2012 Election Paul Ryan vs Obama Healthcare Policy

[Gut Shot]

My viewpoint on that matter was well-supported by modern applications of the word. Apparently your attention capabilities died out halfway through the discussion.

Apparently, because I have no idea what the above sentences are in reference to.

As far as social mobility and opportunity - who cares about "social mobility"?

All true Americans.

FWIW many of the barriers to "social mobility" stem from liberal programs such as minimum wage and federally-subsidized education.

How is the weather in Bizarro World?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Dave89]

Can't watch videos on my phone anymore, so transcripts please.

The minimum wage can reduce employment, but it definitely doesn't hurt those with jobs.

And you know Milton Friedman was for a negative income tax, right? IE give the poor free money (just don't use it for specific programs).

Basically, he says that minimum wage prevents people from attaining (low paying) jobs that will make them better trained and more qualified for better opportunities. This raises unemployment (particularly among urban blacks).

I especially love the part where some liberal drone interrupts Friedman and asks, "Have you ever been on welfare? Or poor? Without money." Assuming of course that Milton Friedman was some out-of-touch right-wing selfish bastard.

To which Friedman replies, "Of course! Of course! More so than most of the people in this room... (smiles) How many of you have worked a 12-hour day and gotten paid 78 cents?"

Classic!

 

[pseudosquam]

Dave,

I shared a similar view as you do on social mobility given the relative wealth of our nation. However, as I have come to understand, what is most important for many public health markers [life expectancy, general health, education, income, depression, etc] is income variations within a country.

It's a paradox because if you look at two developed countries with large disparities of DNPs you'll find that average public health outcomes are more or less similar - wealth of nations is not a significant independent variable for these important issues. When you examine wealth disparity within a nation you'll find that income is a significant independent variable where the poor do the worst. Interestingly, if you compare public health outcomes between a country that has a wide wealth disparity with one that does not you'll find that everyone does better in the latter. These countries also tend to have more social mobility.

As you can see the relative wealth of a nation is not nearly as important as the wealth disparity within a nation. It is essential that people are able to climb themselves and their families out of the lower rungs for a better life. You cannot simply assume that because we have a large GNP that everyone is better off.

As far as social mobility and opportunity - who cares about "social mobility"? Fact is, we mostly lead far better lives than our parents and have more luxuries available for cheaper than ever before. To a liberal who divides society based on appeals to base human emotions ("we are the 99%!), it's all about the evil overlords on top and the struggling masses below. The only instance in which I believe "income inequality" is a problem is when that inequality has been facilitated through government intervention.

 

[STAT EKG]

Upward mobility? Our economy is as rigged as Vegas. Is Vegas beatable? Sure, a small margin of players beat Vegas. Personally though, I'd still rather be Vegas than try to beat the odds.

All this pull yourself up by the bootstraps/flat tax stuff would be great and all if everyone started at the same Go... which is obviously impossible in reality.

I mean, unless you just want to out-and-out declare that the way our economy works should be unfair... (which is different than to say it is unfair)

...

I also agree with an earlier post that the tax brackets seem kind of dumb. I wonder how much of this debate would go away if the tax brackets were reassigned to something more modern and reasonable?

 

[Gut Shot]

Basically, he says that minimum wage prevents people from attaining (low paying) jobs that will make them better trained and more qualified for better opportunities. This raises unemployment (particularly among urban blacks).

Unless I am mistaken, that interview occurred in the 1970's, and Friedman's academic career spanned the post-war period until his retirement in 1977. We now have 35 years of additional economic data, as well as much more complete retrospective analyses of the entire 20th century. And let us not forget the series of economic experiments that have taken place in South America. Oh, and the near-total meltdown in 2008.

So, bearing all this in mind, is there empirical support for Friedman's claim regarding the relationship of the minimum wage to employment?

 

[deleted103644]

Unless I am mistaken, that interview occurred in the 1970's, and Friedman's academic career spanned the post-war period until his retirement in 1977. We now have 35 years of additional economic data, as well as much more complete retrospective analyses of the entire 20th century. And let us not forget the series of economic experiments that have taken place in South America. Oh, and the near-total meltdown in 2008.

So, bearing all this in mind, is there empirical support for Friedman's claim regarding the relationship of the minimum wage to employment?

Friedman is right about this.

It's simple economics, if you increase the price of a good, you decrease sales. The good in this case is a new employee.

So setting a minimum wage, requiring health insurance, etc all of these things that make hiring more expensive reduce overall employment. Few economists would argue this.

The question is whether the jobs that are lost are worth preserving.

 

[Barcu]

Back to the point of the original thread...

The CBO estimates that 14 million people would bounced off the Medicaid rolls under Ryan's plan. Plus 11 million more people would lose insurance if Obamacare is repealed (and not to mention that costs will go up for seniors if it is repealed since they receive some savings from Obamacare too).

That's 25 million people. Without health insurance. Overnight.

And what is Romney's solution? He doesn't offer one. On the campaign trail, he just says he will replace it with "something." On his website, he goes into vague statements about policies that "promote job creation" and ultimately wants to leave it to the states to figure out (way to take a stand).

I would love to hear what he would actually, concretely do. Until he does, I think I'll stick with Obamacare despite its problems. I surely think we need to cut spending, but healthcare for those who can't afford it is one of my main priorities, so it would be one of the last things I cut.

In fact, that's the whole problem with the Romney campaign. He rarely goes into specifics about anything (all we have really is the Ryan plan, which the Romney campaign tries to distance itself from the most controversial parts). Which tax loopholes will he close and how will he cut the deficit just by lowering taxes? What agencies does he want to get rid of and what will get cut from other agencies and programs? We have to elect him to find out. Sorry, I would rather go with the guy I know.

I also agree with an earlier post that the tax brackets seem kind of dumb. I wonder how much of this debate would go away if the tax brackets were reassigned to something more modern and reasonable?

Can you explain what you mean by this?

 

[Gut Shot]

Friedman is right about this.

It's simple economics, if you increase the price of a good, you decrease sales. The good in this case is a new employee.

So setting a minimum wage, requiring health insurance, etc all of these things that make hiring more expensive reduce overall employment.

BUT, his argument centers around the minimum wage, which does not apply to the majority of workers. AND, you may remember a couple of years ago the argument surfaced that cutting the minimum wage would decreased unemployment, to which the right's favorite economist offered a contrary view:

If workers in the widget industry take a pay cut, this will lead to lower prices of widgets relative to other things, so people will buy more widgets, hence more employment.

But if everyone takes a pay cut, that logic no longer applies. The only way a general cut in wages can increase employment is if it leads people to buy more across the board. And why should it do that?

If the relationship is so simple and clear-cut, then there should be mounds of data to support its underlying assertion. So I ask again, does it exist?

 

[cliquesh]

http://www.npr.org/2012/08/12/158640909/ryan-adds-stark-choice-on-health-care-to-gop-ticket



Curious to get a medical students perspective on the upcoming presidential election.

Romney recently named Paul Ryan as his running mate. The stark contrast of Ryan's health care policy to the Obama administration's will be an interesting developing story in the election and should bring issues concerning healthcare, medicare, to the forefront of the race.

Any thoughts?

Ryan has said repeatedly that he is running on the Romney ticket and, therefore, his health care policy he submitted to congress previously is irrelevant.

 

[pkwraith]

Ryan has said repeatedly that he is running on the Romney ticket and, therefore, his health care policy he submitted to congress previously is irrelevant.

Okay, and Romney has repeatedly said that the Ryan plan is a wonderful plan and the Senate should've passed it. People can say whatever they want, and change their mind whenever it's politically convenient, especially when they have a gratuitous history of it.

Ryan is on the ticket for many reasons, and it's not because of his hair. He has had one piece of real legislation, and to dismiss it as irrelevant is pretty much nonsensical.

 

[deleted103644]

BUT, his argument centers around the minimum wage, which does not apply to the majority of workers. AND, you may remember a couple of years ago the argument surfaced that cutting the minimum wage would decreased unemployment, to which the right's favorite economist offered a contrary view:



If the relationship is so simple and clear-cut, then there should be mounds of data to support its underlying assertion. So I ask again, does it exist?

If you reduce marginal cost of an additional worker, as long as the marginal benefits don't decrease, you will hire more workers. Obviously this would only apply to jobs with salaries at the minimum wage that don't require any particular skills, and only in an environment with high unemployment.

 

[Gut Shot]

If you reduce marginal cost of an additional worker, as long as the marginal benefits don't decrease, you will hire more workers. Obviously this would only apply to jobs with salaries at the minimum wage that don't require any particular skills, and only in an environment with high unemployment.

Reality is never that easy. I found this interesting, although I understand it's the tip of the iceberg on this controversial topic: davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf

 

[deleted103644]

Reality is never that easy. I found this interesting, although I understand it's the tip of the iceberg on this controversial topic: davidcard.berkeley.edu/papers/njmin-aer.pdf

Note the opening paragraph - conventional economic theory is unambiguous.

As long as the marginal benefit of an additional worker is still greater than the increase, employment won't change.

There are arguments in favor of the minimum wage, but it definitely can affect the level of employment. I'm on your side here, but you need a stronger argument.

 

[bulldogmed]

Back to the point of the original thread...

The CBO estimates that 14 million people would bounced off the Medicaid rolls under Ryan's plan. Plus 11 million more people would lose insurance if Obamacare is repealed (and not to mention that costs will go up for seniors if it is repealed since they receive some savings from Obamacare too).

That's 25 million people. Without health insurance. Overnight.

And what is Romney's solution? He doesn't offer one. On the campaign trail, he just says he will replace it with "something." On his website, he goes into vague statements about policies that "promote job creation" and ultimately wants to leave it to the states to figure out (way to take a stand).

I would encourage you to read this article:

https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/309260/how-obamacare-harms-poor

Doing nothing to Medicare and Medicaid will bankrupt them within the decade, not to mention that many doctors already do not accept either of the two insurances.

He rarely goes into specifics about anything

Didn't Obama run on something ambiguous like hope and change?

I surely think we need to cut spending, but healthcare for those who can't afford it is one of my main priorities, so it would be one of the last things I cut.

Block-granting Medicaid to the states is not a cut. It's allowing for the states to design 50 different plans, experiments we'll call them, to determine the best way to move forward with that insurance plan.

 

[Gut Shot]

Note the opening paragraph - conventional economic theory is unambiguous.

The prediction of conventional economic theory is unambiguous. The rest of the paper goes on to describe how the data from this project do not fit neatly within that prediction.

There are arguments in favor of the minimum wage, but it definitely can affect the level of employment. I'm on your side here, but you need a stronger argument.

My argument is that making unequivocal statements in this arena (as Friedman did and Dave lovingly followed) ignores the complexity of the issue. He had some brilliant victories, to be sure, but he wasn't 100% right about everything.

 

[deleted103644]

The prediction of conventional economic theory is unambiguous. The rest of the paper goes on to describe how the data from this project do not fit neatly within that prediction.



My argument is that making unequivocal statements in this arena (as Friedman did and Dave lovingly followed) ignores the complexity of the issue. He had some brilliant victories, to be sure, but he wasn't 100% right about everything.

This isn't just Friedman though, pretty much every economist will agree with this. (If Krugman's talked about it, I'm sure he does.)

I don't believe anyone in the economic arena is truly rational, but there's no doubt that this is how a rational player would behave.

Imagine a massive increase in the minimum wage and what its effects would be. People would not be hired/would be fired.

 

[Lokhtar]

I support neither's healthcare plan. I want a single payor but neither party supports that. Barring that, I'll support Obama on the issue because Obamacare is better than the status quo.

 

[deleted103644]

I support neither's healthcare plan. I want a single payor but neither party supports that. Barring that, I'll support Obama on the issue because Obamacare is better than the status quo.

Same here, but only for essentials. There should be single payer covering basic and emergency care and supplemental private insurance.

 

[Barcu]

I would encourage you to read this article:

https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/309260/how-obamacare-harms-poor

Doing nothing to Medicare and Medicaid will bankrupt them within the decade, not to mention that many doctors already do not accept either of the two insurances.

Well of course Medicaid looks bad when compared to private insurance. It's not the best system, but it is something, and many people rely on it (despite it's many problems). Maybe we can focus on making healthcare coverage better for people who need it (which I support).

And in regards to the other points of the article. Having everyone insured can bring down costs because preventative care saves money. It's funny that the article mentioned providing contraception and passing that along to consumers. When Obama introduced his compromise, there wasn't much complaint from insurance companies. That seems odd right? The government is forcing a company to provide a service for free... but it's because providing contraception saves them money. Pregnancy is expensive. And this is true with many preventative services.

Though, I actually agree with part of the article. I'm not a huge fan of the impact it may have on businesses. Mostly because I believe we should not get insurance through employment. Instead, we should be able to buy insurance that we can keep with us, but that is hard to do right now because of a tax. And to Romney's credit, he supports lifting the tax on doing this.

The other complaints are off-base too. There have been studies done where people are asked about specific parts of Obamacare (and not the law in general), and the support for each component (on parent's until 26, don't deny for pre-existing conditions, etc) have actually polled very well. The only one that didn't was the mandate (which you actually need to prevent costs from going way up). The problem in politics today is that we continue to demand more without wanting to actually pay for it. Healthcare costs money, and you have no idea when you will actually need to use it. Hence, you need to be insured, even if your young and may never use it. For insurance to be affordable, they need a big pool. You can frame it like "the young are subsidizing the old" just like the article did. But most bankruptcies are caused by medical bills (and even many of those people have insurance) so I would frame it that everyone needs to buy insurance in case they need it.

Didn't Obama run on something ambiguous like hope and change?

Sure. Lack of details is something I complain about a lot during elections. But now we know what Obama stands for.

Block-granting Medicaid to the states is not a cut. It's allowing for the states to design 50 different plans, experiments we'll call them, to determine the best way to move forward with that insurance plan.

I'm sure this "experiment" with peoples' health will end well. I would move to a democratic state if I were on Medicaid.

 

[NewYorkDoctors]

Individual mandate is unconstitutional... the supreme court called it a "tax..." thus bypassing the issue.

Moreover, this rationing of health care will be a burden on health results.


What's my solution?

Stop the neocon and neoliberal policy of military misadventure, imperialism, money inflation...

put that money into domestic issues

 

[Dave89]

Individual mandate is unconstitutional... the supreme court called it a "tax..." thus bypassing the issue.

Moreover, this rationing of health care will be a burden on health results.


What's my solution?

Stop the neocon and neoliberal policy of military misadventure, imperialism, money inflation...

put that money into domestic issues

Except the "domestic issues" are the ones costing ever more money and bankrupting the country. If you look at the budget, defense/military is not what stands out as the real problem.

 

[pseudosquam]

http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/

Except the "domestic issues" are the ones costing ever more money and bankrupting the country. If you look at the budget, defense/military is not what stands out as the real problem.

 

[deleted103644]

Except the "domestic issues" are the ones costing ever more money and bankrupting the country. If you look at the budget, defense/military is not what stands out as the real problem.

20% of the federal budget seems pretty excessive to me.

 

[STAT EKG]

Can you explain what you mean by this?

Yeah, I was pretty vague there. This is a pretty simplistic explanation because I'm admittedly not as well-versed in this stuff as some people, but here goes:

I meant that the way the tax brackets are set up now, it groups lots of non-rich people with rich people, then the non-rich people vote for pro-rich things as if they were rich, but they're not rich and it doesn't help them at at all

So you have these working professionals (Doctors, lawyers, dentists, engineers, etc) who make upper-middle class earnings voting for this pro-rich tax structure that's not at all in their interest. It's silly to clump Joe Engineer and his family into a tax bracket that's similar to Baron von Moneybags, III (and actually capital gains is taxed at a much lower rate than Joe Engineer's earnings).

So I wonder how much the political climate would change if working class professionals weren't getting disproportionately tax-leeched relative to the actual wealthy.


There's pretty obviously a lot of incentive NOT to change this though...

 

[deleted103644]

Yeah, I was pretty vague there. This is a pretty simplistic explanation because I'm admittedly not as well-versed in this stuff as some people, but here goes:

I meant that the way the tax brackets are set up now, it groups lots of non-rich people with rich people, then the non-rich people vote for pro-rich things as if they were rich, but they're not rich and it doesn't help them at at all

So you have these working professionals (Doctors, lawyers, dentists, engineers, etc) who make upper-middle class earnings voting for this pro-rich tax structure that's not at all in their interest. It's silly to clump Joe Engineer and his family into a tax bracket that's similar to Baron von Moneybags, III (and actually capital gains is taxed at a much lower rate than Joe Engineer's earnings).

So I wonder how much the political climate would change if working class professionals weren't getting disproportionately tax-leeched relative to the actual wealthy.


There's pretty obviously a lot of incentive NOT to change this though...

Precisely.

 

[DOC PENGUIN]

For the sake of substance, I'm curious as to what you don't like about the healthcare law and what Romney/Ryan propose regarding healthcare that you do like. Be specific and don't use any Fox News mad gab words.

I am against government in health in general. Well, the if we got rid of the NIH, Shrunk the FDA and Shrunk the USDA it be nice. Get rid of the department of health and human services, Education, Transportation, internal affairs and veterans affairs. Ron Paul would do MUCH MORE than the Ryan Plan and yet nobody hates it. It cuts a trillion dollars in its first year. It does not even touch Medicare and social security.Why does nobody talk about Ron Paul Here.

How good did medicare turn out, you might say it turned out well, i say it was a complete and utter joke.It just created more bureaucracy, more entitlement and more government and Jacked up the prices. Most of healthcare is now on the massive sweet teat of the government. If inefficiency could be defeated with more government programs, grants, funds you name anything, then my argument partially falls flat. Has anybody noticed that buying health insurance from your employer was part of the problem. non-catastrophic Health Insurance a problem. American patients see the doctor more than most. The latest drugs are usually made here. The pharmaceutical companies are making a profit HERE (aside from our high corporate taxes/ the highest of all OECD nations. I think it should be ZERO.) In the 50s, it was all made in Europe, all the innovation was in europe. half of the innovation is here. Think about what we could do, if we cut back on the bureaucracy and left things to the Private charities and private organizations. Last time i checked, the AMA was private. And no i get my garbage from CNN, WSJ, NYTIMES. But i love Libertarian sites like the daily paul, Ron Paul Forums, Mises institute and sometimes CATO. Tom Woods.com is pretty good.

 

[DOC PENGUIN]

Yeah, I was pretty vague there. This is a pretty simplistic explanation because I'm admittedly not as well-versed in this stuff as some people, but here goes:

I meant that the way the tax brackets are set up now, it groups lots of non-rich people with rich people, then the non-rich people vote for pro-rich things as if they were rich, but they're not rich and it doesn't help them at at all

So you have these working professionals (Doctors, lawyers, dentists, engineers, etc) who make upper-middle class earnings voting for this pro-rich tax structure that's not at all in their interest. It's silly to clump Joe Engineer and his family into a tax bracket that's similar to Baron von Moneybags, III (and actually capital gains is taxed at a much lower rate than Joe Engineer's earnings).

So I wonder how much the political climate would change if working class professionals weren't getting disproportionately tax-leeched relative to the actual wealthy.


There's pretty obviously a lot of incentive NOT to change this though...

Heres a radical idea. GET RID OF THE INCOME TAX! We did not have one before 1913 and only had a hiccup from 1862-65 and 68-70. America could put either a non-protectionate tariff or internally tax liquor, tobacco and other small items. Besides we could also get rid of Accounts Receivable Tax

Building Permit Tax

Capital Gains Tax

CDL license Tax

Cigarette Tax

Corporate Income Tax

Court Fines (indirect taxes)

Dog License Tax

Federal Income Tax

Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)

Fishing License Tax

Food License Tax

Fuel permit tax

Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)

Hunting License Tax

Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)

Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)

IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)

Liquor Tax

Local Income Tax

Luxury Taxes

Marriage License Tax

Medicare Tax

Property Tax

Real Estate Tax

Septic Permit Tax

Service Charge Taxes

Social Security Tax

Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)

Sales Taxes

Recreational Vehicle Tax

Road Toll Booth Taxes

School Tax

State Income Tax

State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)

Telephone federal excise tax

Telephone federal universal service fee tax

Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes

Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax

Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax

Telephone state and local tax

Telephone usage charge tax

Toll Bridge Taxes

Toll Tunnel Taxes

Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)

Trailer registration tax

Utility Taxes

Vehicle License Registration Tax

Vehicle Sales Tax

Watercraft registration Tax

Well Permit Tax

Workers Compensation Tax

in 1913, we were the largest economy and very prosperous with boom bust cycles being small. Most of these did not exist. Now we tax a hella lot more and our economy is the weakest in the world.

 

[DOC PENGUIN]

20% of the federal budget seems pretty excessive to me.

I would say 71%

 

[Gut Shot]

This isn't just Friedman though, pretty much every economist will agree with this. (If Krugman's talked about it, I'm sure he does.)

Krugman actually took issue with the notion that cutting the minimum wage would increase employment. If Krugman is correct he undercuts Friedman's argument.

Imagine a massive increase in the minimum wage and what its effects would be. People would not be hired/would be fired.

Imagine a lever so massive that it could raise the Earth. I grasp the standard concept, but I question the utility of the model in the real world.

 

[Gut Shot]

I am against government in health in general. Well, the if we got rid of the NIH, Shrunk the FDA and Shrunk the USDA it be nice. Get rid of the department of health and human services, Education, Transportation, internal affairs and veterans affairs. Ron Paul would do MUCH MORE than the Ryan Plan and yet nobody hates it. It cuts a trillion dollars in its first year. It does not even touch Medicare and social security.Why does nobody talk about Ron Paul Here.

Because he peddles simplistic solutions from the fringe that have no chance of ever being tested. He's got a nice little cult following though, made up predominantly of young white males who are looking for easy answers. Not a bad gig, if you can get it.

 

[deleted103644]

Krugman actually took issue with the notion that cutting the minimum wage would increase employment. If Krugman is correct he undercuts Friedman's argument.



Imagine a lever so massive that it could raise the Earth. I grasp the standard concept, but I question the utility of the model in the real world.

Hm, Krugman focuses on the effect of cutting everyone's salary, not just the minimum wage, and specifically in a liquidity crisis.

In that case, reducing wages reduces demand (what you actually need to increase), so there's no net benefit.

On the macro level I agree with him for across the board wage cuts, but on the micro level I don't think that's still true. I also am not sure a minimum wage cut acts to reduce all salaries, or even salaries for those currently paying minimum wage. Companies are generally loathe to cut salaries even when it makes financial sense, since the overall hit to morale is much lower than firing a few people and keeping wages constant. It would just reduce salaries for the new people.

I don't think it would cause a huge surge in employment, but without a better explanation than what I've found so far, I think I disagree with Krugman here. (Rare for me.)

I'm not saying lowering the minimum wage is a good idea, but I still think it can increase employment in certain situations. (Possibly not a liquidity crisis.)

 

[DOC PENGUIN]

Because he peddles simplistic solutions from the fringe that have no chance of ever being tested. He's got a nice little cult following though, made up predominantly of young white males who are looking for easy answers. Not a bad gig, if you can get it.

Dear Gut Shot, I live in New York City, and it is BAD. Bureaucracy flows throughout the hospital system, water system, subway. What ironic is that the people that claim to support bureaucracy go to privates, drink "purified" water from a water store and take cabs. I am aware that his solutions Sound Simplistic because of his really young stupid supporters. And i don't know where you get the claim that he only has young white male supporters. He also has people of all stripes and majority of the veterans support him (receiving majority of the donations.) , .I recommend you skim 4 books from him, Hemingway he is not. The Revolution was a NYT bestseller it outlines america, and how it strained from the constitution and other values of the old nation, it introduced a lot of people to ron paul and his eloquence in writing. Many people compare him to that dick Gary Taubes, the difference is the prose and ideas that flow well and are veyr genuine. I also recommend END THE FED, which is weak compared to G Edward Griffin's The Creature From Jekyll Island. However, it does a good job highlighting the reasons for Ending the private corporation known as the Federal Reserve. I recommend the former if you have no time, the latter if you want to know EVERYTHING WRONG with the fed. The third one would Liberty Defined. This goes into his personal stances on Abortion, Zionism, Healthcare and other issues, after reading it, you will know why Ron Paul is Ron Paul.The last one would be A Foreign Policy of Freedom. It is a collection of his essays, speeches and positions written during his tenor on the Foreign Policy Committee. He has been a congressman for 20 years. I am not trying to convert you, but skimming through these books will let you peer into the mind of Ron Paul and the culmination of his ideas. I disagree on him wiht some issues, but the underlying motive is liberty.

 

[DOC PENGUIN]

Except the "domestic issues" are the ones costing ever more money and bankrupting the country. If you look at the budget, defense/military is not what stands out as the real problem.

Au contrair our adventures around the world are lacking fiscal sanity.

 

[Gut Shot]

Hm, Krugman focuses on the effect of cutting everyone's salary, not just the minimum wage, and specifically in a liquidity crisis.

In that case, reducing wages reduces demand (what you actually need to increase), so there's no net benefit.

On the macro level I agree with him for across the board wage cuts, but on the micro level I don't think that's still true. I also am not sure a minimum wage cut acts to reduce all salaries, or even salaries for those currently paying minimum wage. Companies are generally loathe to cut salaries even when it makes financial sense, since the overall hit to morale is much lower than firing a few people and keeping wages constant. It would just reduce salaries for the new people.

I don't think it would cause a huge surge in employment, but without a better explanation than what I've found so far, I think I disagree with Krugman here. (Rare for me.)

I'm not saying lowering the minimum wage is a good idea, but I still think it can increase employment in certain situations. (Possibly not a liquidity crisis.)

But do you think the minimum wage hurts poor urban blacks?

 

[circulus vitios]

Heres a radical idea. GET RID OF THE INCOME TAX! We did not have one before 1913 and only had a hiccup from 1862-65 and 68-70. America could put either a non-protectionate tariff or internally tax liquor, tobacco and other small items. Besides we could also get rid of Accounts Receivable Tax

This is literally one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of. You remind me of a Ron Paul nutjob.

edit: Oh god, you are a Ron Paul nutjob.

 

[Gut Shot]

Dear Gut Shot, I live in New York City, and it is BAD. Bureaucracy flows throughout the hospital system, water system, subway. What ironic is that the people that claim to support bureaucracy go to privates, drink "purified" water from a water store and take cabs. I am aware that his solutions Sound Simplistic because of his really young stupid supporters. And i don't know where you get the claim that he only has young white male supporters.

Look up the word "predominantly."

He also has people of all stripes and majority of the veterans support him (receiving majority of the donations.) , .I recommend you skim 4 books from him, Hemingway he is not. The Revolution was a NYT bestseller it outlines america, and how it strained from the constitution and other values of the old nation, it introduced a lot of people to ron paul and his eloquence in writing. Many people compare him to that dick Gary Taubes, the difference is the prose and ideas that flow well and are veyr genuine. I also recommend END THE FED, which is weak compared to G Edward Griffin's The Creature From Jekyll Island. However, it does a good job highlighting the reasons for Ending the private corporation known as the Federal Reserve. I recommend the former if you have no time, the latter if you want to know EVERYTHING WRONG with the fed. The third one would Liberty Defined. This goes into his personal stances on Abortion, Zionism, Healthcare and other issues, after reading it, you will know why Ron Paul is Ron Paul.The last one would be A Foreign Policy of Freedom. It is a collection of his essays, speeches and positions written during his tenor on the Foreign Policy Committee. He has been a congressman for 20 years. I am not trying to convert you, but skimming through these books will let you peer into the mind of Ron Paul and the culmination of his ideas. I disagree on him wiht some issues, but the underlying motive is liberty.

As of December 26 of last year, Ron Paul has sponsored 620 measures in the House. Four have received votes. One has been signed into law. It allowed for the sale of a piece of property to the Galveston Historical Society in 2009. You can get behind the Quixotic Representative from the 14th district if you wish. I prefer to support people who are not living embodiments of futility.

 

[deleted103644]

But do you think the minimum wage hurts poor urban blacks?

??

No, I just think it makes unemployment go up by a trivial amount.

 

[deleted103644]

Dear Gut Shot, I live in New York City, and it is BAD. Bureaucracy flows throughout the hospital system, water system, subway. What ironic is that the people that claim to support bureaucracy go to privates, drink "purified" water from a water store and take cabs.

WTF are you talking about?

All hospitals are bureaucracies. Even the private ones.

And NYC tap water is good.

And taxis are incredibly regulated.

 

[circulus vitios]

wtf are you talking about?

All hospitals are bureaucracies. Even the private ones.

And nyc tap water is good.

And taxis are incredibly regulated.

Ron Paul, man. End the fed! Legalize it! State's rights! Woooo!

 

[Gut Shot]

??

No, I just think it makes unemployment go up by a trivial amount.

Recall what got this entire tangent going.

 

[DOC PENGUIN]

This is literally one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of. You remind me of a Ron Paul nutjob.

edit: Oh god, you are a Ron Paul nutjob.

Huh, I AM NOT A PAUL BOT! When i first heard of him, i thought he was a kook. i was actually supporter Hillary Clinton in 2008 and I loved Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich. I then read some books like Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, Ron Paul's end the fed and The Creature From Jekyll Island. I also read some Rothbard, Mises and Hayek. I even delved into the devils den and read some Kirk and Burke. I also read T.S Eliot, Richard Yates, F Scott Fitzgerald and Hemingway. I then formulated my "twisted" sense of downsizing government and realized that as long as your not hurting anybody, do whatever you want. Gay Marry, Eat your dog, play video games everyday. (Of course i would like the government OUT of marriage, and would get rid of the benefits for couples.) This and all realizing that Government Meddling sucks. I am in the process of interviewing a couple of Physicians on Bureaucracy.

 

[deleted103644]

Recall what got this entire tangent going.

You said raising the minimum wage doesn't increase unemployment. I disagreed.

 

[Dave89]

Au contrair our adventures around the world are lacking fiscal sanity.

Agreed. So what? That doesn't mean the key to solving our budget problems is cutting defense. It's a small slice of the pie, and one of the few that are warranted in the first place.

 

[DOC PENGUIN]

WTF are you talking about?

All hospitals are bureaucracies. Even the private ones.

And NYC tap water is good.

And taxis are incredibly regulated.

Yes. Not ALL, some are better run than others. Public hospitals in New York City (i assume you live here,too maybe we could meet up.) are not as "good" or "bad" as some like to believe. In some cases, government healthcare in America is slightly better run than in Canada. With HEAVY emphasis on SLIGHTLY. In Canada, especially in Ontario and Quebec, more private clinics and Surgical are popping up. Going back, to the start public hospitals aren't generally better than Private ones. Most middle class people would like to be treated at NY presbyterian /Weill Cornell or NYU/Langone rather than say Level 1 trauma Kings County Hospital Center. While Gov hospitals In NYC are Good, they aren't the care of choice for most of the upper middle class people in gentrified Manhattan and Brooklyn. I used to live in the Upper West Side, and when you copare it to what it used to be and what it is now: the good generally outways the VERY BAD. While, Private hospitals are also bureaucracies, the privates tend to do better. Probably with better charitable dollars or good doctors. I know a couple of doctors there, including the former head of psych (he is a libertarian for some reason.)

To you and me yes, but a lot of people usually drink bottled water.
http://live.wsj.com/video/new-york-city-tap-water-for-sale/324EF047-FD18-42DF-A9EA-A0A12E753F0C.html

This is why, those people are hypocrites. Then again, he does not cites it. So, You WIN. Damn, i should think before i type. I have ASD, and i don;t usually use that for an excuse.

And that is partly the reason. A total privatized public transportation is possible, even if there is no city board. Washington D.C's taxi system is mostly privatized (soon to change) and London's Railway system is also mostly privatized (maybe wrong.) In 1928, you could just write TAXI on a car, now there is a whole Bureaucracy

On an unrelated note, part of the reason why healthcare is expensive in the united states is because of insurance. Others include government meddling and the dirty word called "profit." (just were on the same page (Revenue-Expenses=Profit.) I think people should get EMERGENCY insurance where they will pay for your emergency (schiezophrenia, cancer, surgery) but leave the mild- mild moderate to your own cost by tax free H.S.A and high deductible HSA. Better yet, I think the state should mandating what should on insurance and pick and choose what goes in (i don't want yoga, but i do like psychotherapy.) What is surprising is that the AMA is encouraging none of these things. These could start saving us money. The market, while not omnipotent all the time, is a better manager than government.

 

[DOC PENGUIN]

Agreed. So what? That doesn't mean the key to solving our budget problems is cutting defense. It's a small slice of the pie, and one of the few that are warranted in the first place.

Well, We don't need bases in Germany, Japan, Canada, Argentina, blah blah blah. We also don't need to be in NATO or the UN. We leech off these countries and they leech off of us. OECD has had some of our tax dollars in their budget and we take a lot of other nations tax dollars. IMO, i think citizens should be called Taxpayers.

 

[DOC PENGUIN]

Not to mention the last Republican President that was fiscally conservative was ****ing Herbert Hoover.

WRONG! Calvin Coolidge. Herbert Hoover started all the new deal principles, some of the programs, mentality and blueprint of the New Deal! Many people think Hoover was a do nothing president, they are so very wrong. Rexford Tugwell remarked that most of FDR's ideas stemed from Hoover. If i am wrong, i blame Tom Wood's Liberty Classroom for giving me the wrong answer as i paid 99 dollars for dat ****.

 

[Dave89]

WRONG! Calvin Coolidge. Herbert Hoover started all the new deal principles, some of the programs, mentality and blueprint of the New Deal! Many people think Hoover was a do nothing president, they are so very wrong. Rexford Tugwell remarked that most of FDR's ideas stemed from Hoover. If i am wrong, i blame Tom Wood's Liberty Classroom for giving me the wrong answer as i paid 99 dollars for dat ****.

Tom Woods is a jerk. You can do better than that

 

[pseudosquam]

So far I'm the only guy who has provided any sort of data in this fiscal debate. Please, before reading the rest of my post scroll down and read the charts....


Note that there are not many places to make large cuts. The largest three slices of the national debt are popular entitlements and defense. The "welfare queens" are small potatoes. Additionally, look at how large of a portion income tax makes up of governments revenue. It seems to me that both cutting taxes and cutting back on entitlements is not possible (for fiscal and political reasons). All we can do is make marginal cuts to them (maybe),slow their growth, and not reduce taxes. What candidate do you think will do that best?

http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/

 

[Gut Shot]

You said raising the minimum wage doesn't increase unemployment.

No. Go back and read post #255. Three posts later I asked for data to support Friedman's assertion. I haven't made any claims regarding the relationship of the minimum wage to unemployment, I have been asking for evidence.

 

[Gut Shot]

You probably wouldn't be able to ride the subway without getting TB if it weren't for the HHC.

Hey, I support liberty for mycobacteria!