Originally posted by: Dissipate
News flash folks, socialism sucks!
I don't suppose you are one of the 40 million Americans without health coverage...
Originally posted by: Dissipate
News flash folks, socialism sucks!
I actually deal with people daily that have and don't have health care...it is vanishing rare that people canot afford somesort of health care..those that truely cannot are eligible, and quickly get MEDICAID...this leaves people who can afford medical insurance..BUT CHOOSE NOT TO SPEND MONEY ON IT. these folks typically have $100-$150 DOLLAR/ MONTH cigarette habits (which could otherwise be used to purchase single prson coverage health insurance), choose not to COBRA health insurance benefits between job changes, or are just to plain stupid to buy insurance because they think they are "young and won't get sick" (my sister was once in this category...what a dummy).don't suppose you are one of the 40 million Americans without health coverage...
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
I actually deal with people daily that have and don't have health care...it is vanishing rare that people canot afford somesort of health care..those that truely cannot are eligible, and quickly get MEDICAID...this leaves people who can afford medical insurance..BUT CHOOSE NOT TO SPEND MONEY ON IT. these folks typically have $100-$150 DOLLAR/ MONTH cigarette habits (which could otherwise be used to purchase single prson coverage health insurance), choose not to COBRA health insurance benefits between job changes, or are just to plain stupid to buy insurance because they think they are "young and won't get sick" (my sister was once in this category...what a dummy).don't suppose you are one of the 40 million Americans without health coverage...
do you work in the insurance business, or health care? if not, how do you know this number to be factual, and what are the "reasons" behind these folks not having health insurance. that is the real question......
Originally posted by: sandorski
A few points:
1) Europe calculates Unemployment figures differently than the US. If the US used the same calculation, the US rate would be higher than reported
2) Europe is in a state of costly transition as various divergent economies are being integrated
3) Europe is acting economically Conservative, avoiding large Deficits and maintaining monetary policies geared towards staving off high Inflationary pressures
4) Though the 120k jobs created is much better than the 1k-16k created in Dec, it is still far below necessary recovery numbers and below expectations. It would also indicate that the fall in the Unemployment Rate is due to more people just giving up and dropping out of the Job hunt
I've also heard that those who become self-employed aren't counted. Don't know if this is true or not.Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
A few points:
1) Europe calculates Unemployment figures differently than the US. If the US used the same calculation, the US rate would be higher than reported
2) Europe is in a state of costly transition as various divergent economies are being integrated
3) Europe is acting economically Conservative, avoiding large Deficits and maintaining monetary policies geared towards staving off high Inflationary pressures
4) Though the 120k jobs created is much better than the 1k-16k created in Dec, it is still far below necessary recovery numbers and below expectations. It would also indicate that the fall in the Unemployment Rate is due to more people just giving up and dropping out of the Job hunt
1. We only count those that are actively looking for work. If you toss in the underemployed, the number are still not much higher.
4. AN article i posted in one of the other threads had some economists thinking almost 500k jobs were created last month(contract position as apposed to full time hires)
Originally posted by: burnedout
I've also heard that those who become self-employed aren't counted. Don't know if this is true or not.Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: sandorski
A few points:
1) Europe calculates Unemployment figures differently than the US. If the US used the same calculation, the US rate would be higher than reported
2) Europe is in a state of costly transition as various divergent economies are being integrated
3) Europe is acting economically Conservative, avoiding large Deficits and maintaining monetary policies geared towards staving off high Inflationary pressures
4) Though the 120k jobs created is much better than the 1k-16k created in Dec, it is still far below necessary recovery numbers and below expectations. It would also indicate that the fall in the Unemployment Rate is due to more people just giving up and dropping out of the Job hunt
1. We only count those that are actively looking for work. If you toss in the underemployed, the number are still not much higher.
4. AN article i posted in one of the other threads had some economists thinking almost 500k jobs were created last month(contract position as apposed to full time hires)
As I pointed out in that thread, the household survey considers a person "employed" if they did any work at all for pay during the survey week. If a person works even one hour, he or she is considered employed. In essence, it measures how many people are finding any way to earn money, part-time, underemployed, mowing a lawn for cash, whatever. It does NOT measure how many people are employed, let alone how many have appropriate full-time employment.Originally posted by: charrison
That is what the report said that i posted earlier. The company survey does not indicate strong hiring, but the household survey indicates strong hiring.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
As I pointed out in that thread, the household survey considers a person "employed" if they did any work at all for pay during the survey week. If a person works even one hour, he or she is considered employed. In essence, it measures how many people are finding any way to earn money, part-time, underemployed, mowing a lawn for cash, whatever. It does NOT measure how many people are employed, let alone how many have appropriate full-time employment.Originally posted by: charrison
That is what the report said that i posted earlier. The company survey does not indicate strong hiring, but the household survey indicates strong hiring.
It is useful information, but be aware of its limitations.
So let me understand this more fully, if i am making $500,000/year, and i just don't feel like paying for health insurance, i should be able to get it for free from the goverment? If i want to upgrade and lease a mercedes, and dropping my month health insurance payment will help me get that newer, bigger car...i don't have to worry, cuz i'll get free health care from the feds...i want to spend that $150/ month on more beer and cigarettes rather than make my monthly insurance payment.....As to why they don't have coverage, does it matter?
Originally posted by: Dman877
If you made 500k a year and lived in any number of European nations, you would pay 50 - 70% of your income in taxes and you wouldn't need to pay for insurance because it's provided like roads are in the US.
Something I always find interesting about Reagan-ites is how they love to pick apart government spending, especially anything perceived as "the dole" but all government spending.... except defense spending. Why is that? Our yearly defense budget is going over 400 billion a year, eclipsed only by social security and its spent on planes and ships that do absolutely nothing. Meanwhile some crazy nuts fly airliners into the world trade center, 2% of industrial containers coming into the US get inspected, and we spend billions fighting wars and buying bombs that don't make us any more secure then we ever were. If you propone responsible spending, start by getting rid of the biggest pork-barrel project in the world, our massively overweight military industrial complex.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Dman877
If you made 500k a year and lived in any number of European nations, you would pay 50 - 70% of your income in taxes and you wouldn't need to pay for insurance because it's provided like roads are in the US.
Something I always find interesting about Reagan-ites is how they love to pick apart government spending, especially anything perceived as "the dole" but all government spending.... except defense spending. Why is that? Our yearly defense budget is going over 400 billion a year, eclipsed only by social security and its spent on planes and ships that do absolutely nothing. Meanwhile some crazy nuts fly airliners into the world trade center, 2% of industrial containers coming into the US get inspected, and we spend billions fighting wars and buying bombs that don't make us any more secure then we ever were. If you propone responsible spending, start by getting rid of the biggest pork-barrel project in the world, our massively overweight military industrial complex.
Or we could start with SS
Something I always find interesting about the "what is the gov't going to do for me" folks is that they like to take the nation's defense for granted. All the social programs in the world won't matter if we can't/won't/don't protect ourselves. Sure we could tax "the rich" at 50-70% and give everyone "free" health insurance and give everyone "free" anything else you "feel" they should get but none of that is worth a canadian penny if we don't protect this nation.
IMHO that is
CkG
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Dman877
If you made 500k a year and lived in any number of European nations, you would pay 50 - 70% of your income in taxes and you wouldn't need to pay for insurance because it's provided like roads are in the US.
Something I always find interesting about Reagan-ites is how they love to pick apart government spending, especially anything perceived as "the dole" but all government spending.... except defense spending. Why is that? Our yearly defense budget is going over 400 billion a year, eclipsed only by social security and its spent on planes and ships that do absolutely nothing. Meanwhile some crazy nuts fly airliners into the world trade center, 2% of industrial containers coming into the US get inspected, and we spend billions fighting wars and buying bombs that don't make us any more secure then we ever were. If you propone responsible spending, start by getting rid of the biggest pork-barrel project in the world, our massively overweight military industrial complex.
Or we could start with SS
Something I always find interesting about the "what is the gov't going to do for me" folks is that they like to take the nation's defense for granted. All the social programs in the world won't matter if we can't/won't/don't protect ourselves. Sure we could tax "the rich" at 50-70% and give everyone "free" health insurance and give everyone "free" anything else you "feel" they should get but none of that is worth a canadian penny if we don't protect this nation.
IMHO that is
CkG
Nevermind, you wouldn't get it anyway
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
OK, here ya go. We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined IIRC. Sometimes I wonder if that is necessary in the post cold war era. How many nuke subs do we need to defeat potential enemies? We outspent the USSR once, and I wonder if we might do that to ourselves someday.
Just kicking around a thought.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
OK, here ya go. We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined IIRC. Sometimes I wonder if that is necessary in the post cold war era. How many nuke subs do we need to defeat potential enemies? We outspent the USSR once, and I wonder if we might do that to ourselves someday.
Just kicking around a thought.
How much should we spend on defence?
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
OK, here ya go. We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined IIRC. Sometimes I wonder if that is necessary in the post cold war era. How many nuke subs do we need to defeat potential enemies? We outspent the USSR once, and I wonder if we might do that to ourselves someday.
Just kicking around a thought.
How much should we spend on defence?
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
OK, here ya go. We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined IIRC. Sometimes I wonder if that is necessary in the post cold war era. How many nuke subs do we need to defeat potential enemies? We outspent the USSR once, and I wonder if we might do that to ourselves someday.
Just kicking around a thought.
How much should we spend on defence?
That's always my first question. How much should we spend? Where should we cut? We can't get anyone else to pick up the slack. Hell we can't even get NATO to do what they promised to do in Afghanistan.
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined IIRC. Sometimes I wonder if that is necessary in the post cold war era.
would think an analysis of the world situation and the potential emergence of adversaries should be taken into account.
would think an analysis of the world situation and the potential emergence of adversaries should be taken into account.
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
OK, here ya go. We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined IIRC. Sometimes I wonder if that is necessary in the post cold war era. How many nuke subs do we need to defeat potential enemies? We outspent the USSR once, and I wonder if we might do that to ourselves someday.
Just kicking around a thought.
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
would think an analysis of the world situation and the potential emergence of adversaries should be taken into account.
Who would you reccomend do this analysis? The CIA? The same CIA that gave us such great intel on Iraq (this time and last), 9/11, Khobar, USS Cole, the fall of the Berlin wall, etc., etc? I wouldn't trust the CIA to accurately predict a sunrise. We tried this little "peace dividend" experiment back in the early 90's, cutting funding to the .mil and intel communities. I don't know if you realize it or not but it wasn't a real great idea.
WS-- sorry if this is starting to look like a dog pile. That wasn't my intent.