Incomes up and Poverty Down in 2019

[forkup]

The thing is what you call common sense is based on a wrong presupposition. Namely that a government bureaucracy is by definition worse than private sector bureaucracies. My government health care system for instance is considerably cheaper and more efficient than your fragmented for profit one.

Actually, in 2008 the entire banking sector went belly up in the US taking the rest of the world with them because there was insufficient regulation in regards to who was eligible for mortgages. I know for a fact that here there are strict regulations regarding issuing loans somethimg lile sub-prime mortgages would simply be illegal. Right of the bat how regulations can and do contribute to a sustainable business model.

In the US, the government is woefully less efficient than the private sector. That cannot be argued. The private sector in the US is the strongest in the world/ Maybe Europe's private sector is woeful as compared to the US thus the government is efficient in comparison. The US healthcare system is the best in the world in terms of quality. If you need life-saving, cutting edge treatments, the US is where you want to be. Don't be fooled. The main arguments against it mainly stem from lack of access and cost as compared to single-payer systems. I would argue that lack of access is grossly overestimated by the left who are pushing an agenda. Cost is most certainly overestimated as taxes in other countries are much higher. You pay one way or another. The US could stand for more competition to bring prices down, I don't deny that, however, the private sector is vastly more qualified to handle healthcare needs than the government. The US has the best chance to develop a COVID vaccine due to the private industries. Not sure what EU would do without our help frankly.

You need to do some research on the the 2008 crash. It was deregulation, but the impetus for this deregulation was a Democratic strategy employed in the name of "fairness" to give high risk loan applicants a better opportunity for home ownership. Just another bleeding heart left-wing policy with good intention but no forethought on the potential ramifications.

Is Europe much more efficient at spending tax revenue? To have people happy with paying their taxes tells me that it isn't being thrown down a rat hole. If their governments do spend more wisely, I'd love to hear the secret of what keeps them honest and not totally corrupt.

The secret is simple. Our elections are paid for by taxation. Political parties are limited in time in terms of running, they are limited in what they can do while running. It makes it so those elected at least nominally are beholding to their constituents instead of corporations to get elected.

 

[forkup]

If I work and make a wage. A wage that allows me to pay taxes and buy goods how am I letting the government take care of me? It's a disconnect I feel often occurs when talking to conservatives. For some reason services payed for by taxes are considered "given". They are not I paid for them

These services cost high wage earners much more than low wage earners. Low wage earners may not pay any in fact, if at all. It boils down to personal responsibility. You should be able to to most things for yourself aside from a few things.(roads, police protection, etc.) I want the freedom, a concept on which the US was founded, to make or break myself. I don't need a nanny as an adult.

As to social mobility. The whole concept of student debt is alien to people living here. Who do you think is more mobile in society. A person living in a country that allows everyone to have a higher education without accruing debt regardless of who you parents are? Or a person for whom the best universities are unaffordable unless they themselves are exceptional enough to qualify for a sholarship. And other higher education carries considerable financial burdens?

I have a much better chance of becoming what most would consider wealthy in the US than in Europe in part because someone has to foot the bill for this higher education that in many cases is simply not necessary. The person in Europe may get a "free" education, but that doesn't negate the fact that using that education to become wealthy is much harder due to the regulations and tax burdens.

If I work and make a wage. A wage that allows me to pay taxes and buy goods how am I letting the government take care of me? It's a disconnect I feel often occurs when talking to conservatives. For some reason services payed for by taxes are considered "given". They are not I paid for them

These services cost high wage earners much more than low wage earners. Low wage earners may not pay any in fact, if at all. It boils down to personal responsibility. You should be able to to most things for yourself aside from a few things.(roads, police protection, etc.) I want the freedom, a concept on which the US was founded, to make or break myself. I don't need a nanny as an adult.

As to social mobility. The whole concept of student debt is alien to people living here. Who do you think is more mobile in society. A person living in a country that allows everyone to have a higher education without accruing debt regardless of who you parents are? Or a person for whom the best universities are unaffordable unless they themselves are exceptional enough to qualify for a sholarship. And other higher education carries considerable financial burdens?

I have a much better chance of becoming what most would consider wealthy in the US than in Europe in part because someone has to foot the bill for this higher education that in many cases is simply not necessary. The person in Europe may get a "free" education, but that doesn't negate the fact that using that education to become wealthy is much harder due to the regulations and tax burdens.

I don't need a nanny as an adult.

You don't know that. You might fall ill, get unemployed or experience any one of a million things that derails all the plans you had. Knowing that whatever happens you are insured to not fall below a certain standard of living should be a right.

but that doesn't negate the fact that using that education to become wealthy is much harder due to the regulations and tax burdens.

This is the first argument you've made that is valid although simplified. It is true that it is harder to attain great wealth here. Those that have a higher education do enjoy a substantially higher standard of living on average.

 

[forkup]

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work to earn a wage, a wage that allows you too

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work and make a wage. A wage that allows me to pay taxes and buy goods how am I letting the government take care of me? It's a disconnect I feel often occurs when talking to conservatives. For some reason services payed for by taxes are considered "given". They are not I paid for them.

As to social mobility. The whole concept of student debt is alien to people living here. Who do you think is more mobile in society. A person living in a country that allows everyone to have a higher education without accruing debt regardless of who you parents are? Or a person for whom the best universities are unaffordable unless they themselves are exceptional enough to qualify for a sholarship. And other higher education carries considerable financial burdens?

Higher education is an investment just like the stock market or real estate. People who get a higher education on average will earn more money and be out of work less often than others who are not college educated.

Investments should not be funded by the taxpayers. I can't see spending my working life paying taxes so that somebody can go to school to be a lawyer, and then after they become a lawyer and I need their help, charge me 200 bucks an hour for that help.

Having an army or a fire department or roads for that matter could be considered an investment by your logic. Are you against paying taxes for that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Just a does of reality for all you Trump haters. The proof is again in the pudding. interestingly, look who benefited the most. But alas, these are the folks that are lock-step with the Democrats. Ignorance at best. We know it has taken a hit due to COVID, but it can be fixed under Trump. It will plummet with Biden.

Real median incomes of white, Black, Asian, and Hispanic households all increased from the prior year. Lower-income households did particularly well after missing out on income gains earlier in the expansion. The mean income of the lowest fifth of households rose 9% last year, a larger gain than for any other quintile of households.

U.S. Incomes Up, Poverty Rate Down in 2019

And that changes dramatically in 2020 to 2022.

 

[forkup]

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work to earn a wage, a wage that allows you too

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work and make a wage. A wage that allows me to pay taxes and buy goods how am I letting the government take care of me? It's a disconnect I feel often occurs when talking to conservatives. For some reason services payed for by taxes are considered "given". They are not I paid for them.

As to social mobility. The whole concept of student debt is alien to people living here. Who do you think is more mobile in society. A person living in a country that allows everyone to have a higher education without accruing debt regardless of who you parents are? Or a person for whom the best universities are unaffordable unless they themselves are exceptional enough to qualify for a sholarship. And other higher education carries considerable financial burdens?

Even with the higher taxes in Europe, it is still in the taxpayers best interest to make things efficient. Having three agencies that oversee the same thing, and layers of overlapping government are wasteful and expensive. Trump reducing those in America was helpful. While you don't mind paying higher taxes for your services, I imagine if the government makes stupid decisions, and your taxes rise to a certain level, you might view those taxes differently. Trump increased efficiency, which is common sense. It works with both Europe and the US. Here in the US, people act like it had nothing to do with our success before the virus.

I have a very simple outlook. What's cheaper. Is my government wasteful? Yes, it is. Does it offer services at a cheaper price than I could myself? Yes, it does. Not for everything of course. I have experience in both the US and here and have an actual base for comparison. I prefer my high taxation and limitations that come with living here over the risks I run in the US in the hope I'll become a millionaire.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work to earn a wage, a wage that allows you too

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work and make a wage. A wage that allows me to pay taxes and buy goods how am I letting the government take care of me? It's a disconnect I feel often occurs when talking to conservatives. For some reason services payed for by taxes are considered "given". They are not I paid for them.

As to social mobility. The whole concept of student debt is alien to people living here. Who do you think is more mobile in society. A person living in a country that allows everyone to have a higher education without accruing debt regardless of who you parents are? Or a person for whom the best universities are unaffordable unless they themselves are exceptional enough to qualify for a sholarship. And other higher education carries considerable financial burdens?

Higher education is an investment just like the stock market or real estate. People who get a higher education on average will earn more money and be out of work less often than others who are not college educated.

Investments should not be funded by the taxpayers. I can't see spending my working life paying taxes so that somebody can go to school to be a lawyer, and then after they become a lawyer and I need their help, charge me 200 bucks an hour for that help.

Having an army or a fire department or roads for that matter could be considered an investment by your logic. Are you against paying taxes for that?

Not really because everybody benefits equally from those things. A strong military is needed for a world power. It protects our freedoms as well as yours. A fire department usually includes paramedics in case of a medical emergency, and of course a major fire we individuals would not be capable of battling. If one doesn't drive or use the roads we have, their supplies, mail and buses or cabs use those roads to transport them where they need to go.

Advanced education only benefits individuals, not everybody. I don't care if you get a job emptying garbage or become an accountant. It's not an advantage or disadvantage either way for me. However you will make a better living, have a less physical job by becoming an accountant, so only you benefit.

 

[SweetTea]

Yes it can. PolitiFact - Comparing administrative costs for private insurance and Medicare and I just did.

As the article pointed out..." expressing administrative costs as a percentage of overall spending on health care is misleading in the case of Medicare, as the overall health care costs will be inherently larger when dealing with the disabled and over-65 population, artificially deflating the amount spent on administering that care. "

That is the most salient point of the article with regards to administrative costs.

I will also add that reimbursement is 200% less for Medicare vs private insurance. With a single payer system in place and no private insurance, doctors pay would decrease significantly, no longer attracting the best and the brightest and thus decreasing the overall quality of care.

That's an opinion, but even if it wasn't. Most people will never ever need the best life-saving, cutting edge treatment. They need quality healthcare they can afford. Having the worlds best cardiac surgeon does you no good if on average in cardiovascular diseases the US scores worse than my country (Belgium). (Which it does by the way)

CVD has to do with American's diet, not healthcare. A single payer system would decrease instances of death from CVD. Not having access to pre-eminent doctors however would increase the amount of unnecessary deaths.

Again an opinion, about that gross overestimation but just to give you my anecdotal evidence I know no one personally in Belgium who has ever had or wanted to go without care because of cost. I know about 3 personally in the US. As to cost. How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries? - Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker All these stats state total cost, meaning out of pocket plus taxation. The US is BY FAR the most expensive.

You get what you pay for.

Yet again an opinion. Russia already developed one. How effective it is I wouldn't dare to guess but it does tell me other countries are capable of developing one. The Covid 19 test that worked and was rejected by the US was developed in Germany. The US took a month longer. So why do you get the idea that the US is the only one being able to develop anything?

This is not an opinon. I said the odds are the US would create a vaccine first because there are more US companies that are close than any other single country In fact, all of Europe has 3 companies that are seriously involved and in the running. 2 of those are from Germany with some US influence and 1 is from France. Sorry, but for an entire continent with 44 countries and more than twice the population of the US, that is VERY, VERY telling. You are from Belgium. What would your country do if another country didn't come up with a vaccine? Why isn't your country, who is evidently very efficient and proficient in healthcare coming up with a solution? If they are, they are far behind.

If the argument is that deregulation always is a plus as was argued, stating the Democrats were responsible for this particular deregulation doesn't help you, does it?
Just to argue that little thing. W was in charge for 7 years when the crisis hit. Not exactly signalling he had a problem with it. Obama passed the Dodd-Frank Act | CFTC in response to it. It wasn't Democrats who repealed large parts of it.

I didn't argue that deregulation was always good. In this case, the mess started in the Carter administration with the Community Reinvestment Act. George W Bush added some oversight to it in the late 90's with the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act. Clinton proceeded to change the lending rules of the CRA after initially creating the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Lenders could then lend money to low income and high risks people who were previously not eligible for loans. I think you can see where that was headed. Loans were being made and sold off with the trust that they were properly vetted, as they always had been in the past. Well, they weren't Viola, a mess. Again, short-sighted, bleeding heart, left-wing politics in action.

Obama didn't even see it coming in the 2008 election, but McCain actually did. It all fell apart after Obama's election, which evidently, based on what I keep hearing about Trump, is Obama's fault, after all, anything that happens on your watch is your fault, right? The reality is, it wasn't Obama's fault. It wasn't really Bush's fault, though he should have seen it coming. It was the Democrats fault. They started us down the road to the failure.

 

[Markle]

Having an army or a fire department or roads for that matter could be considered an investment by your logic. Are you against paying taxes for that?

A military, fire department, and roads benefit the entire population.

 

[forkup]

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work to earn a wage, a wage that allows you too

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work and make a wage. A wage that allows me to pay taxes and buy goods how am I letting the government take care of me? It's a disconnect I feel often occurs when talking to conservatives. For some reason services payed for by taxes are considered "given". They are not I paid for them.

As to social mobility. The whole concept of student debt is alien to people living here. Who do you think is more mobile in society. A person living in a country that allows everyone to have a higher education without accruing debt regardless of who you parents are? Or a person for whom the best universities are unaffordable unless they themselves are exceptional enough to qualify for a sholarship. And other higher education carries considerable financial burdens?

Higher education is an investment just like the stock market or real estate. People who get a higher education on average will earn more money and be out of work less often than others who are not college educated.

Investments should not be funded by the taxpayers. I can't see spending my working life paying taxes so that somebody can go to school to be a lawyer, and then after they become a lawyer and I need their help, charge me 200 bucks an hour for that help.

Having an army or a fire department or roads for that matter could be considered an investment by your logic. Are you against paying taxes for that?

Not really because everybody benefits equally from those things. A strong military is needed for a world power. It protects our freedoms as well as yours. A fire department usually includes paramedics in case of a medical emergency, and of course a major fire we individuals would not be capable of battling. If one doesn't drive or use the roads we have, their supplies, mail and buses or cabs use those roads to transport them where they need to go.

Advanced education only benefits individuals, not everybody. I don't care if you get a job emptying garbage or become an accountant. It's not an advantage or disadvantage either way for me. However you will make a better living, have a less physical job by becoming an accountant, so only you benefit.

Not everybody benefits equally on roads. Nobody benefits from having an army if there's no war. Not everybody benefits equally from having a fire department. Some people never experience a fire or are in need of a paramedic. An interstate between Oregon and California does nothing for someone living in the Boondocks in Alabama. You accept that having those things are necessary for the benefit of society as a whole or an insurance policy if necessary. But for some reason giving everybody a chance to get a higher education is unacceptable because you might not personally benefit.

 

[SweetTea]

I prefer my high taxation and limitations that come with living here over the risks I run in the US in the hope I'll become a millionaire.

To each his own, however, the US was built on a different set of principles. I prefer the the risk and reward scenario. My main issue is that we seem to have a lot of Americans who want to this European style cradling here in the US. I say, move there if they want that. America is the leading economic and military power in the world and it became that way due to our ideology. No reason to change it.

 

[forkup]

Yes it can. PolitiFact - Comparing administrative costs for private insurance and Medicare and I just did.

As the article pointed out..." expressing administrative costs as a percentage of overall spending on health care is misleading in the case of Medicare, as the overall health care costs will be inherently larger when dealing with the disabled and over-65 population, artificially deflating the amount spent on administering that care. "

That is the most salient point of the article with regards to administrative costs.

I will also add that reimbursement is 200% less for Medicare vs private insurance. With a single payer system in place and no private insurance, doctors pay would decrease significantly, no longer attracting the best and the brightest and thus decreasing the overall quality of care.

That's an opinion, but even if it wasn't. Most people will never ever need the best life-saving, cutting edge treatment. They need quality healthcare they can afford. Having the worlds best cardiac surgeon does you no good if on average in cardiovascular diseases the US scores worse than my country (Belgium). (Which it does by the way)

CVD has to do with American's diet, not healthcare. A single payer system would decrease instances of death from CVD. Not having access to pre-eminent doctors however would increase the amount of unnecessary deaths.

Again an opinion, about that gross overestimation but just to give you my anecdotal evidence I know no one personally in Belgium who has ever had or wanted to go without care because of cost. I know about 3 personally in the US. As to cost. How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries? - Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker All these stats state total cost, meaning out of pocket plus taxation. The US is BY FAR the most expensive.

You get what you pay for.

Yet again an opinion. Russia already developed one. How effective it is I wouldn't dare to guess but it does tell me other countries are capable of developing one. The Covid 19 test that worked and was rejected by the US was developed in Germany. The US took a month longer. So why do you get the idea that the US is the only one being able to develop anything?

This is not an opinon. I said the odds are the US would create a vaccine first because there are more US companies that are close than any other single country In fact, all of Europe has 3 companies that are seriously involved and in the running. 2 of those are from Germany with some US influence and 1 is from France. Sorry, but for an entire continent with 44 countries and more than twice the population of the US, that is VERY, VERY telling. You are from Belgium. What would your country do if another country didn't come up with a vaccine? Why isn't your country, who is evidently very efficient and proficient in healthcare coming up with a solution? If they are, they are far behind.

If the argument is that deregulation always is a plus as was argued, stating the Democrats were responsible for this particular deregulation doesn't help you, does it?
Just to argue that little thing. W was in charge for 7 years when the crisis hit. Not exactly signalling he had a problem with it. Obama passed the Dodd-Frank Act | CFTC in response to it. It wasn't Democrats who repealed large parts of it.

I didn't argue that deregulation was always good. In this case, the mess started in the Carter administration with the Community Reinvestment Act. George W Bush added some oversight to it in the late 90's with the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act. Clinton proceeded to change the lending rules of the CRA after initially creating the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Lenders could then lend money to low income and high risks people who were previously not eligible for loans. I think you can see where that was headed. Loans were being made and sold off with the trust that they were properly vetted, as they always had been in the past. Well, they weren't Viola, a mess. Again, short-sighted, bleeding heart, left-wing politics in action.

Obama didn't even see it coming in the 2008 election, but McCain actually did. It all fell apart after Obama's election, which evidently, based on what I keep hearing about Trump, is Obama's fault, after all, anything that happens on your watch is your fault, right? The reality is, it wasn't Obama's fault. It wasn't really Bush's fault, though he should have seen it coming. It was the Democrats fault. They started us down the road to the failure.

That is the most salient point of the article with regards to administrative costs.

Nope this is. Experts told us we could safely assume private insurance costs, on the other hand, are much higher, though actual spending estimates vary.

CVD has to do with American's diet, not healthcare. A single payer system would decrease instances of death from CVD. Not having access to pre-eminent doctors however would increase the amount of unnecessary deaths.

Ok

Page Rendering Error

OECD's dissemination platform for all published content - books, podcasts, serials and statistics

www.oecd-ilibrary.org

You get what you pay for.

Really? Life Expectancy by Country and in the World (2020) - Worldometer
Something tells me your overpaying

I didn't argue that deregulation was always good.

No, you didn't. You interjected yourself into a conversation where someone else did by trying to imply that deregulation works as long as Republicans do it or something?

 

[forkup]

I prefer my high taxation and limitations that come with living here over the risks I run in the US in the hope I'll become a millionaire.

To each his own, however, the US was built on a different set of principles. I prefer the the risk and reward scenario. My main issue is that we seem to have a lot of Americans who want to this European style cradling here in the US. I say, move there if they want that. America is the leading economic and military power in the world and it became that way due to our ideology. No reason to change it.

It became that because it was the only major industrialized nation that wasn't under direct threat and the only major industrial nation that wasn't completely destroyed post world war 2. It benefited from its geography and its innate wealth.

As to having no reason to change it. The US is lagging behind in most indices in regards to health, education and income inequality. Money and power is not an end-all to be all.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work to earn a wage, a wage that allows you too

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work and make a wage. A wage that allows me to pay taxes and buy goods how am I letting the government take care of me? It's a disconnect I feel often occurs when talking to conservatives. For some reason services payed for by taxes are considered "given". They are not I paid for them.

As to social mobility. The whole concept of student debt is alien to people living here. Who do you think is more mobile in society. A person living in a country that allows everyone to have a higher education without accruing debt regardless of who you parents are? Or a person for whom the best universities are unaffordable unless they themselves are exceptional enough to qualify for a sholarship. And other higher education carries considerable financial burdens?

Higher education is an investment just like the stock market or real estate. People who get a higher education on average will earn more money and be out of work less often than others who are not college educated.

Investments should not be funded by the taxpayers. I can't see spending my working life paying taxes so that somebody can go to school to be a lawyer, and then after they become a lawyer and I need their help, charge me 200 bucks an hour for that help.

Having an army or a fire department or roads for that matter could be considered an investment by your logic. Are you against paying taxes for that?

Not really because everybody benefits equally from those things. A strong military is needed for a world power. It protects our freedoms as well as yours. A fire department usually includes paramedics in case of a medical emergency, and of course a major fire we individuals would not be capable of battling. If one doesn't drive or use the roads we have, their supplies, mail and buses or cabs use those roads to transport them where they need to go.

Advanced education only benefits individuals, not everybody. I don't care if you get a job emptying garbage or become an accountant. It's not an advantage or disadvantage either way for me. However you will make a better living, have a less physical job by becoming an accountant, so only you benefit.

Not everybody benefits equally on roads. Nobody benefits from having an army if there's no war. Not everybody benefits equally from having a fire department. Some people never experience a fire or are in need of a paramedic. An interstate between Oregon and California does nothing for someone living in the Boondocks in Alabama. You accept that having those things are necessary for the benefit of society as a whole or an insurance policy if necessary. But for some reason giving everybody a chance to get a higher education is unacceptable because you might not personally benefit.

Not just me, but society in general.

Even if you never have the need for emergency services, it's just a relief knowing they are there in case you do. Our goods don't come from our local cities and states, they are manufactured all across the country, therefore a road in Oregon does benefit me because something I need to purchase may have come from another state that did use that highway.

Having a strong military is a benefit because even when not at war, it's a deterrent. We don't have nuclear arms to use them, we have nuclear arms so we don't have to use them.

Many people will never go to college. Blue collar workers are geared just for that--manual labor. We need those people just like we need doctors, nurses and architects.

 

[forkup]

Having an army or a fire department or roads for that matter could be considered an investment by your logic. Are you against paying taxes for that?

A military, fire department, and roads benefit the entire population.

Not everybody benefits equally on roads. Nobody benefits from having an army if there's no war. Not everybody benefits equally from having a fire department. Some people never experience a fire or are in need of a paramedic. An interstate between Oregon and California does nothing for someone living in the Boondocks in Alabama. You accept that having those things are necessary for the benefit of society as a whole or an insurance policy if necessary. But for some reason giving everybody a chance to get a higher education is unacceptable because you might not personally benefit.

 

[Brain357]

GDP growth down, deficit massively up.

 

[forkup]

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work to earn a wage, a wage that allows you too

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work and make a wage. A wage that allows me to pay taxes and buy goods how am I letting the government take care of me? It's a disconnect I feel often occurs when talking to conservatives. For some reason services payed for by taxes are considered "given". They are not I paid for them.

As to social mobility. The whole concept of student debt is alien to people living here. Who do you think is more mobile in society. A person living in a country that allows everyone to have a higher education without accruing debt regardless of who you parents are? Or a person for whom the best universities are unaffordable unless they themselves are exceptional enough to qualify for a sholarship. And other higher education carries considerable financial burdens?

Higher education is an investment just like the stock market or real estate. People who get a higher education on average will earn more money and be out of work less often than others who are not college educated.

Investments should not be funded by the taxpayers. I can't see spending my working life paying taxes so that somebody can go to school to be a lawyer, and then after they become a lawyer and I need their help, charge me 200 bucks an hour for that help.

Having an army or a fire department or roads for that matter could be considered an investment by your logic. Are you against paying taxes for that?

Not really because everybody benefits equally from those things. A strong military is needed for a world power. It protects our freedoms as well as yours. A fire department usually includes paramedics in case of a medical emergency, and of course a major fire we individuals would not be capable of battling. If one doesn't drive or use the roads we have, their supplies, mail and buses or cabs use those roads to transport them where they need to go.

Advanced education only benefits individuals, not everybody. I don't care if you get a job emptying garbage or become an accountant. It's not an advantage or disadvantage either way for me. However you will make a better living, have a less physical job by becoming an accountant, so only you benefit.

Not everybody benefits equally on roads. Nobody benefits from having an army if there's no war. Not everybody benefits equally from having a fire department. Some people never experience a fire or are in need of a paramedic. An interstate between Oregon and California does nothing for someone living in the Boondocks in Alabama. You accept that having those things are necessary for the benefit of society as a whole or an insurance policy if necessary. But for some reason giving everybody a chance to get a higher education is unacceptable because you might not personally benefit.

Not just me, but society in general.

Even if you never have the need for emergency services, it's just a relief knowing they are there in case you do. Our goods don't come from our local cities and states, they are manufactured all across the country, therefore a road in Oregon does benefit me because something I need to purchase may have come from another state that did use that highway.

Having a strong military is a benefit because even when not at war, it's a deterrent. We don't have nuclear arms to use them, we have nuclear arms so we don't have to use them.

Many people will never go to college. Blue collar workers are geared just for that--manual labor. We need those people just like we need doctors, nurses and architects.

Society in general benefits from a highly educated populace and belief me offering the chance for everyone to become highly educated doesn't make everybody all of a sudden capable or even interested in attaining one. I live in a country where the only limitation is your intellect. Our garbage still gets picked up.

 

[DustyInfinity]

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work to earn a wage, a wage that allows you too

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work and make a wage. A wage that allows me to pay taxes and buy goods how am I letting the government take care of me? It's a disconnect I feel often occurs when talking to conservatives. For some reason services payed for by taxes are considered "given". They are not I paid for them.

As to social mobility. The whole concept of student debt is alien to people living here. Who do you think is more mobile in society. A person living in a country that allows everyone to have a higher education without accruing debt regardless of who you parents are? Or a person for whom the best universities are unaffordable unless they themselves are exceptional enough to qualify for a sholarship. And other higher education carries considerable financial burdens?

Even with the higher taxes in Europe, it is still in the taxpayers best interest to make things efficient. Having three agencies that oversee the same thing, and layers of overlapping government are wasteful and expensive. Trump reducing those in America was helpful. While you don't mind paying higher taxes for your services, I imagine if the government makes stupid decisions, and your taxes rise to a certain level, you might view those taxes differently. Trump increased efficiency, which is common sense. It works with both Europe and the US. Here in the US, people act like it had nothing to do with our success before the virus.

I have a very simple outlook. What's cheaper. Is my government wasteful? Yes, it is. Does it offer services at a cheaper price than I could myself? Yes, it does. Not for everything of course. I have experience in both the US and here and have an actual base for comparison. I prefer my high taxation and limitations that come with living here over the risks I run in the US in the hope I'll become a millionaire.

People in the US have said that government programs would be cheaper than private services, and they have been wrong every single time. By your outlook of what is cheaper, people who live in the US have an obvious choice, private services. It isn't even close. Government involvement normally causes a service's cost to explode far over the cost of if the government would have just stayed away.

 

[forkup]

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work to earn a wage, a wage that allows you too

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work and make a wage. A wage that allows me to pay taxes and buy goods how am I letting the government take care of me? It's a disconnect I feel often occurs when talking to conservatives. For some reason services payed for by taxes are considered "given". They are not I paid for them.

As to social mobility. The whole concept of student debt is alien to people living here. Who do you think is more mobile in society. A person living in a country that allows everyone to have a higher education without accruing debt regardless of who you parents are? Or a person for whom the best universities are unaffordable unless they themselves are exceptional enough to qualify for a sholarship. And other higher education carries considerable financial burdens?

Even with the higher taxes in Europe, it is still in the taxpayers best interest to make things efficient. Having three agencies that oversee the same thing, and layers of overlapping government are wasteful and expensive. Trump reducing those in America was helpful. While you don't mind paying higher taxes for your services, I imagine if the government makes stupid decisions, and your taxes rise to a certain level, you might view those taxes differently. Trump increased efficiency, which is common sense. It works with both Europe and the US. Here in the US, people act like it had nothing to do with our success before the virus.

I have a very simple outlook. What's cheaper. Is my government wasteful? Yes, it is. Does it offer services at a cheaper price than I could myself? Yes, it does. Not for everything of course. I have experience in both the US and here and have an actual base for comparison. I prefer my high taxation and limitations that come with living here over the risks I run in the US in the hope I'll become a millionaire.

People in the US have said that government programs would be cheaper than private services, and they have been wrong every single time. By your outlook of what is cheaper, people who live in the US have an obvious choice, private services. It isn't even close. Government involvement normally causes a service's cost to explode far over the cost of if the government would have just stayed away.

PolitiFact - Comparing administrative costs for private insurance and Medicare They are wrong every single time? You are sure about that?

 

[SweetTea]

Ok

Page Rendering Error

OECD's dissemination platform for all published content - books, podcasts, serials and statistics

www.oecd-ilibrary.org

Meaningless data points.

Really? Life Expectancy by Country and in the World (2020) - Worldometer
Something tells me your overpaying

Again, meaningless due to diet and regional genetics.

No, you didn't you interjected yourself into a conversation where someone else did by trying to imply that deregulation works as long as Republicans do it or something.

Ok, how about this. Less overall regulations are better. Democrats always want more...in ad infinitum.

It became that because it was the only major industrialized nation that wasn't under direct threat and to the only major industrial nation that wasn't completely destroyed post world war 2. It benefited from its geography and its innate wealth.

The US benefited greatly from the US Constitution and a system that allowed people and business to flourish. There is a reason why the majority of the most successful and powerful companies in the world are from the US and it has nothing to do with geography nor innate wealth. 88% of millionaires in the US are self-made. This is not the case in countries like Switzerland, who has a very large concentration of millionaires. Keep in mind, they have a very favorable asset and inheritance taxes(the opposite of the Democratic Party in the US) and there and over 1/2 of their millionaires have come from other countries.

 

[SweetTea]

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work to earn a wage, a wage that allows you too

Great! Please explain what I mean by "the most active and aggressive Fed in the history of the country". And please break it down to the actions of the central Fed and the NY Fed over the last three years, AND the long term implications of those actions.

Go ahead. Feel free to get as specific as you'd like.

Oh, and then tell us how long we can engage in massive deficit spending increases.

Thanks in advance.

Meaning, you've got NOTHING!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull s***!
'

Is that supposed to be some kind of answer?

I already asked you to provide details as to why you think the Biden/Harris plan will be successul and how the fed will change their monetary policy under Biden/Harris. Instead of answering, you filabuster.

So his big reason why people doing better financially doesn't matter is the fed, and the fed will do the exact same thing with Harris. Plus, everyone's gains will be removed, and spending will balloon even higher. Mac, why are you not rooting for people to win in any fashion?

Because we're being terribly fiscally irresponsible. This comes at a cost.

It's sad that I even have to say this.

You can see that lower taxes and regulations give people a better chance to take care of themselves? Despite what the fed is doing, I would have to think common sense practices would still allow wages to rise. Are you saying nothing Trump does is good for the country economically because of what the fed is doing? If nothing matters because of the fed, people have pointed out that the fed behavior will likey be the same under a democrat administration.

How do you make that connection. Wages rose under Obama despite more regulation. We have way more regulations and way higher taxes and people here are capable of taking better care of themselves and their family. I'm not trying to do some gotcha thing but I'd like to know what objective fact you're aware of that leads you to conclude that lower taxes and regulations lead to being better able to take care of yourself?

Note he said taking care of yourself, not being taken care of by the government. Europe has a larger welfare state than the US. Ironically, the US citizens give MUCH more to charity than those in Europe, who rely on government redistribution of wealth. We are much more in control of our personal welfare than those in Europe and I personally like that because I am willing to take on the personal responsibility and the risk that allows me to move up( and down) the economic ladder much more freely than in Europe.

If I work and make a wage. A wage that allows me to pay taxes and buy goods how am I letting the government take care of me? It's a disconnect I feel often occurs when talking to conservatives. For some reason services payed for by taxes are considered "given". They are not I paid for them.

As to social mobility. The whole concept of student debt is alien to people living here. Who do you think is more mobile in society. A person living in a country that allows everyone to have a higher education without accruing debt regardless of who you parents are? Or a person for whom the best universities are unaffordable unless they themselves are exceptional enough to qualify for a sholarship. And other higher education carries considerable financial burdens?

Even with the higher taxes in Europe, it is still in the taxpayers best interest to make things efficient. Having three agencies that oversee the same thing, and layers of overlapping government are wasteful and expensive. Trump reducing those in America was helpful. While you don't mind paying higher taxes for your services, I imagine if the government makes stupid decisions, and your taxes rise to a certain level, you might view those taxes differently. Trump increased efficiency, which is common sense. It works with both Europe and the US. Here in the US, people act like it had nothing to do with our success before the virus.

I have a very simple outlook. What's cheaper. Is my government wasteful? Yes, it is. Does it offer services at a cheaper price than I could myself? Yes, it does. Not for everything of course. I have experience in both the US and here and have an actual base for comparison. I prefer my high taxation and limitations that come with living here over the risks I run in the US in the hope I'll become a millionaire.

People in the US have said that government programs would be cheaper than private services, and they have been wrong every single time. By your outlook of what is cheaper, people who live in the US have an obvious choice, private services. It isn't even close. Government involvement normally causes a service's cost to explode far over the cost of if the government would have just stayed away.

PolitiFact - Comparing administrative costs for private insurance and Medicare They are wrong every single time? You are sure about that?

Yes, we are sure. As I mentioned before, you ignore glaring issues like reimbursement and a skewed administrative costs as a percentage of over all cost since Medicare deals with disabled and elderly patients. Nobody and I mean NOBODY who has any sense thinks the US government is efficient.