rate dropped temporarily to 14.3 percent, but by the end of the year the economy was nearly as bad as it had been when he entered office. By the time of American entry into World War II, unemployment was still at 18 percent – the same rate that obtained during Roosevelt's first year as President!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/woods2.html

Numbers lifted from this book:

John T. Flynn, The Roosevelt Myth
50th anniversary edition, with a new introduction by Ralph Raico
San Francisco: Fox & Wilkes, 1998,

Further reading:

Jim Powell, FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression

http://www.amazon.com/FDRs-Folly-Roo.../dp/0761501657


"Admirers of FDR credit his New Deal with restoring the American economy after the disastrous contraction of 1929-33. Truth to tell - as Powell demonstrates without a shadow of a doubt - the New Deal hampered recovery from the contraction, prolonged and added to unemployment, and set the stage for ever more intrusive and costly government. Powell's analysis is thoroughly documented, relying on an impressive variety of popular and academic literature both contemporary and historical."
Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate, Hoover Institution

"Jim Powell draws together voluminous economic research on the effects of all of Roosevelt's major policies. Along the way, Powell gives fascinating thumbnail sketches of the major players. The result is a devastating indictment, compellingly told. Those who think that government intervention helped get the U.S. economy out of the depression should read this book."
David R. Henderson, editor of The Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics and author of The Joy of Freedom

Well, my numbers didn't come from Lew Rockwell, I'll tell you that much. Rockwell, in case you're interested, has a B.A. in English from Tufts University and exactly zero credentials in economics.

My numbers came from Roosevelt's wiki page. There are two ways of calculating unemployment, that yield slightly different numbers. If you look consistently at one method, the trend is clear--my suspicion is that Rockwell is looking at the Derby numbers for his high end and the Lebergott for the low end to minimize the spread--not surprising--his reputation for "intellectual honesty" is... a little underwhelming.

But if you don't trust wikipedia, feel free to look up the original numbers at your local university library. Here's the source:
Historical Statistics US (1976) series D-86; Smiley 1983 Smiley, Gene, "Recent Unemployment Rate Estimates for the 1920s and 1930s," Journal of Economic History, June 1983, 43, 487–93.

Or if, like me, you're willing to trust that wikipedia has this one right, you can find the information here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

EDIT: I also feel compelled to point out how seamlessly your argument went from "your facts don't mean what you think they do" to "your facts are wrong." I think you might revisit your original comment about "Wishful Thinking."