Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 MrScience wrote:
If it wasn't true, why is it written on a poster?

Checkmate Obamadrones!

They couldn't fit it on a T shirt.

 azazel the cat wrote:


I think what you really mean to say is: "Unfortunately the USA wasted its wealth on inefficient privatization where only a select few earn a profit at the expense of the taxpayers, allowed its own production industry to collapse thanks to deregulation, and then put itself in a position where taxes are politically impossible to raise despite the massive bill coming due for all the army toys it bought."

Uh... what?


I think you have a point about how inefficient our government spending can be.. but, are you advocating the we become more socialist? If so.. color me shocked!

Case in point: one of the chief problems that the ACA bill supposedly solved was to prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions, whereby those with prior health conditions can’t get new coverage. Of course, a 1996 law (HIPAA) had already severely scaled back the ability of group health insurance plans to exclude coverage for preexisting condition, which is a point that almost no one ever makes (or realizes?). That aside, however, John C. Goodman’s point is this:

The Affordable Care Act established a federally funded risk pool—the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan—that allows individuals with such disqualifying conditions to buy a policy for the same premium a healthy person would pay. About 82,000 people have signed up as of July 31, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s statehealthfacts.org.

That is not a misprint. Out of a population of more than 300 million, some 82,000 have the problem that was cited as the principal reason for spending $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years and in the process turning the entire health-care system upside down.

Goodman points out that there are many better ways to take care of these 82,000 people.

This is a perfect example of how government “solutions” rarely solve anything, and never do so efficiently.

That's a deeply fallacious point Goodman's making there. Trying to argue that pre-existing condition exclusions are the only purpose of the ACA. The ACA is a huge thing, and the only serious attempt anyone's made in decades to address the critical problems in our healthcare system; which hurts our economy as well as our citizens.

HIPAA limited application of pre-existing conditions clauses, but it didn't eliminate them. It also didn't prevent people being dumped from the rolls and denied coverage due to them after the fact.

Government solutions are solving all kinds of stuff in countries like Norway and Singapore.

In the USA, government solutions solved the Great Depression, WW2, and going to the Moon, amongst other things. Meanwhile the free market based medical system continues to cost 50-100% more than any other developed nation while generating worse results, and the free market banking system cast most of the world into the worst recession since before WW2.

 Mannahnin wrote:
That's a deeply fallacious point Goodman's making there. Trying to argue that pre-existing condition exclusions are the only purpose of the ACA. The ACA is a huge thing, and the only serious attempt anyone's made in decades to address the critical problems in our healthcare system; which hurts our economy as well as our citizens.

HIPAA limited application of pre-existing conditions clauses, but it didn't eliminate them. It also didn't prevent people being dumped from the rolls and denied coverage due to them after the fact.

Oh... I agree with you to a point... however, the pre-existing exlusion was one of the major talking points of the ACA bill (as it should).

The HIPAA limitation did make it harder from being disqualify... what it didn't do was eliminate the life-time $$$ cap (like the ACA does prohibit).

I think his point, which is what I was agreeing with him about, was that the ACA bill was touted to also reduce overall cost. Which it hasn't... and that we can do better to address the needs of those who has pre-existing conditions.

I think you know as I've said in the past. That if the government really has to be 'this involved'... then, dammit, just go the Canadian model. I think that if they keep intervening in the same way as they did with the ACA bill, it'll cause more issues.

And just to rile up Azazel... hey... did you know that Canada ration healthcare?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Government solutions are solving all kinds of stuff in countries like Norway and Singapore.

Right... but it isn't the only answer... That's what I was driving at.

In the USA, government solutions solved the Great Depression, WW2, and going to the Moon, amongst other things. Meanwhile the free market based medical system continues to cost 50-100% more than any other developed nation while generating worse results, and the free market banking system cast most of the world into the worst recession since before WW2.

There need to be a balance and I think we're tipping in the wrong direction.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

In the USA, government solutions solved the Great Depression, WW2, and going to the Moon, amongst other things.

Only if you define 'government solution' incredibly broadly.

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

In the USA, government solutions solved the Great Depression, WW2, and going to the Moon, amongst other things.

Only if you define 'government solution' incredibly broadly.

The government didn't solve the Great Depression, WW2 solved the Great Depression. It jumpstarted the economy and we were lucky enough that when the demand for war material slacked off we had a proportionate increase in consumer demand to pick it up.

You know, at first I was wondering why this thread was still opened since it was asked and answered, but then I was thinking this might be a pretty awesome thread to keep open until the election for debunking or confirming various things. The only thing is we'd have to exercise some pretty tight self control to decide when a question has been answered and moving on, instead of mingling old and new topics over and over again. Perhaps at some point the OP of a question can make their question red, and then post what the Dakka Fact Check Machine determined using snopes ratings.

On the other hand maybe this is too outside the scope of Dakka. /shrug

Is it just me, or do you guys find it extremely weird that both candidates have done public appearances with their sleeves rolled up? I dunno about you, but that just seems to me to be "unpresidential" like its too casual or something, i dunno, it just bugs me

Unprofessionalism by both goes way beyond roll sleeves.

Is it just me, or do you guys find it extremely weird that both candidates have done public appearances with their sleeves rolled up? I dunno about you, but that just seems to me to be "unpresidential" like its too casual or something, i dunno, it just bugs me

It's an image thing, people with rolled up sleeves are seen as hard working. The dude who was running Katrina aftermath was fired in part because he kept forgetting to roll up his sleeves when appearing on camera.

 Ratbarf wrote:
[It's an image thing, people with rolled up sleeves are seen as hard working. The dude who was running Katrina aftermath was fired in part because he kept forgetting to roll up his sleeves when appearing on camera.

What a fascinating historical revision.

 azazel the cat wrote:

AustonT wrote:I am standing behind a pickup in a parking lot with a poster board that reads:
233 years for US Debt to reach 9.2 Trillion 4 years for Obama to hit 16.2. That's 1.5 Billons per month in office.

So...true?

Well, 1.5 Billion per month for four years will total 72 billion, so I'm going to go ahead and guess that many facts have eluded the man with the bumper sticker, even beyond 3rd grade math.


EDIT: He'd actually have to spend almost 100 times that, at a rate of 145.83 billion per month in order to blow through 7 trillion.

That actually looks like some Lou Dobbs-esque math right there.

Yeah it seemed off, hence the post. But since I was in business mode I couldn't really put my finger on it. Still 11T to 16T is a noteworthy accomplishment, IMO not a positive one. Not that this dudes poster boar means bugger all in this election. I live in Arizona, you might as well just count out electoral votes now.

Still 11T to 16T is a noteworthy accomplishment, IMO not a positive one.

It's more like 3 trillion rather than 5, and two trillion of that comes from the stimulus spending and the healthcare thing. Other than those two he really hasn't spent all that much compared to Bush.

 Ratbarf wrote:

Still 11T to 16T is a noteworthy accomplishment, IMO not a positive one.

It's more like 3 trillion rather than 5, and two trillion of that comes from the stimulus spending and the healthcare thing. Other than those two he really hasn't spent all that much compared to Bush.

CBS News http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/ wrote:
It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office...It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.

I know it's a slight side issue, but I've seen the socialist notion of state health mentioned and passed off as expensive. So it got me wondering. Did a quick checke on US population size, which the current estimate is 314,663,618. Lets take off 100,000,000 to cover people who wouldn't be included, in fact lets just round it down to 214,000,000 and lets say we have contribution of $1 a week / $4 a month. This would give the US government $856,000,000 a month in extra money. Realistically you are probably looking at $15 a month, minimum, which works out at, $3,210,000,000 a month, not taking into account that over here in the UK the employer also contributes.

So ok, that a clean set of figures I'm using, but that's still a hell of a lot of money sloshing around. As it won't just be sat there waiting to be used to pay medical bills, it could be used for other things and if some of it is set to one side just imagine the interest!!

The USA spends a substantially higher percentage of its GDP on healthcare than any other developed nation (Canada, Japan, France, etc.)

It doesn't really matter whether the money spent is tax money or from private pockets by health insurance, or a mixture like in most countries. It is all money that can't be spent on something else.

Ok, so the government won't bank money the same way as you or I do, but they must have a "government saving" account system set up? I bet if you're sticking $3,210,000,000 a month in it they would get a pretty good interest rate? Obviously my example is a very simplistic one, but the basics are there. I would of thought that the US would of had more of an advantage than the rest of the world. You are the flag waver for capitalism, so you have all thes private hospitals in place, so need to build any. You contract out the hospital support to the ones that give the best value per $1. This means you're not even having to invest in an infrastructure up front. It's all in place, you just rent out the services from them, at the best value price. If they start trying to stich you up, then start building federal run hospitals. Simples!!!

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

In the USA, government solutions solved the Great Depression, WW2, and going to the Moon, amongst other things.

Only if you define 'government solution' incredibly broadly.

The government didn't solve the Great Depression, WW2 solved the Great Depression. It jumpstarted the economy and we were lucky enough that when the demand for war material slacked off we had a proportionate increase in consumer demand to pick it up.

One could then argue that due to government spending for WW2, that the government did indeed solve the Great Depression. Sorry but pretty much every economist agrees the government did solve it. WW2 did help, but don't go off claiming the government didn't do anything......just look at the New Deal

WW2 set up US industry for the follwing 30 odd years. You had a primed workforce and an industry geared up for mass production, with the world open to your exports.

Ratbarf wrote:

Is it just me, or do you guys find it extremely weird that both candidates have done public appearances with their sleeves rolled up? I dunno about you, but that just seems to me to be "unpresidential" like its too casual or something, i dunno, it just bugs me

It's an image thing, people with rolled up sleeves are seen as hard working. The dude who was running Katrina aftermath was fired in part because he kept forgetting to roll up his sleeves when appearing on camera.

I find it hilarious that you have confused "didn't have sleeves rolled up" with "living avatar of incompetence during a crisis situation"

Wolfstan wrote:WW2 set up US industry for the follwing 30 odd years. You had a primed workforce and an industry geared up for mass production, with the world open to your exports.

Also, it kinda helped that the auto industry, the backbone of US production, benefitted from having its two major competitors -Germany and Japan- bombed into rubble.

 Wolfstan wrote:
WW2 set up US industry for the follwing 30 odd years. You had a primed workforce and an industry geared up for mass production, with the world open to your exports.

We also didn't have our factories bombed all to hell. That helps things move along at a much brisker rate as well.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Ratbarf wrote:

Is it just me, or do you guys find it extremely weird that both candidates have done public appearances with their sleeves rolled up? I dunno about you, but that just seems to me to be "unpresidential" like its too casual or something, i dunno, it just bugs me

It's an image thing, people with rolled up sleeves are seen as hard working. The dude who was running Katrina aftermath was fired in part because he kept forgetting to roll up his sleeves when appearing on camera.

I find it hilarious that you have confused "didn't have sleeves rolled up" with "living avatar of incompetence during a crisis situation"

Wolfstan wrote:WW2 set up US industry for the follwing 30 odd years. You had a primed workforce and an industry geared up for mass production, with the world open to your exports.

Also, it kinda helped that the auto industry, the backbone of US production, benefitted from having its two major competitors -Germany and Japan- bombed into rubble.

I didn't think Japan was a major auto competitor until after WW2.

Grey Templar wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Ratbarf wrote:

Is it just me, or do you guys find it extremely weird that both candidates have done public appearances with their sleeves rolled up? I dunno about you, but that just seems to me to be "unpresidential" like its too casual or something, i dunno, it just bugs me

It's an image thing, people with rolled up sleeves are seen as hard working. The dude who was running Katrina aftermath was fired in part because he kept forgetting to roll up his sleeves when appearing on camera.

I find it hilarious that you have confused "didn't have sleeves rolled up" with "living avatar of incompetence during a crisis situation"

Wolfstan wrote:WW2 set up US industry for the follwing 30 odd years. You had a primed workforce and an industry geared up for mass production, with the world open to your exports.

Also, it kinda helped that the auto industry, the backbone of US production, benefitted from having its two major competitors -Germany and Japan- bombed into rubble.

I didn't think Japan was a major auto competitor until after WW2.

Japan was geared up to have a booming auto industry, until right around 1945. Toyota was a full-fledged auto company as early as the 1930s, when it was called Toyoda.

 Wolfstan wrote:
Ok, so the government won't bank money the same way as you or I do, but they must have a "government saving" account system set up? I bet if you're sticking $3,210,000,000 a month in it they would get a pretty good interest rate? Obviously my example is a very simplistic one, but the basics are there. ... ...

That is called a "sovereign wealth fund" and various countries such as Dubai, the PRC and Norway have them.

The thing is they are essentially socialistic.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
Ok, so the government won't bank money the same way as you or I do, but they must have a "government saving" account system set up? I bet if you're sticking $3,210,000,000 a month in it they would get a pretty good interest rate? Obviously my example is a very simplistic one, but the basics are there. ... ...

That is called a "sovereign wealth fund" and various countries such as Dubai, the PRC and Norway have them.

The thing is they are essentially socialistic.

And socialism are bad mm kay.

 LordofHats wrote:
Not to offend Norway, but its a country with a population of just over 5 million with massive oil and natural gas reserves and virtually no enemies who can realistically attack it, and no real foreign interests to enforce because all of Norway's neighbors are stable and friendly. Norway also controls its economic strengths very well.

It would be sad if Norway was massively in debt when it has so many advantages other larger economies don't.

While the oil reserves have certainly helped Norway, they're not the reason they're out of debt. Nor is it their low military spending (their military spending is roughly on par with other developed nations who aren't the US, but other countries have still fallen into massive debt).

Basically, Norway is actually a conservative, well run economy. Simply put - they tax enough to pay for their spending. Not only that, but they actually ration their oil and gas assets, so that future generations can continue to benefit.

Other countries are fairly close. It is certainly possible to maintain a fairly low debt to equity, no more than 30%, without any special advantages, as long as you have the right political climate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Unlike the USA, a country with massive oil and natural gas reserves and no enemies who can realistically attack it.

Unfortunately the USA wasted its wealth on massive social security and expensive public health programmes.

What the flaming ballsack? Where'd you get that from? 90% of Norway's state budget is transfers - money given for social security.

They pay for this by taxing the population about 26% of GDP. In contrast the USA taxes about 19% of GDP.

So, basically, Norway has a far more expansive social security network than the US. They avoid debt by taxing enough to pay for it, something the US isn't doing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
IIRC, we also let France and Germany and most other countries off the hook with what we let them borrow from us in post-WW2 rebuilding efforts, but in turn they have not let us off the hook for money that we borrowed from them... Obviously they don't follow the "I borrowed from you, you borrowed from me, so we're all square then" logic that many american (and possibly around the world?) friends do.

Well, those supplies were lent (really just straight up given, given the discounted prices) to various governments. And while the USA was remarkably generous in this, it wasn't like it was a purely charitable endeavour, you wanted a rebuilt modern world to prevent those countries falling into Communism.

Whereas the debt of the US government is not to governments - I mean why would the UK be lending you money, they've got their own debt problems. Rather US government debt is held mostly by private parties, many of whom are actually within the USA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
This is a perfect example of how government “solutions” rarely solve anything, and never do so efficiently.

See, that's the kind of ideology that stops you from engaging in practical, real world solutions. Markets are so complex that just saying 'more government' or 'less government' is like talking about dinner would be better with 'more sausage' or 'less sausage'. It depends on the sausage, and it really, really depends on the meal in question.

I mean, the classic example is the absolute cornerpiece of modern financial systems - the stock market. You won't find a more competitive market in the world, with prices up to date by the nano-second, and millions of players betting on their information constantly to make that the most efficient market the world has ever seen. And it is also the most heavily regulated market the world has ever seen, where insider trading, or misleading market announcements, or manipulative market behaviour can not only get you fined, it can put your ass in jail.

More or less government isn't a question. Exactly what government involvement is right for an individual market is a proper question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Only if you define 'government solution' incredibly broadly.

So the involvement of government in the solution is too broad a definition for 'government solution'. Huh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The government didn't solve the Great Depression, WW2 solved the Great Depression. It jumpstarted the economy and we were lucky enough that when the demand for war material slacked off we had a proportionate increase in consumer demand to pick it up.

Umm, that jumpstarting of the economy was through government ramping up military spending.

What a strange idea it is that if you hire a load of people to build roads and bridges it'll just prolong a depression, but if you hire a load of soldiers to go kill people on the other side of the world then that'll work. Really, really strange.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Is it just me, or do you guys find it extremely weird that both candidates have done public appearances with their sleeves rolled up? I dunno about you, but that just seems to me to be "unpresidential" like its too casual or something, i dunno, it just bugs me

Over here it's standard dress when a politician goes out on the campaign trail. Going to do a press op at a factory or a meet and greet at a shopping centre - then you don't wear a tie. Going out into farmland then there's a chance you might even be wearing jeans.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Samus_aran115 wrote:
All modern Nation-states of any significance in the last 400 years or so have amassed huge amounts of debts.

I'd assume Norway doesn't count as a Nation-state of any significance then?

I don't think Germany has debt. I could be wrong. I get distracted by the oompah bands and pitchers of beer.

Germany, the only country to defy Frazzled's Rule of Empires, that all empires are started by countries with really bad cuisine, questing for better munchies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Government solutions are solving all kinds of stuff in countries like Norway and Singapore.

In the USA, government solutions solved the Great Depression, WW2, and going to the Moon, amongst other things. Meanwhile the free market based medical system continues to cost 50-100% more than any other developed nation while generating worse results, and the free market banking system cast most of the world into the worst recession since before WW2.

No WWII solved the Great Depression for the US. We had slipped into a secondary trough at the time it started. Government programs didn't.

Germany has something at or above 2.9 Trillion USD in public debt. It represents like 83% of their GDP.
Also have you ever had Prussian food? They still meet your rule of empires.

 AustonT wrote:
Germany has something at or above 2.9 Trillion USD in public debt. It represents like 83% of their GDP.
Also have you ever had Prussian food? They still meet your rule of empires.

Didn't know that.
Explains Prussia though. Now Bavaria and Saxony, they're more my kind of party. Beer and sausage and torts oh my!