"Surging US economy leads global recovery"

[Dman877]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
News flash folks, socialism sucks!

I don't suppose you are one of the 40 million Americans without health coverage...

 

[heartsurgeon]

don't suppose you are one of the 40 million Americans without health coverage...

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).

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......

 

[Dman877]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

don't suppose you are one of the 40 million Americans without health coverage...

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).

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......

43.3 million people didn't have health coverage in 2002. The link below is from CNN to an independant organization (pdf).

43.3 million uninsured

As to why they don't have coverage, does it matter? Everyone NEEDS health coverage 24/7 whether they want it or not. The problem with medicaid is that the eligability requirements are too low. I don't know the exact figures but if you work almost any fulltime job, you make too much to qualify. However, with most of the fulltime work in this country tilting towards the service sector, wages are such that affording health-care for a family isn't a reality for many people.

 

[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

 

[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)

 

[burnedout]

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)

I've also heard that those who become self-employed aren't counted. Don't know if this is true or not.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: burnedout

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)

I've also heard that those who become self-employed aren't counted. Don't know if this is true or not.

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.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Why wouldn't liberal like good news about the economy? Hell I'd love good news for once. But liberals also like being employed too, and having healthcare affordable, the environment protected, the government spending under control, being liked around the world and not having an monkey-faced idiot in the whitehouse.

 

[Bowfinger]

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.

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.

It is useful information, but be aware of its limitations.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

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.

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.

It is useful information, but be aware of its limitations.

And they can fall in several buckets of unemployed/employed types depending upon their answer. The bls has this covered.

 

[heartsurgeon]

As to why they don't have coverage, does it matter?

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.....
isn't there any personal responsibility left at all in how we take care of ourselves?

according to your report:
33% of the uninsured have incomes between $29,000 - $57,000. I believe these people are deciding to forego insurance....they just chose not to allocate their money to that because they don't feel it is important to them.
the study documents that 6% of people making MORE than $57,000/ year DO NOT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE....WTF? These must be the idiots like my sister...

80% of the uninsured are adults, most uninsured adults are childless or single males.

91% of uninsured have excellent of good health versus 95% among insured....
so these uninsured adults age 18-34, who are single males, or married without kids, actually have almost identical health as those insured,

22% of uninsured are non-citizens.
the highest concentration of uninsured adults is in the states bordering Mexico.

basically...a very small group of adults have poor health, and are uninsured, only 9% of these 43.3 million actually have health problems...so right away, the number of people who actually have significant medical costs is about 3.8 million folks.

among those without insurance, 6% make plenty of money and could probably afford to get it if they chose to get it., 33% make enough money to get insurance if they budgeted the money (which they probably could do). At least 1/3 of these uninsured folks are chosing not to get insurance...

this study does NOT address the availability of health care..merely insurance status. if you show up in an emergency room, anywhere in the U.S., you will get medical care, probably excellent care, and you will get a bill, which you probably will just not pay....

not having insurance absolutely does not translate into not getting medical care.

this is a very complex societal issue..balance of personal responsibility, social welfare, morality, legality, ultimately all about money, and who pays...how about a payroll tax like social security? liberals probably just want someone else to pay for it ("the rich" which typically means not me, someone elese who makes more than me). Oh well, i'm actually all for socialized medicine..then i can suckle at the Goverment teat, turn down difficult cases, look forward to a great retirement plan, and not have to worry about malpractice insurance....i'm telling you, the general public should be WORRIED when doctors start saying they favor socialized medicine.....it's going to be better for them, then for the public....

 

[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.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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

try me

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

 

[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?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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?

I don't know. This isn't a "dump the military" post, but I think it a valid question

I would think an analysis of the world situation and the potential emergence of adversaries should be taken into account. Maybe a serious look by those with little self interest would be in order. Or at with less self interest than others.

I can turn this around and ask, is a trillion enough? 20 trillion? I can make up numbers, but they aren't helpful out of context.

 

[UltraQuiet]

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.

 

[charrison]

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.

As long the rest of the world relies on the US to cleaning up problems, we are going to have to continue having a strong military.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

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.

...and we do more with our military than any other country in the world. Do you think it is a coincidence that the framers put "provide for the common defense" ahead of "promote the general welfare?"

 

[UltraQuiet]

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.

 

[UltraQuiet]

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.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

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.

OK, I'll play.

So sure, I think we could scale back operations and pull out of all but a few well placed military instillations around the globe and still be able to protect "our land". I wonder though....how exactly would the rest of the world like that? Seems to me that every time we try to pull out of somewhere there is a firestorm of criticism from somewhere. Seems to me that if we scaled back our troop levels across the globe then NATO would find themselves severely under staffed. Also what are the potential consequences, security wise, of a downsize across the globe? Would regional stability be affected by the pull-outs? Would we be able to respond quick enough and with enough force if necessary?

These are the things that we must contemplate and weigh in decisions like that. Don't get me wrong - I think there is plenty of room to remove "waste" in the defense budget, but I also think that if there is one place we need to err on the "over side" it's with defense.

Again all is IMHO

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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.

No, I didn't take it that way UQ, and weighing these things is certainly challenging and could be frustrating. I certainly don't want to go back to the early 90's. The other posters have valid points that we use our military for other things than defense. The choice of who makes the decision is vital too.

I don't have an answer. I really haven't a clue. Still, because I don't doesn't mean it's not worth questioning. The military has come a long way in 30 years in many ways. Perhaps looking at funding and allocation would help the situation further.

Edit- One thing that brought this on is the fact (which I had forgotten) that one place makes our small arms munitions. Private companies are helping to make up for some of it, but for practical purposes if that facility were to fall to a terrorist strike, then we are out of bullets in short order. Perhaps a shifting of funding priorities would address that. This concerns me a bit.