Okay that sets the stage for the debate. Now on to the statements. Is the above true, or not? True, or not? True, or not? True or not? True or not? True or not? I'm serious, because I believe all these things are true, but I'm open to see if anyone can debunk them. Now the final statement: I believe that liberal attempts to force social change on an American populace not willing or ready to accept it, is dangerous for our economy but I'm open for debate. Lets see what pops up, honest answers? Crickets?
Healthcare isn't paid for 100% by third parties, so lost income will still affect demand. People will not go to "unnecessary" appointments when cutting back on monthly bills, because a deductible is still money out the window. Having a memory longer than a few years, I also remember the odd paradox in Michigan when there were claims of "we need more doctors and nurses" while hospitals laid off nurses in large numbers. That was way before the ACA. And what part of that is affected by panic over new regulation... what possible change in the medical field to increase coverage or decrease costs would NOT provoke panic? Eventually such panic will dissipate as the regulations settle and all becomes clear. But I put about as much stock in panic being responsible here as I do that it's the main reason jobs aren't popping up elsewhere: none. Even without EPA regulation, we are not going to be competitive for manufacturing jobs. And even if it was true, this is like suggesting we should allow companies to murder union trouble-makers to create jobs. Environmental impacts cost taxpayers in either money or declined quality of life and diminish our future ability to provide resources. Those who aren't paying the costs are cheating humanity. What we ought to figure out is how to make foreign companies (and American ones with foreign assets) pay for their loose policies. It's not paralyzed. It's true they would be able to create some more jobs if allowed to do more probably. That has to be measured against environmental impact (possible destruction of future jobs or worse). It's a pipe dream (unintentional pun) to think that any of these will have a massive impact on energy prices, as it's a global market. Any effect it has will likely not occur until after the recovery and will disappear rather quickly. And whatever jobs can be created by these techniques can also be created by pursuing green alternatives (which the "paralyzed" energy sector does in fact pursue). And if they don't lend, then what? Small businesses continue not to get credit and we won't see the kind of recovery that will get these small banks back on their feet. And then there's the other thing: why not encourage big banks to loan? But I must say, of these statements, this is the most interesting point. We do seem to have a catch-22. Unions are getting weaker and weaker and have been for decades. I'm not sure how this is a big concern now. Sounds like BS. Potential tax increases aren't high enough to, on their own, scare people this bad. And the top spenders won't cut ALL of their spending or even a substantial portion to make up for it. Overhyping the taxes may contribute to the effect, I suppose. Personally I think we should wait for the recovery to increase taxes on anyone (low impact is still impact)... but then again I'm not pushing for austerity crap (which is high impact on destroying demand). Since we're talking about predicting the future or analyzing economic trends that economists don't usually get until afterward, no one can "debunk" anything, only provide alternative arguments. Basically the president is shooting for any idea he foolishly believes Republicans will support. The true answer is that Republicans will support nothing he brings up. No matter what it is. Frankly I think he should have gone much bigger. Knowing failure was eminent, he should have gone higher. But what do I know? So far, whenever I've disagreed with the president's political strategies, they've worked... It's too bad that they "work" only so far as to keep his popularity from hitting as low as that of Republicans and not to actually passing working legislation for jobs. Sadly, I'm starting to think the best chance for quick stimulus is for a Republican to get into office, so the GOP will immediately switch positions and start backing a stimulus of sorts (the cost being that the public pays more attention to rhetoric than policy; that's why Reagan is seen as affirmation of radical right-wing policies despite governing center-right). Though I do think a lame duck Obama might be able to get a little more forceful and set a future course for some good policy.
Fair enough. There is PLENTY of draconian stuff in Obamacare that forces doctors to close down their little private practices and consolidate into giant medical centers. Patients cannot get personalized access. We'll be stuck going to giant, impersonal congolmerates, the relationship between the doctor and patient will become one of assembly line medicine, without the "personal touch" of a true family physician. Oh come on Java, I respect you like no other liberal, but you honestly believe that Republicans want to abloish the EPA? You know better than that. This all stems around the EPA being used by Obama to wage economic warfare against the energy industry with the aim to raise prices on utilities and petrol "to European levels" as said by Steven Chu. Are you saying that Chu was just pandering? He's a proven radical. The fact is, American cannot compete with China if it panders to the Global Warming alarmists. Global warming real? Sure, I agree with that. Intentionally cripple our economy vis a vis a monolithic communist state combined with an Asian hive mind mentality? As proven with Solyndra, "Green alternatives" are too capital intensive, and labor non-intensive. If you think America is one day going to have huge factories churning out solar panels by the million for a world on Green Energy, you living in a utopian fantasy. Anything we can do China can do cheaper. Just like Obamacare, Dodd-Frank is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which is the biggest problem I have with liberals. They ALWAYS overreach. Apparently not, they own the NLRB and are destroying Boeing single handedly. The numbers just don't add up Java. By 2020, if nothing is done to fix the entitlement network in the USA, the average person making 60k a year in California will be paying 71% of their paycheck in taxes, the rest of us a bit less, but definitely over 50%. Now maybe you think it's your patriotic duty to sharecrop to the US Government, but I call it slavery. Fair enough. Obama and Nancy Pelosi brought this upon themselves when they were so sure of their "lasting supermajority" and believed all that hype from Newsweek about "We are all socialists now" that they acted HORRIBLY towards the right in this country when they were in complete control.. Remember nancy pelosi and all those pols walking through that protest crowd laughing at the people as they felt at that time that they were just a "lunatic fringe"?? The Right was snubbed horribly for the first two years of Obama's Presidency and you expect us not to retaliate in some fashion? I know that like many on the left, you yearn for the day when dictates from an ultra-liberal EU style Government can come down to the people regardless of public opinion or opposition, but this IS America and even if the left hates to admit it, it's filled at LEAST halfway with people who, for whatever reasons both thoughtful or not, are right of center and will defend that position with the dedication of a kamikaze. Right of Center Americans, even the moderates, honestly feel that America is headed down the path to the EU with an all powerful left wing Government shielded from public opinion that doesn't agree with the Government's agenda. I believe that while on the net, etc there are radicals.. but it's a legitimate concern none the less.
Not entirely true. Obamacare is a big player in this, but the big part is simply due to the economy which was bad before Obamacare. Companies are losing mad money, nobody is buying, nobody is selling, the economy is at a halt. Companies are slipping into a hibernation mode and going underground for self-preservation. Same reason as above...EPA regulations simply don't allow companies to expand and prosper...and therefore they end up not hiring.
I d like to see explained why countries with very strict environment laws and powerfull unions have less unemployment than US.
Because the Government directly subsidizes employers in many instances and judging by what I'm reading coming out of those countries these days, all that "benefit to the people" is destroying them as viable fiscal entities. No society on Earth, no nation, is capable of meeting all the needs of all of it's people. It's an impossibility. There HAS to remain some kind of social darwinism to separate the wheat from the chaff because not all human beings are "special" and not all human beings are capable of surviving in a modern technological world and to overly worry about those types of people will result in economic stagnation, decline and secondary status to nations who DON'T care about their people so much, like China. China is not going to fall to revolution, they are a monolithic hive mind who will continue to eat up resources at horrendous rates and if anyone tries to stop them, they will force their will on the world via military means and as Mao stated before. The Chinese are not afraid to lose a few hundred million people and they are exactly the kind of state would have zero problems engaging in a nuclear conflict if they felt that they would come out of the conflict better off.. and yes China nuked down to a 900 million or 800 million people would probably be a boon for them.
you know the 4 countries with more unionized population: # 1 Sweden: = 2 Denmark: = 2 Finland: # 4 Norway: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lab_tra_uni_mem-labor-trade-union-membership
I'll forgive you your ignorance. At one time in America, yes. Workers were treated like slaves. Their children were almost chained to the coal mines and the textile machines, the men were forced to work 14-16 hour days 7 days a week just to scrape by and things in this nation at the turn of the century were awful a lot of people and unions came in, and using the same tactics that the bosses used(violence and intimidation) they gained vast changes to society that enabled people to live a higher quality of life. The problem is the war is WON, it's time to fold the flag and become PARTNERS to businesses NOT ADVERSARIES. European unions have PARTNERSHIPS with their companies, they work to improve their products. In America, the belief is still locked in the 1920's adversarial attack mode and it's become counterproductive and made most unionized industries less viable as fiscal entities. Look at the hatred for business directed by the union-supporting left on this forum. Do you see Euro unions going to the docks by the hundreds and wrecking the equipment and stuff that they themselves need when they go back to work?? Do European Unions go about engaging in such activities as shooting innocent business owners because that owner is non-union and he caught the union thug defacing and vandalizing his vehicle? How can ANYONE in this economy who is making 20-30 bucks an hour, has gold plated benefits claim that he is being exploited?? Unions in America now represent the wicked government that right wing Americans and libertarians completely distrust and at this point in time believe have almost no legitimacy as a ruling body because it is bending the Constitution and Laws of this nation so that it is no longer a nation ruled by The Law, but by Men like Obama, Reid and even Pelosi. The current administration feels zero guilt about engaging in outright breaking or bending of the law to achieve it's ends, and unions are their major support system.
