Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 4:50 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Seriously?
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 9:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:36 am
Posts: 575
Well ,I 'm not educated nor clever but when we had the banking crisis I started to try to find out what had happened and why it had happened. I found folks online talking about it. People like Marc Farber,Gerald Celente, Peter Schiff and Mike Maloney. From them I think that I gained some perspective, however I am also concerned that many of these guys sound like they are on the fringe, talking about conspiracy theories, then again.just because we call conspiracies by name, it doesn't mean that they don't exist.look at Jon Corzine and the MF global thingy.were all those farmers lost all that money..and poor Jon had no idea where it had all gone 8O , and so he didn't go to gaol :? .............anyways what I see is that the US is so badly in debt that there is no way that she can get out of it, and at sometime there must be some kind of collapse,that is not unthinkable just look at the former USSR.personnally I bought some gold ( admittedly for other reasons as well which I won't go into).but it has no counter party risk, it can't be printed out of existance and I can keep it in my hand....I am seriously concerned about the way things are panning out. Germany has asked for her Gold, kept in the US to be returned ( could be a couple of reasons for that,she doesn't trust the Fed, or she is thinking about exiting the Euro and wants a gold backed currency) also the Chinese and Indians are also buying lots of gols......as are all the central banks.Me,I've got a little, and wonder if I should buy a lot more , any thoughts gentlemen?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously?
PostPosted: Mon Nov 12, 2012 9:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 2142
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
jorvik wrote:
then again.just because we call conspiracies by name, it doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Henry Kissinger wrote:
Even a paranoid can have enemies

_________________
Glenn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously?
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 4:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17137
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Glenn

When it's obvious that political views can't be put on a single dimension, it baffles me that you'd then come back and post a one-dimensional spectrum. There's no point even discussing political views when we're supposed to handicap ourselves with a large dose of stupid. One of your own graphs shows that "independent" is a larger group than either Democrat or Republican. That should be a clue.

As for us not being in a "recession", well by the technical definition of what a recession is that's true. What we're in however is a jobless recovery. And when you consider the labor force participation rate which is at near record lows (63%), then we're talking about rarefied territory.

Image

The "drop" in the unemployment rate below 10% ultimately is sleight of hand. The difference is accounted for by a growing population no longer actively engaged in seeking employment. That's less taxable income, which then makes the wealth redistributionists start talking about "the rich paying their fair share."

When it comes to talented people temporarily off the "unemployment" ranks because they aren't or can't collect unemployment any more, I can name names.

Here's another interesting plot worth pondering.

Image

Every day my wife (a healthcare practitioner) encounters folks who want to join the ranks of the "disabled" without really qualifying for it. She refuses to participate.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously?
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 6:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 2142
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
I am simply pointing out the reality that is when it comes to campaign strategy, like I said it may not be academically adequate or realistic but it works come election time.

However I do find it interesting that in the same post you both argue against a one-dimensional view of political views and for a one-dimensional view of a shrinking labor force. The reality is more complex. For example, it is easy to claim that we are "at near record lows" when the chart you use only goes back to 2001, but what about if we back a bit further:
Image
As you can see we are not even close to record-low or rarified territory (which probably actually occurred during the Depression). So what is really going on with labor-force participation?
Quote:
Aggregates can be misleading. For instance, that surge in the participation rate from the 1960's to 1980's is a result of women joining the workforce. The male rate, on the other hand, has been declining since the 1950's. Male participation has fallen under President Obama. It fell under President George W. Bush. And President Clinton. It's fallen in every presidential administration going back to at least Eisenhower's, with the exception of Carter's, for whom it was flat.

Female labor force participation:
Image
Male labor force participation:
Image
Notice how on all three graphs show that labor-force participation sometimes actually increases during recessionary periods (shaded areas) and decreases during non-recessionary periods. So maybe this "can't be put this on a single dimension", as you say.
Quote:
Why are fewer men choosing to work? For that, we turn to the Census Bureau's 2012 Statistical Abstract. The participation rate is lower for single men than for married men, and marriage rates in the US have been falling for decades, so we'd expect a modest decline from that. Looking by age bucket, it's been pretty steady for single and married men for everyone over the age of 25 since the start of the Great Recession.

The recent decline we've seen has been primarily among young, single men. For single men age 16-19, participation fell by almost 9 points from 2006-2010. For single men age 20-24 it fell by almost 5 points. This could be for a variety of factors, from men deciding it's not worth bothering to apply for a job at the local grocery store, to men more focused on their education with unskilled work harder to find, to those living at home who decide there's no need for spending money when so much entertainment is free online.

Additionally, the acceleration in the labor force decline began when the oldest baby boomers began turning 60. Yes, because of deflated housing prices and retirement accounts, boomers will work longer than they thought. But 60-year olds still work less than 30-year olds, and that demographic shift is being reflected in the data.

And so on. The point here is, change in labor-force participation is hardly the one-dimensional "growing population no longer actively engaged in seeking employment" argument that you present.

If by "jobless recovery" you mean that we have only readded the same number of jobs lost during the recession for a net gain of zero, then yes I suppose you could call that a jobless recovery (although the economists are no longer calling it that).

Bill Glasheen wrote:
Here's another interesting plot worth pondering.

You do realize that although that plot is titled "Disability Insurance Awards on the Rise" that it actually shows disability awards decreasing since early 2011.

_________________
Glenn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously?
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17137
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Glenn wrote:
I am simply pointing out the reality that is when it comes to campaign strategy, like I said it may not be academically adequate or realistic but it works come election time

No it doesn't work. To force 3 dimensions into one is asking us all to play stupid. I don't do stupid.

Please, Glenn, tell me the difference between Rick Santorum and a typical Virginia "Blue Dog Democrat." I've seen Chris Matthews try. He'll start spewing out words like "the far right" or some other such nonsense.

Please explain libertarianism (e.g. Ron Paul) using this spectrum. You can't. This is where the one-dimensional thinkers really hit their stride with words like "crazy". It's quite entertaining.

Please explain the difference between technophobic and technophilic using this one-dimensional spectrum. If you don't think it's important, you obviously didn't grow up in the shadows of Langley NASA. And you've never pondered putting Ralph Nader and the Green Party onto this spectrum.

As for the labor force participation rate, you can't compare today's numbers with the previous generation's numbers. In my mom's generation, women were housewives. They don't count that as a job, unless you're tending to someone else's home. Apples and oranges. You can however try to explain to me how my mom wasn't working when she raised 8 kids (with no modern conveniences like clothes driers or dish washers) and did my dad's books for both his companies. (FWIW, she was also valedictorian of her Greenwhich High School class. And she had a broker's license.)

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously?
PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2012 3:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 2142
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
There are times when you come across as the perpetual teenager Bill, for example when you insist on arguing with those who agree with you. Yes it is stupid, as I said before feel free to try to change the R and D campaign strategies. Sure you cannot adequately put Libertarianism on that spectrum, I never said you could. But Libertarian candidates/voters also had no impact on the election which is why the R and D candidates ignored them. Technophobic/philic may be an important dimension to us, but there was zero attention paid to it by R and D candidates. I agree with you whole hardedly, candidates, platforms, and campaigns should be multi-dimensional, and if we had a strong 3rd (4th, 5th, etc) party we would at least have some more multi-dimensional options. The last time a third-party candidate influenced an election was in 2000 when Nader cost Gore Florida and thus an electoral college win, the strategy of ignoring certain dimensions did not pay off for the D's then.

Bill Glasheen wrote:
As for the labor force participation rate, you can't compare today's numbers with the previous generation's numbers. In my mom's generation, women were housewives.

Which was talked about in what I posted. So you did not look at the graphs and stats? You're just going to ignore the fact that the male labor force participation rate has been declining since the 1950s? That the female labor force participation rate peaked around 2000? That part of the current trend can be tied to increased retirement rates of aging baby boomers? That all of the trends are not impacting labor force participation, it is only a factor of the recession/jobless recovery?
Bill Glasheen wrote:
No it doesn't work. To force 3 dimensions into one is asking us all to play stupid. I don't do stupid.

So why do you see A as multidimensional but not B when the facts support both of them being multidimensional? You seem to be arguing just to argue.

_________________
Glenn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously?
PostPosted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17137
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Glenn wrote:
There are times when you come across as the perpetual teenager Bill

In the right circumstances and with the right company, that could be a compliment! :-P

Easy there, cowboy!

Glenn wrote:
Libertarian candidates/voters also had no impact on the election which is why the R and D candidates ignored them. Technophobic/philic may be an important dimension to us, but there was zero attention paid to it by R and D candidates. I agree with you whole hardedly, candidates, platforms, and campaigns should be multi-dimensional, and if we had a strong 3rd (4th, 5th, etc) party we would at least have some more multi-dimensional options. The last time a third-party candidate influenced an election was in 2000 when Nader cost Gore Florida and thus an electoral college win, the strategy of ignoring certain dimensions did not pay off for the D's then.

Wow!!

Did it ever occur to you that each party has a very large tent, and that the myriad positions within those tents are hashed out during the primaries? The process of picking an eventual candidate isn't about stage presence and a vetting of closet skeletons. And it isn't about a party dictating to a candidate what positions (s)he should hold because they are D or R. Rather the candidates present themselves to the voters, and they pretty much determine what personality and paired views they can live with most.

Did you watch the Republican debates? There were 10 candidates and 20 debates. The positions of the candidates on these 3 dimensions were compared and contrasted from one debate to the next. Speaking of libertarian... Ron Paul was about as close to representing those views as any of the 10 candidates. While he didn't win any primaries, he did well enough to last to the end. He had a very strong youth following throughout, and there are signs that this sector may gain more influence going forward.

Meanwhile... Rick Santorum who represents classic social conservative views did well in some central US states (e.g. the bible belt), but not in others. And why? Because the most important issues this time around were related to the economy, and the candidate who best represented economic liberty principles without making the social dimension a distraction was the one who eventually won.

Four years from now it may be different.

Virginia Democrats - often labeled Blue Dog Democrats because of their economically conservative viewpoints - are rarely considered typical Democrats.

Glenn wrote:
So you did not look at the graphs and stats?


I've read several long articles on the labor force participation rate in the Wall Street Journal this year. These articles included a long study of the statistic, and how yesterday's numbers don't apply to today's. As you recall, I was the one who brought the subject up. I brought it up in the context of how it's changed since the start of the recession, and how the present unemployment rate is masking a bigger problem. That fact remains. And for the record, a lot of boomers who were hoping to retire early didn't because their 401Ks are about at 101K level right now. For those who can't find work now because of age discrimination and/or being unemployed too long - and I can name names - they'd happily re-enter the labor force when/if we had an economy that would employ them. But that fact is just a tad too inconvenient for those who are trying to tell us that we've come so far and our leaders are doing the right thing.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously?
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 2142
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Well I seem to be the perpetual college student, that is only marginally different from being a perpetual teenager.
College, the best 20 years of my life...
I am now in the unique position of being a doctoral student in college at the same time that my oldest is a freshman in college. I keep threatening to take a class with her. I sure hope I am done before my oldest graduates...or my middle child reaches college! Comps in the Spring, that will be a milestone...one way or another...

As for primaries, I agree they do sometimes showcase more of the diversity in each party, although it seemed less so this year, particularly among Republicans. I do not focus too much on the primaries myself, due to time constraints plus since I am an independent I do not get to vote in the primaries. So I usually wait until the dust settles from the primaries and then focus on the candidate from each party that is left standing. And I sure do not recall seeing many dimensions in all those platforms, speeches, and ads we were inundated with during the final months. I stand by what I said six months ago:
Glenn wrote:
We discussed 2D (and higher) political-spectrum charts (including the Nolan chart which was created in 1969 by one of the founders of the Libertarian Party to illustrate the Libertarian view) at length early on in a political behavior graduate seminar course I took this spring. Increasing the dimensions to incompass spectrums other than liberal-conservative can offer some slight increases in explanatory power for the academics, but have had little impact on the campaign strategy the public sees which is largely dominated by Republican vs Democrat interests. The reality of campaigning is that the focus is on conservative versus liberal. In the primaries this year the Republican candidates were all trying to present themselves as the most conservative and their opponents as being liberal. I have yet to hear anyone campaign on a technophilic vs technophobic platform, nor many of the other dimensions that are championed by other similar 2D charts.

Admittedly, I may have short-changed Ron Paul a bit, but his impact was brief as he was quickly overshadowed by the more standard party line which meant he was not going to be the nominee.

As for the labor force participation discussion, ignoring a constant 60 year trend and saying the past has no effect on the present simply makes no sense. Nothing in the data supports the conclusion that the current labor-force participation rate is solely a product of the recession. Was the recession a factor? Sure, the slope clearly became a little steeper. But blaming the current decline only on the recession masks other causal factors and will severely limit any success in addressing the issue. At the very least we have to go back to 2000 when the current aggregate decline began. Delayed retirement for boomers was included in what I presented, the fact remains that many have retired, and I can name names. Was there by any chance any evidence presented in the WSJ articles you read or was it just anecdotes like you are presenting?

Bill Glasheen wrote:
If you take Classical Liberalism and add in technophilic, you get Thomas Jefferson. That's pretty much where I sit in my political views.

A new biography came out yesterday that you might be interested in Bill
Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power

Image

_________________
Glenn


Last edited by Glenn on Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously?
PostPosted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 2142
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Jason Rees wrote:
Also, we tried moderate candidates twice now. Fool them once, shame on you, and so forth... I don't think you're going to get another moderate to pull the football away from at the last second again... no, it wasn't moderates that 'sat out.' It was the base. Romney didn't inspire the base, and his ground game was jacked up by experimental, untested software. Obama tended his base very well, and his ground game was superb.

No, no, a hundred times no. You won't see a 'moderate' candidate next time 'because he's the only one who can win.' Sorry. Been down that road twice now, and that car just won't drive. Lucy won't be holding the ball next time.

Looks like Republican leaders disagree with your assessment Jason. Emphasis added is mine.

Quote:
Top Republicans say Romney didn't offer specifics
By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press
November 15, 2012

LAS VEGAS (AP) — Top Republicans meeting for the first time since Election Day say the party lost its bid to unseat President Barack Obama because nominee Mitt Romney did not respond to criticism strongly enough or outline a specific agenda with a broad appeal.

In conversations at the Republican Governors Association confab in Las Vegas, a half dozen party leaders predicted the GOP will lose again if it keeps running the same playbook based on platitudes in place of detailed policies. Instead, they asserted, the party needs to learn the lessons from its loss, respect voters' savvy and put forward an agenda that appeals beyond the white, male voters who are its base.

"We need to acknowledge the fact that we got beat," Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said in an interview. "We clearly got beat and we need to recognize that."

Little more than a week after Romney came up short in his presidential bid, the party elders were looking at his errors and peering ahead to 2016's race. Some of the contenders eying a White House run of their own were on hand and quietly considering their chances. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie scheduled a private meeting on the sidelines with Haley Barbour, the former Mississippi governor who is widely seen as one of the GOP's sharpest political operatives.

"We need to have a brutal, brutally honest assessment of everything we did," Barbour said. "We need to take everything apart ... and determine what we did that worked and what we did that didn't work."

Other potential White House contenders such as Jindal, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker were outlining a vision for the party in coming elections.

"We need to figure out what we did right and what we did wrong, how we can improve our tone, our message, our technology, our turnout — all the things that are required to win elections," McDonnell said. "We are disappointed, but we are not discouraged."

With polls in hand and shifting demographic trends in mind, these Republicans are looking at how best to position the party to make inroads with growing numbers of Hispanic, black and young voters who overwhelmingly voted Democratic last week.

The rest of the article details their perception about how Obama successfully portrayed Romney in a certain light and what they see as the latter's ineffective response in countering that.

That they are finally acknowledging these realities is a good sign for the party in my view. Let's face it, a party that can only capture the declining rural and small-town vote is doomed to 3rd party status in the long run, the party has to start appealing to the diversity of cities if it is to survive.

Obama vs Romney vote by settlement sector, with each sector's percentage of the total vote at the left:
Image

The country was 74% urban when Reagan was first elected in 1980, 79% urban when Bush Jr was first elected in 2000, and 81% urban in 2010, and that growth trend is expected to continue. The Republican Party is doomed to lose the geodemographic war if it does not change it's platform.

And then there is
Quote:
Republicans are reconsidering their stance on immigration reform following the presidential election, in which 71 percent of Latinos voted for President Obama. The Census Bureau estimated there were more than 10.8 million undocumented immigrants living in the country in 2010, and more than half of those were Mexican. The push for reform is in part being driven by the farm lobby, many of whose members rely on immigrant workers.

American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman, right, said immigration-reform talks between congressional leaders and the Obama administration could provide a "'crack in the window of opportunity' for ag worker programs and other reforms the farm lobby wants," Agri-Pulse reports. The AFBF opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants, but supports giving some undocumented people who've worked in agriculture an avenue toward legal status. It also wants Congress to improve the federal H-2A visa program for foreign workers, heavily used by agriculture.

Republican leaders, including House Speaker John Boehner, are taking note of the farm lobby's call to action, and of the fact that Hispanics are the fastest-growing minority in the U.S. Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he and Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., are trying to continue a compromise on immigration reform, noting the importance of a strong guest-worker program. Graham said the immigration debate within the Republican Party has alienated Hispanic voters "because of tone and rhetoric," and it's "an odd formula for a party to adopt," since the party is losing votes every election cycle because of it. "It has to stop. It’s one thing to shoot yourself in the foot; just don’t reload the gun," Graham said.

So yes Jason, we may see a more moderate candidate from the Republican Party in 2016, unless they forget these lessons in the next three years. There are hints in these quotes that we may even start seeing some multi-dimensionality from the Republican Party platform, to tie in part of Bill's and my discussion.

Best quote of the day from these: "It’s one thing to shoot yourself in the foot; just don’t reload the gun" :D

_________________
Glenn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously?
PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17137
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
It's been a very busy week. So I've had to wait a while before responding.

Glenn wrote:
As for primaries, I agree they do sometimes showcase more of the diversity in each party, although it seemed less so this year, particularly among Republicans.

That's a pretty indefensible statement there, Glenn. Obama ran unopposed. Meanwhile the Republicans were the only party with real primaries.

And as I said... there were twenty (20) debates. Using the Nolan Chart that you yourself posted, it was easy to show an incredible range on the economic, social, and tech dimensions. And the states which the various candidates won pretty much reflected the range of those views.

Glenn wrote:
The reality of campaigning is that the focus is on conservative versus liberal.

There you go again. Conservative vs. liberal on which dimensions? When you say conservative vs. liberal, it means nothing to me. I could pick a dozen classic issues, and not know the position a candidate would hold based on that limited description.

Glenn wrote:
I may have short-changed Ron Paul a bit

Yes you did. He had a loyal, consistent following. And he was one of the few to make it all the way to the end.

Glenn wrote:
Nothing in the data supports the conclusion that the current labor-force participation rate is solely a product of the recession.

That's an academically obvious statement. You realize that you're talking to someone who does multidimensional modeling on a daily basis.

I made my point above. Re-read it.

Glenn wrote:
A new biography came out yesterday that you might be interested in Bill
Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power

Image


I'll have to add that to the collection of books I have on the man and his accomplishments.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously?
PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17137
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
I'm reading what Jason wrote, and Glenn's response to it.

It's too early to read the tea leaves. But there are some things that are obvious.

  • It's always difficult to beat an incumbent. The fact that the race was at all close shows how weak a candidate Obama really was.
    ...
  • Romney surged in popularity after his first debate. But he didn't follow through on the last two. And he really dropped the ball on criticizing Obama about Benghazi and a few other issues. Quite frankly he just took his foot off of Obama's neck. Then having Christie give Obama multiple photo opportunities after Sandy pretty much sealed the deal. Whatever hope there was of the election being competitive went down with the last 2 debates and Sandy.
    ...
  • GW Bush actually made some big inroads into the Hispanic community, which assured his wins against both Gore and Kerry. The Republican party has since done a poor job here.
    ...
  • Speaking of minorities...Asians have now surpassed Hispanics as the largest wave of immigrants to the U.S., making them the fastest growing racial group in the country. These Asians on average are smart, highly educated, highly skilled, and very independent. I'm surrounded by them on my job at work, many of whom stay in this country after getting their Ivy League degrees. And trust me... these aren't your typical Democrat voter. Many of them are entering the income levels of those who "need to pay their fair share." So whatever assumptions you're going to make about ethnicity and voting tendencies now, wait a few years. A lot of that is going to get turned on its ear.
    ...
  • My gut tells me that we're going to get another recession dip in 2013. The stock market is a leading economic indicator, and it started dropping precipitously the day after Obama was elected. Between the looming fiscal cliff and Obama's avowed desire to "tax the rich" (which essentially will end up taxing the small business job creators), we're about to enter an era that the Democratic party will have to own. Talk all you want about trends here and there. At the end of the day, people vote their pocketbooks. If the economy tanks, the Democrats are doomed.

Essentially what mattered in 2012 won't matter in 2014 and 2016. We all need to wait, and let these leaders do what they do. While I hate to see my retirement and college fund investments tank, I won't be sorry for the public to see the consequences of too many years waging class warfare.

- Bill


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously?
PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 10:36 am
Posts: 575
Quote
"It may be time to take the tax hit and withdraw funds from private retirement accounts before they are forced into long term T-bonds.

The Obama administration is reportedly quickly moving on plans to nationalize private 401k and IRA retirement accounts, and replace them with government sponsored annuities(aka Treasury bonds that the Treasury currently can’t sell to anyone but the Fed).
"
Source
http://www.silverdoctors.com/obama-begi ... more-17409


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously?
PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 17137
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
jorvik wrote:
"The Obama administration is reportedly quickly moving on plans to nationalize private 401k and IRA retirement accounts, and replace them with government sponsored annuities(aka Treasury bonds that the Treasury currently can’t sell to anyone but the Fed)."

Obama may be an economy moron, but he can't be that stupid. This smacks of anti-socialist conspiracy theories.

401(k)s are nothing more than a place for people to park pre-tax money for retirement in an era when companies don't do pensions any more. Depending on who handles the accounts, individuals have an opportunity to shift their assets from one fund to the next. A good portion of that money is in stock - particularly for younger folk who are in a position to go aggressive (high risk, high reward). If the government took that money out of the market and forced it into Treasury bonds, the stock market would collapse. That could lead to a recession bordering on the magnitude of the 1929-era depression. Ain't gonna happen.

I absolutely despise Obama and what he is doing long-term to our economy. But even he isn't dumb enough to nationalize retirement accounts and force all funds into T-bonds. The real problem - discussed indirectly in the article - is that many people don't take advantage of this ability to save for retirement and live comfortably. Much research has been done (the field of behavioral economics) to figure out how to increase 401(k) participation rate. Yes... the Obama socialists could try to force 401(k) participation the way they're now forcing people to buy health insurance (or be taxed out their yazoo). But right now I don't see it.

If you want to see what happens when government takes away money allegedly to use later on for us after retirement, look no further than Medicare. The money we put into that today is gone before we ever see it. It's a Ponzi scheme that collapses whenever a population isn't increasing. Good luck, baby boomers. Obama already stole over $700 billion from Medicare financing* to pay for his Obamacare. It's got to be one of the most viciously cruel examples of wealth redistribution from economic liberalism. Steal from granny so you can pay for junior's healthcare. Maybe she'll die early and save us all a bundle.

Politicians just can't help themselves.

- Bill

* It's why more and more doctors today are refusing Medicare patients. Future CMS reimbursements won't cover their expenses.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously?
PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 10:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 2142
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Cutting over $700 billion in Medicare spending through eliminating some overspending and administrative costs, and raising some additional funds for it through taxes, over the next ten years is hardly stealing from Medicare financing.

Businessweek wrote:
The $716 billion line gets people pretty riled up. The problem is, the claim is flat-out wrong. “The Affordable Care Act doesn’t steal anything from Medicare,” Henry Aaron, a health-care expert at the Brookings Institution, tells me. “It actually improves Medicare’s finances. No matter how you slice it, the Affordable Care Act strengthens medical hospital insurance.”

Here’s how: Money in the Medicare trust fund comes mostly from payroll taxes, premiums, and general revenue. The trust fund then pays that money out to health-care providers. Part of the trust fund was expected to go bankrupt by 2016. Obamacare actually saves it money in a variety of ways. From 2010 to 2019, Obamacare trims payments to providers by $196 billion. They agreed to take a cut because they will get so many new patients, thanks to the individual mandate. Another $210 billion will be generated by raising Medicare taxes on the wealthy (that’s households earning more than $250,000). Another $145 billion comes from phasing out overpayments to Medicare Advantage. More savings come from streamlining administrative costs.


Aside from the tax increase part, I would think you would support these steps Bill. The Republicans have proposed similar measures in the past.

Really Bill, the election is over, you can stop parroting Republican party distortions for a couple of years now. :wink:

_________________
Glenn


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Seriously?
PostPosted: Sun Nov 18, 2012 12:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 2142
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Bill Glasheen wrote:
Essentially what mattered in 2012 won't matter in 2014 and 2016.


Yes and no. Each election certainly has its own issues and personalities involved. However a group of political geographers (including my advisor) has used factor analysis to identify geographical sections within elections and temporal patterns between elections, and relationships between these two patterns. From their analysis they identified 'electoral epochs' when the voting behavior of geographical sections remained consistent over time. Their research refined V.O. Keys' formalization of periods of 'normal vote' (which did not take into account volatility in geographical patterns) separated by periods of 'realigning vote'.

The debate is on-going among political scientists/geographers as to whether we are still in the epoch of conservative normal vote that began in the late 1970s or are in a realigning period transitioning from that period to a new one. The geographical patterns are still relatively stable (the electoral college map for 2012 has only two states (plus Omaha, Nebraska) different from the map of 2008, and 2012 is only five states different from 2000) which could signal a continuation of an epoch, however as mentioned before there are on-going trends that are creating increasing challenges for the conservatives and some see the volatility of the 2008/2010/2012 elections as signaling a realignment.

Here is something interesting to think about. Barring any faithless electors, Obama will receive 332 electoral votes this time with the states he won. Using the 2008 electoral-vote distribution for the same states he won this year he would receive 339 electoral votes. In other words the population shifts (and resulting reapportionment of representitives) in the country resulted in Obama receiving 7 fewer electoral votes (that is a net change of -10+3) then he would have without that change. Such population shifts adds another dimension that has to be considered over the long-term, and can potentially affect elections in the short-term if the electoral-college vote is close enough.

_________________
Glenn


Last edited by Glenn on Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group