magekillr

Some Christian you are. Do you even know what you're talking about? You try and get around without a phone in the present day, dude. Let's see how long you last, and I'll even let you live in your current state of luxury (though you can't borrow others' phones). It's so nice that you want to return to the days of the Gilded Age, but those of us who want to move beyond the 19th century are moving forward. You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And heavily subsidized or free shelter, free health-care, free food, free cell-phone. You have a right to remain in "poverty" for the rest of your life (which is better off than 80-90% of the world's population), and be a perpetual bum. Oh, and magekillr - How does not wanting big government make you less of a Christian? Can you back that up with scripture? There's absolutely no way you're a real person. You're an example of Poe's Law. Well, part of me wants to think that, but after seeing this guy tell someone with Parkinson's Disease at a Tea Party rally "no free handouts" and handing him a dollar bill, I think you could be real, and you're a despicable person: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ik4f1dRbP8 If you support Republicans, you want big government just as much as I do. Your definition is just different than mine. Mine keeps out of people's private lives; yours invades people's bedrooms, what they want to do to their bodies, suicide, euthanasia, abortion, gay marriage, spying on people, allowing the government to tap your lines, read your emails, imprison you without charge in the name of terrorism, assassinate you without due process and expand the military to levels of Latin America and Africa. In other words, you'd welcome tyranny and a dictatorial government so long as your tax rate was 0%. Your rhetorical tricks are of no use here, friend. Are you going to use more buzz words next time that are spoon-fed to you by Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh? You didn't even mention the Kenyan that's in office!

Yeah, this. Oh, you know what else fails? US poverty on track to post record gain in 2009 That's what happens when the rich-poor gap approaches that of Banana Republics'. Some Christian you are. Do you even know what you're talking about? You try and get around without a phone in the present day, dude. Let's see how long you last, and I'll even let you live in your current state of luxury (though you can't borrow others' phones). It's so nice that you want to return to the days of the Gilded Age, but those of us who want to move beyond the 19th century are moving forward.

Gun control in general: I support it. There's no reason not to, really. Countries such as Pakistan/India: Gun control makes little to no sense. Europe's gun laws: Mainly successful because of their culture. America: America is an outlier because our citizens are, frankly, trigger-friendly nuts when it comes to guns. So gun control only works as well as the culture will allow. While I think national gun control laws would reduce crime, they'd hardly do what I want them to do, which is to change our citizenry's views of them. To combat this I argue for more education rather than gun control. So, basically, in America, I'd probably get like a C+ rating from the NRA or something, maybe even a B, and I hate guns. I've fired them plenty of times, but I could never use one in "self-defense." There's no chance in hell I could shoot a living thing, let alone a human.

America isn't that politically diverse, you have a right wing which lurches further to the right every year and a centrist party which is also drifting to the right. I wouldn't say that is too diverse. I agree whole-heartedly with your last point though, they're just playing the game and they'll go out of their way to disagree over anything. Democrats are drifting to the right? Yeah...right. I Wonder why gay marriage is legal in some states and the president is pushing for public healthcare? He's not pushing for public health care. If he is, where is my public option? I'm forced to purchase private insurance without many cost control measures in place. This is not public health care. Moreover, as 1_man_army points out, this plan is a right-wing health care bill. The only way you could make it more right-wing is instead of mandatory health insurance you had mandatory health savings accounts. The only other option is to just accept that health care isn't a right, and deny people care; which clearly isn't true. We would have single payer if Roosevelt pushed for it, but he didn't (where do you think Britain and other European countries got their idea? Eleanor Roosevelt). Truman took up the torch and pushed for it, and the AMA denounced it as socialism and the integration of hospitals would prove too difficult. The next person to try was LBJ, and he got single payer passed for seniors; he got a bungled up program to help poor people (Medicaid) which has proven less effective than Medicare because each state does it its own way. Nixon tried, and Ted Kennedy pushed single payer instead and called Nixon's plan a corporate bailout; their differences wouldn't be reconciled as Kennedy knew he could get his plan through with a Democratic president. He miscalculated. Then you have Bill Clinton, whose plan was more to the right than Nixon's. It failed, and the Republicans' plan then which was written by the Heritage Foundation would then be signed into law by Barack Obama. Although Obama's has more regulations in it, and didn't address tort law. Read some history to understand 1_man_army's point. The parties in this country have lurched so far to the right, and one of them is so fringy that most of my European friends just don't understand how they're even a viable party. The reason this is the case is because of the Southern Strategy of pitting poor whites against minorities and focusing on their inner monsters. You'll notice that there used to be liberal Republicans (there already are conservative Democrats). What happened to them? The racist Democrats flipped to Republican after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, starting with Strom Thurman. The rest would later follow, as the Democrats quickly lost the South. As time went on, the parties became more ideologically rigid, although the rigidity of the Republicans remained far too much for most independents. This is why the parties are literally black and white (by their platform, not necessarily their members). The Southern Strategy started to lose its umph, so to re-energize it, Ronald Reagan got the Religious Right to become a major political faction. Now instead of blacks being the problem--although they still were, as he used racist dog whistles to refer to people on welfare as Cadillac Welfare Queens--they had a new group to hate: Catholics and gay people. Now the RR has taken over the party for the most part, and they've adopted the "limited government" stuff from the early elements of racism from whence the Southern Strategy developed. This is why they're opposed to taxes for any social program, love the military, love their form of "big government," hate science and climate change, and love authoritarian figures. See Lee A[bleep]er: If Barack Obama governed the way he's governing in America in say, Britain? He'd be a Tory, through and through, although probably to the left of David Cameron. In Germany he'd be to the right of Angela Merkel. I know the response to that is "America is a center-right nation," but we're not. If you ask people about each issue, we'd be a center-left nation. Probably to the left of Britain, but to the right of most Western Europe. There's just too many reactionaries here who love Medicare and the VA yet denounce socialism.

Winning hearts and minds! US soldiers 'killed Afghan civilians for sport and collected fingers as trophies'

I'm tired of the back and forth because it's obviously not going anywhere, but I'll leave with this article (I thought private insurance was so efficient): Health Insurer Faces $9.9 Billion In Fines Single payer wins for health care, cost controls on university help with keeping college affordable, both should be free or affordable for your average everyday person. Period. And you're not going to see me argue for cost controls on many things (especially not rent or something); health care and education are another story. Here's a good thing about taking out loans for college, though: The Kids Aren't Alright: The Policymaking of Student Loan Debt Student loans, of course, help students pay for college. But they don’t help students pay for college very easily. As Bowdish puts it, the 18 million university students “all assume—by and large correctly—that the benefits they will receive from attending college, be they economic, social, or cultural, will outweigh the costs.” The problem, however, is that the cost is now borne by students over 20 or 30 years. Is it “worth it”? Well sure it is. But students, and the country, would be a lot better off if no one needed to make that sort of calculation (just like every other developed country).

Here's what real family values are about: The bliss of an 18-month, paid, Swedish paternity leave.

Orly? What changed between November 2008 and January 2009: http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/mccain-flip-flopper He flipped on immigration, gun control, DADT, climate change, and a myriad of other issues, and all you have to explain it is "the times and economy change...in a mere few months!" Please, don't tell me you're that naive and petty. Pols are pols and they do what they do. The Republicans--and Democrats--flip on issues if it's in their political interest; in this case it's less of a flip and more of a "prevent Democrats from doing anything unless it's word for word our agenda...and even then prevent them!" Harry Reid in 1993 opposed jus soli citizenship, and now he's calling Sharron Angle insane for opposing it in the present. If by "times change" you mean "far right-wing nutjobs will throw me out if I continue supporting this," then yes, times certainly do change. In this case, the Tea Party is literally throwing out every single incumbent if they work to pass legislation, any legislation. They did it to Bob Bennet for crying out loud. Bob Bennet...of Utah (not exactly a moderate state to begin with). Anyway, no significant benefit? Dude, are you a global warming denier, too? Also, from just today, as I'm sure you're aware of as you're supposedly in the hallways of Congress. For it before they were against it: http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2010/h/375 So if they're against all of this stuff, and you said "they just have their own ideas," what are those ideas? All I hear is "extend Bush's tax cuts." "Tax cuts." "Tax cuts for the rich!" Oh yes, the defenders of small businesses and tax cuts....oppose the measure in unified opposition. BUT THE TIMES ARE DIFFERENT!!!11!!! Please. I never claimed otherwise. You said austerity might be necessary. They're stealing the poor's Social Security income to pay for their federal tax cuts; this is what is typically known as stealing from the poor to give to the rich. They paid into SS, they deserve their money without cuts. You might want to add a qualifier to "no income tax," namely "no FEDERAL income tax." (most of which goes to defense, which overwhelmingly favors the rich..as Medicare and SS have their own taxes). New drugs that they can profit from aren't medical breakthroughs. Moreover, they would not fund it themselves because basic R&D is never funded by private enterprises because there is no profit motive; ie, the chances of actually discovering something to make up for their losses are quite low. Product development medical research tends to concentrate in countries, which have elaborate systems for regulating medical products, like pharmaceuticals. The U.S. has the world's strongest pharmaceutical industry because of the FDA. I'm not convinced the case has been made that it is the difference in health care systems that has caused the agglomeration of research facilities in the U.S. Even if the U.S. were a single-payer system, drug companies, etc. would still do research and it is likely that much of it would be carried out in the U.S. just as it is now. In addition, as noted in Tyler Cowen's article below--just as I said--much of the research that is done here is funded directly or indirectly by the government: Poor U.S. Scores in Health Care Don’t Measure Nobels and Innovation Tyler's making your point, but disagreeing with the funding from the government part of it. He's also a libertarian economist. If demand for your product is inelastic, what should you do with your price? For example, suppose right now you're charging $2. If your sole goal is profit, should you raise your price, keep it the same, or lower it? The answer is you should raise it. This is why Canada, France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Singapore, Australia, South Korea, Britain, Ireland, Finland, Norway, Denmark, and Japan all pay less for the same god damn drugs that we sell here. If you seriously think we can sustain this graph without price controls on drugs and medical procedures, then you're delusional (although the red line is thanks to the [cabbage]ty health care reform bill). It is the only way possible unless Medicare is scrapped completely; and before Medicare, a good percentage of seniors were living in poverty. Far more lives will be saved through my methods than yours, so if your goal is to save lives, you should abandon your position. Unless of course you have some idea to reform health care that works; I've heard two solutions from your side, which is "interstate competition" (which will do nothing if not increase the prices due to racing to the bottom) or tort reform (enacted in 38 states already). Other libertarian ideas involve absolving the FDA to avoid that icky costly drug approval process; getting rid of insurance completely except for live saving measures such as surgery (even though people are already struggling to make co-payments and health care is inelastic); getting rid of certifications for some professions (I'm sympathetic to this idea, but not their solution. Doctors do have a guild called the AMA which makes it expensive to become a doctor, so reforming this could prove worthwhile); health savings accounts (wouldn't mind it if and only if there was a government fall back like in Singapore). The health care sector is different than almost any other market. Another that's particularly different when it comes to these things is the finance industry, although I haven't yet heard a plausible explanation as to why that's the case. Yes they are, which is why their overhead costs are cheaper. If your priority was efficiency, you would support Singapore's model (and a lot of libertarians do). Or, the Veteran's Administration, which gets better bang for its buck than Medicare (and it can negotiate drugs and set prices...). Depends how you define afford. It's not cheap by any stretch, dude. Your white privilege is speaking again. Define cheap. I could afford $15,000 per year, but I could only do it because my family had good credit and I was able to take out a private loan. Now, what would have I been able to do if my family didn't have good credit, or if I had no one who was willing to cosign a loan? That's a problem for a lot of poor and middle class families. They'd be SOL. You can only get half of that money from the federal government in your senior and junior years, and a lot less your freshmen and sophomore years. Of course it's never "free," but it's providing them with a net-plus for the economy with a highly educated workforce. Something we could learn from. GDP will measure final expenditure on produced goods and services, or final income earned by all economic actors, or value added at each stage of production. Taking it from the expenditure perspective, the tuition wouldn't be counted, but what the tuition is spent on ultimately (classes taught, books bought for the library, electricians fixing the god damned lights in the god damned union) will be. And all that happens at both Humboldt and NYU. Alternatively, they *could* count tuition as consumption or investment expenditure - however, assuming it costs the same amount to run Humboldt as NYU, higher government spending on education in Germany would mean the a national income identity adds up to the same GDP but with different distribution among its components.

And how could I possibly forget Gail Collins and her indulging idiocy: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/what-the-tea-party-really-wants/?ref=opinion

Removed quote ~ Jimmy_Jim NYT isn't really liberal. They won't even use the word torture when talking about Bush's torture program. Which reporters who write for them are liberal? Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert, and Frank Rich. That's it. David Brooks, Ross Douthat, Tom Friedman, Roger Cohen and Charles Blow are all conservative. It's not about really conservative and really liberal, my friend. It's about truth vs. lies. Fox News isn't news. They actively lie, distort facts, and peddle falsehoods. They are an arm of the Republican party. What is the point of news? To educate. Fox Viewers are the least knowledgeable, by far, and there's a reason for that: Fox lies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqS7jK6E6h8 My parents are far-right Evangelical Christians who believe in a world wide flood, vaccines cause autism, evolution isn't true, gay people are the end of society, and the universe is 6,000 years old. And weed doesn't kill brain cells.

I wouldn't change it, but it's your risk of infection. If it's a low enough risk, then do it I guess, but I personally wouldn't. After any piercings I've had, I didn't change them for a long long time.

Please tell me you're joking. Not that I like the NYT; most US media is a bunch of [cabbage]. But seriously? If you have this view, then there's really no helping you, man. The NY Times, the LA Times, and the Washington Post are the only newspapers left in America worth posting from their news section. Al Jazeera and the BBC are significantly better than any US source. As I told someone around here earlier: there is no left equivalent to what the right wing is today.

Well before the Great Depression, there was no real regulation on the financial sector. There was no real macroeconomic theory, either. Economics was just a budding discipline then, with Hayek and Keynes battling it out. Hayek had the consensus of what to do in times of recession back then: raise taxes and balance the budget. This is what Hoover did. Woops. Not only did it make it worse, but it made the debt/deficit worse (something like 299% debt-gdp ratio). Why? Because there is no growth. This is why austerity is stupid as hell. You stifle growth, you lose a lot of tax revenue and your economy doesn't grow faster than the debt. It's counterintuitive, I know. From 1929 to 1933, everyone was trying to pay down debt — and the debt/GDP ratio skyrocketed thanks to contraction and deflation. During and immediately after WWII, there was massive borrowing — but GDP grew faster than debt, and the debt burden ended up falling. Plus, we were on the gold standard back then. And the gold standard is the stupidest idea ever.

We didn't pass government health care. We passed a Republican plan from 1994. Most of it also doesn't go into effect until 2014. Talking about page numbers is such an old and pointless talking point. Not really. See, that's the problem with the GOP: they have been purged of any moderate or liberal Republicans, and now there are only the far-right. Not even Bob Bennet was far enough to the right for your reactionary [wagon]. The Democrats, on the other hand, have like a bunch of pro-lifers, a bunch of corporate Blue Dogs, and a larger tent. And it's because you purged them all into the Democratic party, moving the Democratic party to the right. So half of our members would have been Republicans like...20-30 years ago. And again, not really. They're upset about the economy, not really about anything Obama's passed. You're such a hack. If this was 1994 and it were the GOP who passed it, you'd be praising this health care bill. That's the difference between you and I: I thought the bill was [cabbage] because it was a Republican, conservative health care bill written by the Heritage Foundation. However, if it was all that could be done to help the 38,000,000 without insurance, then I had no choice but to get behind it. I criticize my leaders, I criticize Obama everyday. You defy your politicians and treat them like gods. Perhaps it's a winning strategy, but a government not criticized when your team is in power is exactly why Bush doubled the debt, led us into two wars, left Katrina flooded, and dropped a financial crisis on us. Your post actually tries to feel bad for rich people; the people who brought us into this crisis, and the people who are making more money today than they were in 2008 and 2009. Meanwhile, 10% of America is unemployed (far higher than that, too). This is what you're defending: So please, spare your "oh the poor widdle rich people are paying taxes while someone making $25,000 doesn't pay ANYTHING!!! Waaaahhh waaahhh!!!" People are poorer today than they were in 1999. The rich pay lower percentage in taxes than your average American because of deductions and loopholes. edit, and then there's this research: Income Inequality and Financial Crises

Monday: I wake up at 9:00, prepare my meals for the day, go to class at 12:20. I then do my leg workout from 1:15 to 2:20. Class at 2:30. Back to the gym for biceps, triceps and shoulders at 4:00. I don't have enough time in the 1:15-2:20 to finish my legs, so I finish my legs at the other gym after 4:00. Usually I work out from 4:00-6:00. So in total, three hours on Monday. Tuesday: I wake up at 7:00, prepare my meals, go to the gym at 8:00. I go to class at 11:00, and I'm in class until 6:15. Around 2.5 hours total. Wednesday: Same as Monday. Thursday: Same as Tuesday. Friday: Same as Monday, but after my 12:20 I do my full workout because I don't have class until 4. Saturday: Same as Tuesday, although no class, so just workout. Sunday: I relax. So around 17 hours per week. Plus I don't have a car and I walk everywhere. So add that in if you want, totaling 22 or so hours per week.

To add insult to injury, this press-release just came out today: U.S. employers push increase in cost of healthcare onto workers

Are you saying you hate the tea party? Anyway, I wasn't implying you were a tea party member, just that what you're articulating is what I hear from a lot of them; not from their words, but just their anger. They can't articulate why they're angry. And a lot of what they say is resonated in Webb's Op-ed. This is still wrong, though, especially if you're independent. See here: How much can I borrow under a Stafford Loan? Pre-college schooling in America isn't bad, it depends on your region. New Jersey's public schools--overall--can compete with South Korean schools. Same with Massachusetts. Mississippi's schools, however, can't even compete with Mexico. The problem isn't just funding, but it's a lack of parental involvement. It's also part funding, though, as the two are linked. You see, education is funded by property taxes; this is why I laugh at people who say undocumented workers don't pay taxes to send their kids to school. So if you're in a better, more-educated area, the property taxes are higher and the schools are properly funded, and the parents are more likely than not to be involved with their child's education. Schools in the ghetto, however, are both poorly funded because people are poor, but also because both parents need to work to make ends-meet (or because there is not two parents, there's only one). College education, America has the best. However, this is the same thing as health care: ok, we have the best, but do we get the most out of our dollars? The answer is no. Private colleges are sapping the hell out of federally guaranteed loans, increasing demand and thus increasing price. In fact, public college tuition has been rising fairly slowly, whereas private has skyrocketed. Something needs to be done about this, I don't know exactly what, as education is the area I know the least about. If Germany can provide world-class education for free (you just have to pay for your rent I think), then I see no reason why we can't, either. This is another correlation to our health care costs, and probably why the doctors you talk to don't like Medicare. Medicare pays them less than private insurers, which is why it's cheaper. Doctors aren't evil, per se, but they've racked up a lot of debt. I think it costs something like $500,000 now just to be a doctor in America. It's free in Sweden. Our love for some mangled idea of "freedom" is literally killing us when it comes to competing for an educated populace and higher standards of living (for all, not just on average). But it's not, as our system clearly documents. The evidence is staring you in the face, but you can't bring yourself to accept it. Every country, man, every single one has gone to price controls, and all of them are reaping the results of a great health care system. Snipersas comment about innovation was also laughable, because private investment into health care is never about cures, but treatments and little "kinks" in already had drugs. For example, if Big Pharma makes drug A and it works at treating someone, they have a patent of around 12 years if it's heart related. They will then tweak that drug just ever so slightly, and get a new patent for another 12 years. Thus, they have a monopoly on a "new" drug when the only thing new about it is one small thing that doesn't affect anything. Actual medical break throughs happen through public investment because there is a high risk in this sector: chances are you won't find a miracle if you're after profit. This is also why R&D into alternative energy is important. There's no profit motive until the technology becomes available through public investment. No private investor will invest if he/she has 50/50 shot at profits. It doesn't happen, and the cost to get approval from the FDA is tremendous; but they keep us from being killed, so I say that's a good cost to pay. This is what we call "socializing the cost but privatizing the profits." It's deplorable, but it works better than nationalizing industries (true socialism)...which is why you take back some of those profits through taxation to give to people, as seen in the European "socialist" model (which isn't socialism in its classical sense). Singapore is often a libertarian's wet dream in the health care sector because they have private savings accounts...but unfortunately for them they ignore that the government is massively involved with price controls, and with guaranteed government health care if your savings account runs out.

I wasn't being erm, condescending when I described my own call service as in saying your call service is illegitimate. Just saying I've done it before. Then why point out pointless things that don't really have anything to do with the conversation other than to say "Yeah we might suck there but look!!!!!" Yep, and I'm privileged because of it. I've had health care for most of my life, and I have it now. Yes you are. I don't know your specific situation; e.g. you could be a poor white person. Class divides us far more than race and sex do. However, unfortunately, race and sex are all intricately connected to class due to the history of the world. This quote details privilege through and through: "I did it, why can't anyone else?" That is the entire attitude of someone with privilege. However, I understand what you're articulating. It's what a lot of Tea Partiers are articulating: they're hurting, they're being oppressed, and they can't articulate their suffering. Thus, demagogues such as Beck provide scapegoats and answers. Webb included similar sentiments here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703724104575379630952309408.html Of course I disagree with nearly all of it, but I can understand his point. Poor whites in Tennessee don't see what this 'white privilege' crap is all about, and to them it is a myth (even though research says that it's not). Also, everyone gets financial aid from the government, so I suspect either: a.) You're lying b.) You didn't fill out the paperwork And even if you turned it in late, you can still get a guaranteed federal loan. If you're single and not financially dependent on your parents (legally), then you can qualify for a [cabbage] ton more. Everyone is guaranteed aid, not everyone is guaranteed grants. Which only points out that our education system also sucks, and college/university should be far cheaper. Spain? Nearly nothing for school. Germany? Basically free. Sweden? Free. Coincidentally, education correlates with GDP, and it's definitely worth the investment. Also, about me longing for Europe: I could easily emigrate there because my degree is quite rare and high in demand (it's consistently listed as the second most earning degree in the nation, second always to petroleum engineering). I choose to stay here because I want to improve the lives of people here. Not to mention that my life ultimately wouldn't be much different, as I'm upper-middle class. Although I may be going into the Peace Corps this upcoming summer. So how is our system working any better? We spend twice as much for worse outcomes. If you think it works bad in practice, ours must be Hell on Earth. Our problems won't be solved without Medicare for all or cost controls; and we sure as hell aren't getting rid of Medicare, so the only choice I see is Medicare-for-all. If you want to keep private insurance, fine, but then we'll need to go the Netherlands route: strict, heavy regulation (mandate that you get insurance, national standards with people in large pools, high community rating, prohibiting price discrimination due to health/age/gender, national price setting). This is all funny because if there wasn't so much resistance to integrating the hospitals during FDR/Truman, we'd have national health care for all as part of Social Security.

Call center for what? I worked at a call center once, and I quit two days later when the [wagon] soliciting donations were legalized conartists. What do they say? You're not arguing your point, as Myweponsg00d stated. This is all too vague; how can I even address it? So the world economy is globalized...I see. Why are you saying "remove us and everyone dies!!! hahaha!!! we win we win!" It's pointless nationalism that doesn't really serve any purpose. We're good at some stuff, others are better at 80% of it. The lesson I take isn't to brag about what we do better, but to look to them for lessons about where we suck. Of course you are; you are privileged in this society. Just wait until you get burned by an insurance company, if you ever will that is. It's not fun not having any insurance. I've given myself stitches. It sucks.

You do? You witness people everyday abusing it? What do you do that you can see people abusing it? See your grandmother selling her pills to teenagers?

This argument simply makes no sense whatsoever as you fail to account for the numerous other factors that influence debt finance. Looking at these two specific countries without considering their current financial position, prospects for future growth, credit lines and operating deficit, among other things, leads to flawed comparisons. Further, before Ireland's austerity measures, it was one of the greatest debt risks in Europe, alongside Greece - in short, right from the beginning Spain was in a better position and thus your comparison fails. Prospects for future growth is the exact reason they're not biting, snipersas. As Stiglitz says: Stiglitz Says European Economy at Risk of Double-Dip Recession The whole point of austerity is to "reassure the markets." Well, they're not being reassured because austerity threatens growth, and Ireland is becoming a huge risk. The only reason the comparison falls slightly flat is because Ireland's bubble was worse. So it doesn't really fail. The point austerians are making is that it will reassure the markets. It hasn't, and it won't, especially in the Euro-zone. Why? The currency has to devalue. Ireland's currency is the Euro, which has devalued some, but not nearly as much as it "should" for the benefit of Ireland, Greece, Spain, etc. The bond vigilantes don't like economic policies which turn your economy to [cabbage]. This is very surprising!! You don't honestly believe this, do you? The Republicans are attempting to fix an unprecedented problem in the American economy, just as everyone else is. That they took a different position from the democrats is not necessarily wrong - nobody is truly able to accurately predict the limits of the United States' sovereign debt, so austerity may be necessary. Then why do they oppose ideas that were theirs when they're voted on? Yes, I do believe it. From the health care bill, to cap and trade, to just about every other measure, they have shown that they're willing to do 180's and cartwheels if it means a No to a Democratic victory. They are that cynical, they are that ruthless, they are that far-right wing nutso, and if you can't see through that, then you're too blinded in your hatred for the Democrats as well. You might say I hate the Republicans and I'm blinded, but I have evidence to back up what I'm saying. I doubt you can do the same. No, austerity will not be necessary, we need more stimulus. Even libertarian and conservative economists agree on the fact that we need more stimulus. People talking about austerity are after one thing: social security. These funds were raided by Reagan and his criminal gang to front the cost of the tax cuts he gave to his friends. Well it was their end of the bargain to pay-back those tax cuts later. Now they don't want to, and instead they'd rather rob from the poor to give to the rich. This is so wrong. Do you even know how health care "breakthroughs" happen? Go read one of the founders of Red State (no, it's not a communist blog, it's a far right wing blog co-founded by Erick Erickson). Hint, it's not because of some fabled free-market you masturbate to at night, it's with government grants through the NIH, funded by the taxpayer: http://newledger.com/2009/07/how-medical-breakthroughs-happen-a-response-to-megan-mcardle/ About government being inefficient at allocating resources to needs, it depends on the need. Demand for health care is extremely inelastic, making the market quite inefficient at "allocating resources to needs" in this sector. Every, other, developed, country, kicks, our, ass, on, this, front. In fact, the US has the largest socialized health care system in the world. It's called Medicare, and it's great. The reason that spending is a problem isn't from Medicare, but from health care costs due to there being no cost controls. There’s no cost control here; there are four or five systems competing simultaneously. To get cost controls, we’re going to have to have one system of payments for everybody. We fail on every front, and you'd rather whack off to some ideology about freedom that serves no purpose in politics. My politics are what best serves humanity, and in this case, clearly health care and education for all, for free or very low cost, are to be essential to any civilized society. You know, it’s 50,000 dollars for tuition at NYU and it’s zero at Humboldt University in Berlin. So NYU adds catastrophic amounts of GDP per capita and Humboldt adds nothing. Between you and me, I’d rather go to school at Humboldt.

Uh, did you look at the same graph? Unemployment before the New Deal was as high as 24%. In 1932 it was 23.6% to be exact. By 1936, it was down to 16.9%. 4 years, almost a 7% reduction in unemployment. That's a pretty damn big deal. It then rose to 19% in 1937 because a lot of programs were ended in order to balance the budget, and taxes were raised. Of course I agree: WWII is what brought the country out of Depression because it not only put people to work, but we could sell all of these arms to other countries and increase our exports. There was huge demand for the products we were making, so there was a huge incentive to hire as many people as possible. However, WWII was nothing more than a giant public works project. Wars aren't free. The debt rose to 120% of our GDP at one point because of it. Which is to say that it doesn't have to be a war; it could have been the New Deal if it was amplified rather than cut. To same, right now, we need to spend more money. The bond market is practically giving us free money to invest with, something like 2.50% right now. So it would make sense while there's high unemployment and cheap money to invest it into our infrastructure such as mass-transit and renewable energy. To contrast, Ireland made savage cuts in spending in order to satiate the market. Well, compare what they did with Spain: The top is Ireland, the bottom is Spain. Spain hasn't embraced austerity to the degree of Ireland, yet Ireland is doing considerably worse in the bond market. Clearly, the bond market fears economic stagnation and deflation far more than runaway inflation. Why Congress won't get this I'll never understand, but even if they did, the Republicans will do everything they can to stifle recovery, even if it means a double dip recession. They are all about getting into power. They have been bred to be an opposition party because FDR's popularity sent them to the wilderness for almost 5 decades. Conservative ideology grew over time. Its incubative period began in 1933, when a second consecutive landslide election brought Franklin Roosevelt to power. From 1933 to 1995, the Republicans controlled the House for four years (1947-48 and 1953-54) and the Senate for ten (1947-48, 1953-54, and 1981-1987). In the entire post-war era, the Republicans only controlled both houses of Congress twice, and each time they were thrown out at the first opportunity. Forty years elapsed (1955-1995) without the Republicans once controlling the House of Representatives. This is an absolutely crucial fact to know if you want to understand the modern Republican Party. Their childhood and adolescence were completed with almost no experience in actual governing in Congress. They were an almost uninterrupted opposition. This is why a conservative movement began to grow outside the Republican Party. Actual Republican elected officials still had to legislate and they often had a Republican president (Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan) to work with. But because the Republicans never had control of the legislative product, their base came to see Congress as an enemy and their legislation as somehow illegitimate. This feeling was extended to the Supreme Court during the Earl Warren era. As a result, conservative ideology cannot easily adapt to actually being in power and having to fund the various agencies and programs of the government. People keep asking the Republicans to offer a positive agenda and they keep promising to provide one, but they can't because modern conservatism does not know of any positive role for the federal government. The few Republicans who try to legislate are now being drummed out of the party.

Well you're one of the rare people around here who do; Ginger_Warrior was the other, and Blue_Lancer. Well, contemporary speaking, anyway. Perhaps it's because I back up what I say with links, links, more links, and evidence, and they don't have anything to refute it? I don't know. Speaking of which, I didn't respond to sees_all1, who says that a good chunk of Americans hate America simply because they're liberal. @sees_all1: Why in the hell would I attempt to make my own guess at the crowd size? Is this my area of expertise? No, it is not. My area of expertise is basic physics, advanced mathematics, economics and aerodynamics; and of course politics and history of US government, but that's a hobby of mine and part of my temporary career. Is this what you do for a living? Look at aerial views of crowds and make guesses as to how many are in the crowd? I very much doubt that it is. So why are you trusting what you perceive to be your own guess and Glenn Beck's words over the people who are the ones who do this for a living? Besides that, Tea Partiers have been known to lie about their crowd sizes. Y'know, the way Tea Party fans claimed 2 million people marched on Washington, D.C. in Sept. 2009, when in fact, according to fire department estimates, just 60-70,000 people marched: Michele Malkin Claims Millions Marched Or how how about Sarah Palin's Search Light, Nevada event back in March? Newsbusters Claims Politico Says 20,000 People Showed Up While CNN Says It wasn't That High Did Politico actually say this? Yes, they did, but it goes deeper than that. Turns out Politico didn't confirm the crowd size, it simply passed along the estimate provided by organizers. What was the actual estimate? According to the the Las Vegas Sun and local police, closer to 8,000. Not to mention when Jon Stewart caught Fox News of airing footage of Michelle "I'm competing in the craziest Congressperson awards" Bachman's rally, when what they actually aired was the rally from 9/12: Jon Stewart Catches Fox Using 9/12 Footage To Make Tea Party Look Bigger So please, spare me if I have the least bit of skepticism of Glenn Beck and other Tea Party estimates when independent estimates present a different story, and time and time again they've shown to be liars in order to present themselves as the mainstream rather than what they are: the fringe lunatics. And yes, actually, these estimates do matter because Americans like to be winners. If they perceive this "movement" to be larger than it actually is, they will join it simply because they see it as the "winner" in the next election. This is why Malkin calls anyone who is a real moderate, someone like Barack Obama, as a radical far-left liberal. It moves the debate far to the right on her terms.

Not that many hated him at the time. The people who hated him were the people he described in this speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9yoZHs6PsU The reason people of today hate him, is that they're either ignorant of history, or they can't stand that their way of government has largely failed. Historians always rank him or Lincoln as the greatest president of all time, and as time will go on, FDR will probably have more titles to his name than Lincoln. In any case, the New Deal was working to get us out of the Great Depression. It not only took a huge chunk out of the unemployment rates, but it gave people immediate relief. That's been perhaps the starkest contrast. All of Obama's reforms aren't tangible. No one can see the good they will do right now. Look at unemployment: Look at the unemployment rate from the time he was elected until 1937. Now, what happened during 1937? FDR cut spending, and he balanced the budget. This sent the country back into recession because the private sector couldn't yet sustain full employment on its own. Anyway, you argue that the World War brought the economy back together. FDR had to take over a lot of plants and force them to make weapons and such for the war, something Henry Ford was pissed about because he didn't think he'd ever get his factories back. Now, what do you call it when the government spends massive amounts of money into the economy, effectively putting the debt to GDP ratio at well over 120%, in order to employ people and prepare for the war? I call it a massive public spending project called a stimulus. This, combined with the New Deal before 1937, shows that public spending on infrastructure is what's required to bring countries out of severe recession/depression. It's basic Macroeconomics 101. The only school that protests this are the Austrians, and they're, well, bat[cabbage] crazy and don't rely on any actual data for their theories; they rely on praxeology

The Federal Emergency Relief Act (1933) established the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) and gave it half a billion dollars to distribute to the states for any relief they felt necessary. Half was for matching grants, with the states contributing three dollars for every dollar of federal funds. The remainder could be given in direct grants. At one point, as many as 6 million families were on direct relief. The Emergency Banking Relief Act (1933) established a system to close down insolvent banks and reorganize and reopen those banks strong enough to survive, after a mandatory four-day bank holiday that took place immediately after Roosevelt took office. Within 300 days of the act's passage, 5,000 banks had passed inspection and were reopened. Roughly two-thirds of U.S. banks quickly reopened under this act, and faith in banking institutions was restored, with money flowing out from under mattresses and back into financial institutionas as deposits. The act also allowed the confiscation of the gold of private citizens. The US dollar was then devalued by approximately 40%, ending the deflationary spiral of the Depression. The Unemployment Relief Act (1933) established the Civilian Conservation Corps, a work relief program for young men ages 18-25 from unemployed families. The CCC became one of the most popular New Deal programs among the general public and operated in every U.S. state and several territories in 2600 work camps. The young men were paid wages, but were expected to share their wages with their families. They built such things as fire trails, camp sites in parks, and also cleared swamps and planted trees. The Public Works Administration (1933) allowed $3.3 billion to be spent on the construction of public works to provide employment in the construction and building industries, and to stabilize purchasing power, The Home Owners Refinancing Act (1933) helpeds those in danger of losing their homes, by providing mortgage assistance to homeowners or would-be homeowners by providing them money or refinancing mortages. It also created the Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC), which lent low-interest money to families in danger of losing their homes to foreclosure. By the mid 1930s, the HOLC had refinanced nearly 20% of urban homes in the country. The Civil Works Emergency Relief Act (1934) allotted new funds for Federal Emergency Relief Administration to run new programs of civil works and direct relief. In 1935 it became the Works Progress Administration (1935) and was the largest New Deal agency, employing millions of people and affecting most every locality in the United States, especially rural and western mountain populations. Between 1935 and 1943 the WPA provided almost 8 million jobs and income to the unemployed. The program built many public buildings, projects and roads and operated large arts, drama, media and literacy projects, employing actors, artists, musicians, and writer (nearly 4 million in 1936 alone). It fed children and redistributed food, clothing and housing. Almost every community in America has a park, bridge or school constructed by the agency, and most public buildings of a certain age will feature architecture or a mural created by one of its artisans. The National Industrial Recovery Act (1933) legalized cartels and funded massive government spending on public works through the PWA. The NIRA operated under codes for each industry, all of which were written by committees of businessmen from the specific industry involved. Including all sorts of subcodes, rules, and regulations, the Act's proscriptions were enormously complex. The entire purpose was to eliminate unemployment and raise wages. In general - NRA codes limited production, had common control of prices and sales practices, outlawed child labor, and established a 40 hour work week and minimum wage. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (1933) restricted production by paying farmers to reduce crop area. Its purpose was to reduce crop surplus so as to effectively raise the value of crops, thereby giving farmers relative stability again (in the past, wild swings in prices, particularly precipitous drops due to overproduction, could bankrupt a family farm during a single year). The farmers were paid subsidies by the federal government for leaving some of their fields unused. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) (1933) provided and still provides navigation, flood control, electricity generation, fertilizer manufacturing, and economic development in the Tennessee Valley, a region particularly impacted by the Great Depression, with a goal of rapidly modernizing the region's economy and society. The Rural Electrification Act (1936) provided federal funding for installation of electrical distribution systems to serve rural areas of the United States. In the 1930s, the provision of power to remote areas was not thought to be economically feasible and so was largely unavailable in rural areas of farms and ranches. A 2300 volt distribution system was then used in cities. This relatively low voltage could only be carried about 4 miles before the voltage drop became unacceptable. REA cooperatives used a 6900 volt distribution network, distributed over their own network of transmission and distribution lines. which could support much longer runs (up to about 40 miles). Despite requiring more expensive transformers at each home, the overall system cost was manageable. The Glass-Stegall Banking Act (1933) introduced the separation of bank types according to their business (commercial and investment banking), and it founded the Federal Deposit Insurance Company for insuring bank deposits. It also increased the power of the Federal Reserve Board to regulate interest rates. The National Housing Act (1934) made housing and home mortgages more affordable. It created the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. It was designed to stop the tide of bank foreclosures on family homes. Both the FHA and the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation worked to create the backbone of the mortgage and home-building industries. The Securities Acts (1933 and 1934) governs the offer or sale of securities using the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and requires that they be registered; and also governs the secondary trading of securities (stocks, bonds, and debentures). Contrasted with the Securities Act of 1933, which regulates these original issues, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regulates the secondary trading of those securities between persons often unrelated to the issuer. The National Labor Relations Act (1935) protects the rights of most workers in the private sector to organize labor unions, to engage in collective bargaining, and to take part in strikes and other forms of concerted activity in support of their demands. The Social Security Act (1935) established a system whereby payroll taxes, first collected in 1937, that paid for lump-sum death benefits and also, beginning on January 31, 1940, monthly retirement benefits. ============================================================================================================== There's a reason FDR is consistently named the greatest president of the 20th century, and regularly the greatest president of all time. There's also a reason why the public loved him.