Obama: 143 Days in the Senate

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

dhicky, I think there’s a lot we agree on.

[quote]
I agree with almost all of this. There is no panacea but the free market gets us the closest. In the free market we “vote” with every single transaction we make. The market adjusts almost immediatly. The consumer truly runs the economy. gov’t will never achieve this type of efficiency.

I would agree that my statements are simplistic. This is a forum and thus we are somewhat limited. There are plenty of books written by people much smarter than I am that cover the benifits of a free market great detail. Every respected ecomomist since Adam Smith in 1776 has understood the benefit of limited gov’t. It is what this county was founded on and what allowed us to become a super power. Why we are going the opposite direction is beyond comprehension for me.[/quote]

There’s a lot of debate regarding the scope of government.

Think a bit more. Primary education is an example of a subsidy that that almost everyone agrees with. I think every 1st world country subsidizes secondary education as well as tertiary. Things like electricity, water, gas have economies of scale. Public goods often lead to the tragedy of the commons.

Perhaps that was poorly worded. Essentially unregulated markets have lead to the mortgage crisis. Things that were “off the bank sheet” ultimately caused the problem. Bank failures would ruin the economy and so the govt steps in to prevent failure and the tax payer pays for it. It seems much more logical for regulation to be paid for up front, try to eliminate information asymmetries, and then let markets sort themselves out when everyone is on the same page rather than being forced to bail out unscrupulous individuals and organizations.

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here. How is the government leading us towards disaster?

Maybe it’s because I’m up late when I should be asleep, but I don’t understand this question either. Effective at doing what? Do you mean effective at confronting Iran diplomatically? If so than I believe Obama’s strategy is better than McCain’s, for the reasons I outlined above.

Also, do you now understand why I said that the surge cannot be called “a success?” (Re: my post above).

Sorry if this is rambling on a bit, I’m more than half asleep.

82

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
15 of 18 Congressional Benchmarks reached. Al-Queda in Iraq history. Sounds like McCain showed the right judgement. Obama. Ried and Pelosi…not so much.

Kindly post the GAO report.

What is the date of the GAO report? This report, done by the US Embassy in IRAQ, was just presented to congress. No doubt Obama missed it, couldn’t even vote “present” on that one.

Do you think Al-Queda in Iraq is winning? Do you support AQ in Iraq for the obvious political reasons?

The date of the GAO report is one week prior to your article’s date. It’s a wee bit more independent and meaningful than the whitehouse’s meaningless embassy report (a proposed bill is progress which = satisfactory even if no actual achievement is ever reached)

So again kindly post the GAO.[/quote]

Why is it mor meaningful then a State Department Report…because it agrees with your false position?

So predictable and dull.

Only the naive or the hopelessly idealistic believe the surege hasn’t worked. Most are Democrats running for office and their minions. Even Al Queda in Iraq realizes this fact. If you can find any left you could ask them.

83

Hi Hedo. I’m not sure what you mean by “worked.” Has the surge produced the results that the president said it would? I think we should use the standards that the commander 'n chief set forth in our assessment. I’ve repeated them above with a link to the full speech. Here are the results in brief from the GAO report

I’ve been unable to find the US Embassy report online, does anyone happen to have a link to it?

84

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

There’s a lot of debate regarding the scope of government.

Think a bit more. Primary education is an example of a subsidy that that almost everyone agrees with. I think every 1st world country subsidizes secondary education as well as tertiary. Things like electricity, water, gas have economies of scale. Public goods often lead to the tragedy of the commons.
[/quote]

I would probably disagree with all of these as we seemed to or could get along fine without Gov’t providing these. I will agree that they unlikely to change. I think education should be the first for reform but we’ll save that for another thread. And just because everyone agrees with them doesn’t make them efficient or in the best interest of the counrty. 90% of the worlds population probably doesn’t think St. Bonifacius, MN exists, but here I sit.

Here in lies the rub. Gov’t is responsible for many of this in two ways. Number one they took a beating a few years back for “discriminating” against those with low incomes or poor credit. Our boy in washington encorages (demanded) they loosen their criteria. Number two they encourage risky behaivior by bailing these guys out. Let them fail. Will it cause a dip in the market. Of course. People will freak out, things will get bad for a bit and then things will return to normal.

staggering debt - inflationary or increased tax burden

Out of control spending - inflationary or increased tax burden. Taking capital out of the market where it can create jobs and wealth.

Huge unfunded liabilities - inflationary or increased tax burden. Taking capital out of the market where it can create jobs and wealth.

Primary education that does compete on the world stage -
we are loosing many of our factory and commodity based jobs. We have to compete in other areas that require math and science skills.

Draconian tarrifs, subsidies, and protectionism. - increased tax burden. Hidden tax but a tax none the less.

exactly what i meant. Obama’s stratagy and temperment are certainly better than McCain’s…for Iran. Obama is out classed here. Are you really comfortable with him sitting across the table from Acmadinijad (sp?)? This guy is cold blooded killer.

Nope, it still looks to me like it did what it was supposed to do. The political portion has nothing to do with the military surge. If they created room for political healing it is a success, regardless of what actually happened politically. If security is unimproved and Iraq is no closer to taking over from a military and security perspective, then it was/is not a success.

85

dhickey, It looks like we’re all over the place, but let’s see…

Education: On one hand you say that government shouldn’t be involved with primary education, then you state that it’s a shame that the US seems to be falling behind, and you think this has something to do with factory jobs. If the government stops subsidising primary education, what do you think will happen with education?

As far as losing factory jobs…of course, this has to do with the price of labor, not poor primary education.

You agree that Obama’s strategy and temperament are better than McCain’s for Iran I agree, I think they are. Do I trust him in one-on-one talks? I’m fairly certain his strategy would make this nearly impossible.

Taxes: I understand your reluctance to pay taxes, especially with all the waste that is going on. I think we should focus on cleaning up the waste in the govt and making the whole process more open to scrutiny.

Beyond that, I think we do need more balance in our fiscal budget and in the CA, both candidates are promising this, but only Obama is being honest about it. McCain claims to be able to increase spending without raising taxes and somehow balance the budget within his first term… but all the non-partisan analysts I’ve heard from say this is impossible. Basically, McCain is playing politics or doesn’t understand what he’s claiming. Obama admits he will raise taxes on those who make over $250,000/year to both pay for increased spending (primarily in health care) and claims the fiscal budget will improve, but understands he cannot balance the budget within one year. Most non-partisan think this can happen.

You seem to have a libertarian-like view regarding the role of government, perhaps even further than Ron Paul if you think that govt shouldn’t be involved with any of the above, not even at the state level. It’s an interesting philosophy, but one I do not share; particularly given the benefits from things like universal primary education, the economies of scale and fear of monopoly for the major utilities, and the market failures that can come from unregulated markets.

86

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey, It looks like we’re all over the place, but let’s see…

Education: On one hand you say that government shouldn’t be involved with primary education, then you state that it’s a shame that the US seems to be falling behind, and you think this has something to do with factory jobs. If the government stops subsidising primary education, what do you think will happen with education?
[/quote]
Gov’t is failing to provide our children a competitive education. Gov’t didn’t alway subsidise education and yet children were educated. I’de be an idiot if I thought gov’t subsidies would go away. a voucher would be almost as effective. What we need is competition. We need inovation in education and it is not happening. We need to put power in the hands of parents.

Sorry, not what I meant. I meant that factory labor is leaving. We need to prepare our children to compete other industries. Mostly services industries that require math and science.

My point was that he will cave. I think Iran is drooling at possibility of Obama as president.

Agreed. I am happy to pay taxes. 40% of my labor is rediculous.

How much do you think you can bleed the investment class and businesses before it gets very bad for us? Money you take from those $250k earners is money taken out of the market. They aren’t hiding money under their matresses. They are spending it and investing it. Can you say job creation. The top 5% of americans already pay almost half the tax. The same people that use gov’t programs the least. How much is fair? You need to look and see what happened when Bush cut taxes. Record revenue. Much more than any one forecasted.

I can’t even fathum how how you beleive Obama is better for this country fiscally. I don’t even know where to start but how about trillions in new spending. He will move us even closer to socialism not towards a free market. This has never worked in the history of man kind. Why is this so hard for so many people to grasp.

Ron Paul was a bit of kook in my view.

You would be much better off in a free market. 99.9999% of Americans would be. Our founding fathers new this. Every well respected economist since Adam Smith knows this. Why we think going the other direction is a good ideal is beyond me. I am going to start posting the same recommended reading in all of these threads.

In our Hands - Charles Murray

What it means to be a Libertarian (or something like that) - Charles Murray

The Bell Curve - Charles Murray

Economics in one Lesson - Forget by who but great book. Read this first. Charles Murray is a close second. Very accessable.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution

Free to Choose - Milton Freidman (read any by Freidman)

Wealth of Nations - Adam Smith - Tough read but you will quickly become a fan of Adam Smith by reading any of the others.

Capitalism the Unknown Ideal (or something like that) - Ayn Rand - not an easy read.

There are so many others that I have not gotten to. Find any well respected economist that beleives more gov’t is better for the economy. I have not found one.

87

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gov’t is failing to provide our children a competitive education. Gov’t didn’t alway subsidise education and yet children were educated. I’de be an idiot if I thought gov’t subsidies would go away. a voucher would be almost as effective. What we need is competition. We need inovation in education and it is not happening. We need to put power in the hands of parents.
[/quote]

This is very incorrect. Before Primary education was mandated and provided by the govt, many did not go to school. Even after it was mandated, often kids didn’t go to school. Universal primary education is a relatively new phenomenon and something that should be celebrated. By “subsidize” I mean “pay for it.”

I’m a large proponent of vouchers. However, the govt must still pay for this.

[quote]

As far as losing factory jobs…of course, this has to do with the price of labor, not poor primary education.

Sorry, not what I meant. I meant that factory labor is leaving. We need to prepare our children to compete other industries. Mostly services industries that require math and science.[/quote] agreed

[quote]
My point was that he will cave. I think Iran is drooling at possibility of Obama as president.[/quote] I completely disagree. The interests of Iran and America are vastly different. However, there are places where they are in line. McCain’s saber-rattling won’t allow for these “in line” areas to be exploited.

[quote]
How much do you think you can bleed the investment class and businesses before it gets very bad for us? Money you take from those $250k earners is money taken out of the market. They aren’t hiding money under their matresses. They are spending it and investing it. Can you say job creation. The top 5% of americans already pay almost half the tax. The same people that use gov’t programs the least. How much is fair? You need to look and see what happened when Bush cut taxes. Record revenue. Much more than any one forecasted.[/quote]
We’re already paying for it. Look at the change in your hospital bills over the last ten years. The drastic increases in prices we are paying for is due in large part to the inability of hospitals to turn away people from the emergency room. When people get sick, they cannot go to the hospital because they cannot afford it. They wait and wait until the systems are acute, then they are shipped to the emergency room where they cannot be turned away and where the cost of treatment has now ballooned. “An penny of prevention is worth a dollar of cure” as they say. Essentially the real costs to the economy in terms of lost labor and extra fees (for lack of prevention and early treatment) are astronomical. It is quite likely that in real terms, “the rich” will be making more and paying less by creating universal healthcare.

Further, the IMF and Wall Street Journal, recently reported that in the last 10 years the bottom 99% of americans saw a less than 1% growth in real terms. When all boats are rising, everything is okay. But when 99% of the population is not experiencing growth, social cohesion is greatly stressed.

[quote]Lots about economy …
There are so many others that I have not gotten to. Find any well respected economist that beleives more gov’t is better for the economy. I have not found one.[/quote]

Thanks for the book recommendations, I’ll try to get to some of them that I haven’t yet read. In case it matters, my grad degree has a concentration in economics. Feel free to use “economic language” if you’d like.

There is a lot of debate among economists regarding the scope of government. A simple examination of the basic functions of different first world governments (and the eonomists who support those governments) would show you this. Sweden is very different than Japan which is very different than the US. Economists from these countries and our own argue about everything including scope and social benefits vs private costs and where these lines are truly drawn. In the 80’s and 90s the predominant view was against “the state” but most now see a specific, limited, necessary role for governments. A World Bank catch-phrase now is “Government Matters” I’ve never seen or read of an economist who wants to completely eliminate government as you seem to be advocating. Government has an important role to play. The question is where these lines should be drawn. “govt=bad, markets=good (civil society not important enough to mention)” is not a sound argument.

If your serious in wanting to look economic views about state scope,
A good recent economist that goes into the scope of Government is Fukuyama in “State Building”.

88

In terms of the Surge, why won’t people (dhickey and hedo) accept the metrics that President Bush laid out when initially justifying the decision?

Dhickey, you initially replied to my post saying we should use the standards set by our leaders, then when I showed you those standards, you chose to create new standards. Why? Is it simply because of your worldview?

Remember, it was President Bush who said, A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations.

89

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
In terms of the Surge, why won’t people (dhickey and hedo) accept the metrics that President Bush laid out when initially justifying the decision?

Dhickey, you initially replied to my post saying we should use the standards set by our leaders, then when I showed you those standards, you chose to create new standards. Why? Is it simply because of your worldview?

Remember, it was President Bush who said, A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations.[/quote]

Right, a stratagy that includes the surge as a portion. The surge has done what it was supposed to. Political reconsiliation and revenue sharing of oil is a part of the overal stratagy, not the surge.

90

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
This is very incorrect. Before Primary education was mandated and provided by the govt, many did not go to school. Even after it was mandated, often kids didn’t go to school. Universal primary education is a relatively new phenomenon and something that should be celebrated. By “subsidize” I mean “pay for it.”

I’m a large proponent of vouchers. However, the govt must still pay for this.
[/quote]
lets just agree on this one. vouchers are infinatly better than what we have now. This has to done to make any progress in education.

I am not seeing an common goals. He thinks we are evil. He wants an islamic world. We may share things in common with the people of Iran but not with their leader.

Where has this worked ever? You are treating the symptom not the cause. Why is health care so exensive? Why is health insurance so expensive? The answere is regulation and protectionism. Sorry to say but these wounds are self inflicted.

Again, self inflicted. We are creating two classes of people. Those that take from gov’t and those that pay for it.

I would be very interested in what you are leaning. If you have time, pm me other books you find useful. My degree was not economics related but there is no other area I am more interested in.

I don’t believe gov’t = bad and it absolutly don’t think it should be eliminated. I believe in the gov’t as our founding fathers saw it and intended it. I think my biggest issue (for many reasons) is a centralized gov’t. Gov’t power should be focuses and locally as possible. This allows people like me options. It is much easier to move to another city or state than move to another country. This also allows each state or local to become a petri dish of democracy. Different states can implement different policies and we can all see what works best. With a large central gov’t we may never know how good we could have had it. Local gov’t is also more accountable to it’s constituents.

I’ll pick it up.

91

dhickey, thanks for the civil conversation.

in terms of foreign relations, I find a lot of value in Kissinger-like realpolitik

basically I think nations have interests and these interest can be exploited. Iran, for example, has an interest in not allowing Iraq to become a failed state. The US shares this goal. Exploiting this can help to ensure a successful Iraq. Now, obviously, Iran would also like influence in Iraq. And, equally obviously, Iran will have some influences in Iraq (they are, after all, both predominately Shi’a nations and neighbors). Thus, the US is in a position where they can negotiate with Iran. To fail to negotiate (from strength) is to invite continued weapons shipments to insurgents and further terrorist activities. Iran will not give up influence, but if we can negotiate so that negative behavior (terrorist activities) will produce negative results (a reduction of rather than improvement of influence, for example), we will have been at least partially successful.

In terms of economics, I am basically arguing that there are some functions that are better placed in the hands of a government (whether centralized or localized) than left to the market. This is primarily due to economies of scale

the tragedy of the commons

information asymmetry

and public goods

and free riders

As far as universal healthcare, it has worked, and in many places. You may be interested in Japan’s healthcare system. Japanese people pay significantly less in taxes than do Americans, yet have an excellent healthcare system that has produced the longest-lived people on the planet (along, of course, with some other things). I is not perfect, but it has produced excellent results. Further, I believe, it greatly helped with their quick economic rise and ability to create a market system where “everyone is in the middle class” (a bit of false J-propaganda, but there’s a grain of truth to it).

This article is not very good, but it’s an intro Health care system in Japan - Wikipedia

Basically, I’m saying that govt should be involved where the marginal social benefits outweigh the marginal private benefits. I argue that healthcare would fall within this realm just as vaccines do. (better to pay for everyone to get a particular shot, than to have that disease running rampant in a society).

I understand your desire to localized power, and theoretically I agree with it. Practically I see a lot of problems. For example we’re not so far removed in time from Jim Crow laws and lynching. Brown vs Board of education was not so long ago. If local governments are allowed to “run free” I honestly believe jim crow laws would still exist today. And certainly abortion would be outlawed in certain states and there would be various laws against homosexuality. In short, in practice, my morality would now allow for states to hold that much power given what I know they would do with it. Sometime this works against me, as with drinking age law which I disagree with, but overall I think it’s for the better.