![]() |
#361 | |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,786
Local Time: 09:03 AM
|
Quote:
Is it no wonder that universities, health care, real estate, and to a lesser extent, automobiles suffer from the same affliction? Loans/insurance have not made any of these things more affordable. Instead, we've reached a point where even the loans are too expensive. And now "the answer" is to just make the loans cheaper through the government. A band-aid solution to be sure, since these loans are just barely affordable at low interest rates, but let's be realistic here. Even if we set the loans at zero percent for the entire life of the loans, universities will still max this out until even this is unaffordable, because they can. I'm not sure what the answer is here, because I'm not sure that there is a precedent for taking a highly inefficient market and then banning all the loans/insurance that keep it bloated to force it to its actual equlibrium price. I imagine that it is not pretty. Ultimately, though, we have to ask ourselves where we want our educational system to go from here. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#362 | |||||
Refugee
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,343
Local Time: 08:03 AM
|
Quote:
He has no intention, listen closely, no intention of continuing to control these industries going forward. It is conservatives who have screamed the loudest for limitations on pay and bonuses at taxpayer owned companies, at least for the time they are taxpayer owned. I agree with them. Quote:
It is a fact that no one is forced to drop their current coverage under this bill, and that most Americans will choose to keep the coverage they have now. Independent sources like the CBO have confirmed this. The only thing that will change is the costs will be lower for most people. Quote:
Pick another Republican more to your liking, and odds are pretty damn good that they were for cap and trade not too long ago. It wasn't socialist until Obama embraced it. Quote:
Now, what was the cause of the low inflation economic expansion of the Reagan years? Keynesianism, yes, Keynesianism, a focus on the demand side! We had demand pull inflation, too many dollars chasing too few goods, which led to cost push inflation as costs were passed on through the economy. How do we handle this? The fed reserve Chairman, Paul Volcker, raises interest rates, which increases the cost of money, reduces the level of investment in capital, which reduces the level of consumption and we have a crippling 1981-82 recession. So we have a classic Keynesian view of the equation Output=C+I+G+(X-M) reducing inflation by REDUCING DEMAND FOR GOODS AND SERVICES. Now, Reagan must have engineered that spectacular expansion with low inflation through some kind of supply side genius, right? Not exactly. It was Keynesianism on steroids in every way. The money supply is expanded once more, putting more money into the economy for consumption and investment, which increases demand. Reagan borrows massive amounts of money to infuse into the economy, and pumps a shitload more into it through his defense build up. Tax increases in 1981, 82, 83 and 84, larger than the total amount of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts, are put in place to insure the government can keep from defaulting on this Keynesian binge. So there was no massive increase in supply that magically reduced inflation like Reagan claimed. It was good old fashioned Keynesian demand cutting to kill inflation and then good old fashioned Keynesian borrowing and spending(on steroids) that kept the expansion going. In fact, Summers, Geithner, etc are less Keynesian than Reagan because they have pushed for balanced budgets and paying off debt as a way to stimulate investment(Rubinomics). It worked better in the 1990s than Reagan's 80s Keynesian binge. So we are left with your claim that Reagan was a monetarist, in the mold of Milton Friedman. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Reagan may have claimed the Milton Friedman legacy by talking about small government, but as you should understand, talk is cheap when the supply is unlimited! Reagan's actions are what matters, and they show otherwise re: limiting government. Reagan spent more than Clinton, asked a liberal Congress for $27 billion more spending than it passed into law,borrowed massively, ran huge deficits, etc. The list of regulations expanded rather than shrunk, and he was a more protectionist President than many before him. The results speak for themselves indeed: A pretty tepid economic expansion when compared with some other ones. How about a critique from the right flank of economic thought on what I just mentioned?:The Myths of Reaganomics - Murray N. Rothbard - Mises Institute How the Government Dealt With Past Recessions - Interactive Feature - NYTimes.com Here is what monetarism is:http://www.britannica.com/nobelprize...9053341(Reagan never advocated this in public, it was largely discredited by the time he took office, and even if he secretly liked it, he never proposed it be official policy, nor did his advisers) Quote:
That media matters study uses sound methodology and cites its non partisan sources. An organization can have a general bias but use facts that can be checked out. If you had read that or the other article I linked, there is no spinning in there at all. Media Matters is not Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, you know, the people who routinely get called out by fact check, Washingtpost Spin meter, et cetera. They have a pretty clean record. Show me where what they point out about the national journal methodology is in any way wrong. The National Journal admitted they had a flawed methodology for the study that called Kerry the most liberal. Again, you call me out for using media matters, then you use interest groups, and supplement it with this junk national journal? Critical thinking here, how could you take them seriously when the only time someone gets the "most liberal" ranking is when they are the most prominent Democrat at the time? Either way, if you think that any site with a viewpoint is automatically off limits, fine, here is some more: 110th Senate Rank Ordering 10th most liberal in 2007:Obama Who is More Liberal, Obama or Clinton? There are 88 Representatives and 8 Senators to Obama's left! And guess what, they are the ones I mentioned off the top of my head in the last post. FactCheck.org: 'Lying' About Being Liberal? Even the joke National Journal that named Obama most liberal in 2007 had him 10th and 16th in other years! So even by the methodology these guys use, Obama is in no way the most liberal. If you had any independent mind at all, or any common sense of politics, you would know this. How could you see Boxer or Sherrod Brown or Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist and claim Obama is the most liberal? Plus, all of these charts use percentage of votes with their party. It says very little about what the ideology of that party is. If Harry Reid is voting the Democratic party line, he will look very liberal, though he is actually a moderate to conservative Democrat. I would like to see a chart that calculated political views based on legislation introduced, alternate legislation supported, stated views etc. For example, Bernie Sanders and Barbara Lee and the Congressional Progressive caucus routinely introduce legislation that never even makes it out of committee. Maybe 5 Senators and 35 Reps would support it, the left of the left people. People like Obama, Kerry, etc are never given a chance to vote against this, which would make them look more conservative. On a similar note, people like Graham, Orrin Hatch, Pete Domenici, Chuck Grassley and Dick Lugar would look alot more "liberal" if we included legislation that the likes of Ron Paul and Jim DeMint routinely introduce and get nowhere with. It would be a much more accurate portrayal of "extremes" in views than would merely percentage of time voting with the party. The Democrats would have their views altered more here, however, as they are the centrist party while Republicans have become increasingly extremist. This is important when trying to decide who sits where on the spectrum. Take a look at how much influence the far right, you know, Jim DeMint and Eric Cantor have over the Republican Party.(Its alot) Then take a look at how much influence the far left has over the Democratic Party- say Barbara Lee, Bernie Sanders and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Their agenda items are not even brought up. So the agenda Obama is voting in line with most of the time is alot less extreme than the agenda McCain votes in line with most of the time. So Obama is far from the most extreme member of a party that is decidedly more centrist than the other major party, and both parties are right wing parties in the grand international scheme of things. So Obama and Socialism in the same sentence is the equivalent of saying "I am an idiot." |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
#363 | |
Refugee
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,343
Local Time: 08:03 AM
|
Quote:
Obama keeps the loans and that leaves them alot more affordable than they otherwise would be when left to market forces. Therefore, universities can expect to always have demand because the government and other entities will continue to finance loans. People will keep coming, so costs will still be high. Do I get you right? Now, expand this to loans and insurance in other sectors, real estate, automobile, banking, etc. Loans, insurance, etc have been around in some form or another for thousands and thousands of years, and I think the waste/inefficiency in industries is alot bigger than just these things. Is the concept/usage of loans and insurance, in and of itself, a horrible market distorting, price everyone out invention? On balance, economic history suggests no. Can they have a negative effect when used or not used in certain ways? Is their usefulness as an instrument long gone? Does it create moral hazard? These are questions for a whole different day, and the material that doctoral thesis's are made of. Far beyond anything I would be willing/capable of discussing here! You and I still agree, we do need to ask where our educational system goes from here. Our higher education system is becoming dangerously unaffordable. Maybe its tenure, maybe its bureaucracy in the schools themselves, maybe its energy and health care costs driving it like they drive everything else, maybe college has become increasingly necessary and is in greater demand compared to years ago, but we do not have the educational infrastructure to acommodate everyone? Who knows, but we can agree the affordability of higher education is a much bigger issue than changing from one inefficient long time market distortion to a slightly more efficient market distortion. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#364 | |
Refugee
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,343
Local Time: 08:03 AM
|
Quote:
Just like he has not pointed me to anyplace where Obama has made it known that he wanted some kind of radical socialist takeover. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#365 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 08:03 AM
|
Why is he always catering to the far left?
Obama wants to freeze discretionary spending for 3 years - CNN.com |
![]() |
![]() |
#366 |
Refugee
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The Mighty Jagrafess of the Holy Hadrojassic Maxaroedenfoe
Posts: 2,146
Local Time: 01:03 PM
|
Bloody leftist librerals.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#367 |
ONE
love, blood, life Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 06:03 AM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#368 |
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,685
Local Time: 07:03 AM
|
Have anything worthwhile to contribute?
|
![]() |
![]() |
#369 | |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 08:03 AM
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#370 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:03 AM
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#371 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,934
Local Time: 02:03 AM
|
apart from pissing away money, what exactly is the point of going to the moon anyway?
|
![]() |
![]() |
#372 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:03 AM
|
Awesomeness.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#373 | ||
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 08:03 AM
|
Quote:
Obama Scoffed At McCain's Spending Freeze Proposal During Campaign (VIDEO) Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
#374 | |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 08:03 AM
|
Quote:
I want my 2 minutes back and a warning next time you plan to waste any more of my time. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#375 | |
Refugee
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Boston
Posts: 2,343
Local Time: 08:03 AM
|
Quote:
A lot of people are really pushing this out as some kind of Obama flip flop. In 2008, when we were falling off a cliff, we had only one lever to pull to put money into the economy: government spending. A spending freeze would have been ill advised then, as it would have been in 2009 or this year. However, Obama proposing to do it starting in FY 2011 and on for 3 years is a good policy and perfectly consistent with what he and outside economists said would need to happen. First, they would have to look to fiscal stimulus, and a lot of it, and then once a recovery gets going, go right to tackling the deficit. I remember telling people we are going to get whip lash watching the turnaround! The recovery started in July, and will have been going on 15 months by the time the freeze goes into effect. The private sector will continue to pick up more and more of the economic growth, as was intended all along. Same thing with the stimulus- all of the stimulus spending will hit the economy by this December. This is not flip flopping any more than the Fed is flip flopping when they look at economic conditions and decide what to do with interest rates. The freeze is good, and I like it, but it is certainly not going to do more than make a slight dent in the deficit. Its more about sounding good to an economically ignorant public than it is anything else. It excludes defense and entitlements, which make up the vast majority of the budget. What will really make a dent in the deficit is exactly what Obama is getting criticized for focusing on instead: health care. Health care costs drive the cost of entitlements, and that is what is bankrupting the country. The wars are a part of it too, and drawing down in Iraq will help. Has he gone about it right? NO Should we have bought Nebraska in place of good old fashioned arm twisting? NO Did Congress waste too much time on a useless and unnecessary public option? Yes Should Obama have focused on the cost cutting measures first and then passed the expanded coverage provisions in 2011 or 2012(still his 1st term)? Yes. All that being said, the health care bill will be the biggest deficit reduction by far; $500 billion over 10 years. Domestic discretionary spending freezes, while welcome, should not serve to take their eye off the ball. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#376 |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 09:03 AM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#377 |
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,745
Local Time: 02:03 PM
|
What is it that you want? Always complaining that Obama is not driving the States out of the crisis, and that the left is reckless with taxpayer's money, but when they start to cut costs by cancelling such very expensive endeavours, with very questionable value to anyone, all you have is a boo?
|
![]() |
![]() |
#378 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 08:03 AM
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#379 | |
Blue Crack Addict
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 09:03 AM
|
Booooo indeed. CBS poll:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#380 |
Blue Crack Supplier
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,934
Local Time: 02:03 AM
|
cbs! bah, part of the rabid liberal media.
__________________ |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Democratic National Convention Thread | MrsSpringsteen | Free Your Mind | 504 | 09-02-2008 03:37 PM |
US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III | phillyfan26 | Free Your Mind Archive | 1001 | 01-30-2008 02:07 PM |
MERGED--> NH predictions + Hillary's win + NH recount? | 2861U2 | Free Your Mind Archive | 586 | 01-12-2008 01:50 PM |
Official Campaign 2008 Hot Stove Thread | Varitek | Free Your Mind Archive | 1003 | 09-23-2007 03:31 PM |