News Stories

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by flying ^

there's public debt surplus... but a negative U.S. national debt with a result of increasing the U.S. deficit. prez Clinton and his admin. did produce a budget showing a surplus, but the U.S. deficit increased.

what he did was only pay down the public debt... he paid down the public debt by borrowing more money in the form of intergovernmental holdings
... again, president Clinton did not pay down the U.S. deficit!

There was a slight deficit in total debt, but even if there was still an overall deficit, it's the lowest deficit any American government has had in the last 30 years.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by flying ^

there's public debt surplus... but a negative U.S. national debt with a result of increasing the U.S. deficit. prez Clinton and his admin. did produce a budget showing a surplus, but the U.S. deficit increased.

what he did was only pay down the public debt... he paid down the public debt by borrowing more money in the form of intergovernmental holdings
... again, president Clinton did not pay down the U.S. deficit!

We've been over this before. At least I think it was with you, it might have been JustinStrife. Clinton did pay down the debt and did run a budget surplus. The claims that he didn't are based on juggling the books and basically counting some debt twice, specifically the bonds the SSA was, and I believe still is, required by law to buy with their budget surplus. No matter how you look at it, there was a surplus, as long as you're looking honestly.

Edit: Slightly wrong here. It's not that it's counted twice, it's that it's counted where it shouldn't be. The money was there all along.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by james0246

This is mostly off-topic, but just as an FYI, the US Constitution does allow for "Universal Healthcare" (or at least a form of it). Under the "General Welfare Clause" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1), the Constitution allows for a form of Universal Healthcare since it can constitute a form of “general welfare” for the citizens.

I agree in part.
However, the individual mandate (forcing someone to buy anything just for being a citizen) is not constitutional by any stretch of the imagination.

As for the "Welfare clause."
It doesn't mean welfare like government entitlement programs, it means what James Madison said it meant in a letter to James Robertson written in 1831:
“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

What the clause is referring to is General Welfare among the states, meaning states cannot put tariffs, raising their own armies, and other practices or laws in place which would disrupt the general welfare of the Union.
All states were to be treated equally under the Constitution.

If you have another definition by a founding father I'd honestly like to see it.
Because so far as I have read there is nothing that supports an individual mandate of any kind in the US Constitution as it was passed in the Health Care Law.

Now, a Health Care law that would provide Universal Health Care for people making below poverty line (which I believe is $9,000/year for an individual) or some other low-income level (like say people making less than $20,000/year individually or some such) paid for via a indirect tax (like a 5% VAT, or the like) would make sense Constitutionally.
But forcing people to buy private insurance, or even government insurance, doesn't seem like it would be constitutional based on the language and intent of the constitution as I understand it.

[Vexx]

"debt" is what you owe.... "deficit" is how much you come up short each year.

So, flying is right but he swapped the words.

Now, a Health Care law that would provide Universal Health Care for people making below poverty line (which I believe is $9,000/year for an individual) or some other low-income level (like say people making less than $20,000/year individually or some such) paid for via a indirect tax (like a 5% VAT, or the like) would make sense Constitutionally.
But forcing people to buy private insurance, or even government insurance, doesn't seem like it would be constitutional based on the language and intent of the constitution as I understand it.

That's because the DNC "solution" was a corporatist cockup forced by the insurance and drug lobbies. Forcing people to "buy insurance" was a concession to the insurance lobby. Creating a public pot to share the cost of keeping healthy (a non-profit national insurance that is accountable to the voters) is something better shared over large populations than small groups (something any small business owner can tell you who tries to buy insurance for his employees).

We (the US) are effectively a corporate (i.e. fascist) state wherein the two major parties are Column A or Column B of the large corporations (often overlapping). And because their behavior is sociopathic and apathetic to the community ... it is unsustainable. The only question is how deep the spiral will go.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I agree in part.
As for the "Welfare clause."
It doesn't mean welfare like government entitlement programs, it means what James Madison said it meant in a letter to James Robertson written in 1831:
“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

Actually, no. While Madison's interpretation was the original basis for law, it quickly became apparent that a broader definition was needed (this is one of the widely held reasons for the shift in policy found during the 1800 election (sorry, just an abstract)). That is why the Alexander Hamilton definition of "General Welfare" that has been empowered by the Supreme Court most recently (see Helvering v. Davis (which gave Congress the full power to impose and use taxes for general welfare projects), and most recently South Dakota v. Dole)...the Hamilton definition simply has more case law support and stands as the current definition of "general welfare"...(which supports the creation of a "Universal Healthcare".)

That being said, I never once referred to the individual mandate nonsense (which may or may not be constitutional...depending on the scholar you ask ). I said "Universal Healthcare" only, something the individual mandate is not considered to be...

[Bri]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I think that governments can be aware of bubbles. There were industry analysts who were spotting that subprime lending was a problem, and it doesn't take a genius to realise that lending to people who can't pay their loan back is a bad idea. So really, the government at the time should have spotted it.

You'll get a Nobel prize if you have a sure way of detecting bubbles. There are always industry analists claiming a lot of things, but the problem was that the US housing market did not seem over-valued at the time based on the available data. In fact house prices in western europe were a lot higher at the time. The scale of fraudulent behaviour by mortgage providers wasn't fully know untill the crisis started. Nor did anyone expect that the derivative market could create such a spillover effect on the whole financial system.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

But I was speaking about the deficit specifically, and while certainly the recession plays into it (particularly where Obama is concerned), that deficit existed prior to that, and no government besides the Clinton Administration did anything to fix it. Reagan, Bush I and Bush II both presided over huge deficits. Obama may yet be judged to make the situation worse, but as of right now, it's too soon to call, particularly as the Obama administration is in the midst of several expensive things that were not present previously.

Bush I and a democrat controlled congress raised taxes, Clinton and a republican controlled congress lowered expenditure. This together with the internet boom of the 90s the budget got balanced. Still, these days the problem of the deficit is exaggerated. Raising taxes accross all brackets, equal cuts in social security, defense and medicare/aid should solve the problem but party politics have become to vitrollic to compromise. The democrats are often portrayed as the "good guys" in European media, especially since the rise of the neoconservatives in the republican party (and not completely without reason) but both sides have been compromised a long time ago by special interest groups and the money needed for campaign financing.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

The other thing the republican administrations failed to do was tackle the time bomb that is Social Security and Medicare liabilities as the Baby Boomer Generation now begins to retire. They all knew it was going to happen, and they did nothing to try and fix it (in fact Bush II increased Medicare liabilities...). At least Clinton tried to enact Healthcare reform...

I don't know a single developed country that is well prepared for the retirement of the baby boom. That's politicians for you, there is no long term policy beyond the next election.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Vexx

"That's because the DNC "solution" was a corporatist cockup forced by the insurance and drug lobbies. Forcing people to "buy insurance" was a concession to the insurance lobby. Creating a public pot to share the cost of keeping healthy (a non-profit national insurance that is accountable to the voters) is something better shared over large populations than small groups (something any small business owner can tell you who tries to buy insurance for his employees).

We (the US) are effectively a corporate (i.e. fascist) state wherein the two major parties are Column A or Column B of the large corporations (often overlapping). And because their behavior is sociopathic and apathetic to the community ... it is unsustainable. The only question is how deep the spiral will go.

I hear ya Vexx.
We are indeed knee-deep in corporatism and it's getting pretty darn scary.
All that is needed is Benito's "charismatic leader" and we're in deep, deep dung.

Originally Posted by james0246

Actually, no. While Madison's interpretation was the original basis for law, it quickly became apparent that a broader definition was needed (this is one of the widely held reasons for the shift in policy found during the 1800 election (sorry, just an abstract)). That is why the Alexander Hamilton definition of "General Welfare" that has been empowered by the Supreme Court most recently (see Helvering v. Davis (which gave Congress the full power to impose and use taxes for general welfare projects), and most recently South Dakota v. Dole)...the Hamilton definition simply has more case law support and stands as the current definition of "general welfare"...(which supports the creation of a "Universal Healthcare".)

That being said, I never once referred to the individual mandate nonsense (which may or may not be constitutional...depending on the scholar you ask ). I said "Universal Healthcare" only, something the individual mandate is not considered to be...

Hamilton was only referring to the application of money.
That's why social security, and medicare derive their constitutional legitimacy from congress' power to tax, not solely the general welfare.
The SCOTUS case you quoted is an excellent example of Hamilton's idea of the General Welfare clause application of federal monies.
The decision against the states was because the Feds have the power to distribute Federal funds as they see fit to promote the general welfare between the states, but not to individuals (thank you for the links BTW, very interesting reads).

Again, a Universal Health Care law supported by a national tax (VAT, Flat or whatever) is constitutional IMHO.
My point was the individual mandate is not constitutional because (as Vexx stated) it requires citizens to purchase an item/service in order to be a citizen, as you also stated, that's nonsense, and thus it would seem we basically agree.

Personally I think that only the mandate will be struck down as unconstitutional, the rest of the law (or most of it) will probably stand constitutional muster.
If it doesn't, then that would be a shame because it's not ALL bad, just a few parts that the corporate lobbies got thrown in for their own gain.

[synaesthetic]

The mandate will screw students hardcore, because what little health services our schools offer doesn't qualify as health insurance, and we don't qualify for Medicare not being seniors or disabled... so what am I supposed to do? Buy insurance and pay it with what money?

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I hear ya Vexx.
We are indeed knee-deep in corporatism and it's getting pretty darn scary.
All that is needed is Benito's "charismatic leader" and we're in deep, deep dung.

Fascist Corporatism is a bit different from what you have in the US. Fascist Corporatism is the extensive use of public/rpivate partnerships and general extensive control of private companies by the state, for the state's interests. In America it's more just corporations controlling things-> a plutocracy, rule by the rich. Basically, Fascism also is far more centralised then the US is.

Again, a Universal Health Care law supported by a national tax (VAT, Flat or whatever) is constitutional IMHO.
My point was the individual mandate is not constitutional because (as Vexx stated) it requires citizens to purchase an item/service in order to be a citizen, as you also stated, that's nonsense, and thus it would seem we basically agree.

Well if the state can mandate you pay all the myriad taxes, then why not insurance.

Though I agree the Obama "solution" was a poor one. Though I suppose it's a step in the right direction.

Perhaps Universal Healthcare should be pushed forward at the state level.

[Ithekro]

There are so many subsets of governmental types that one can't keep track of them all, nor ideally qualify any one government at any type due to all the little exceptions and rules governments have, and the idea of who controls who being shadowy in nature. Also that one government can effectively be two or more different kinds of governments, depending on what point of view you are looking at it from. (Try to define the United States of America as viewed from one of its territories...you might find an interesting answer).

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Bri

You'll get a Nobel prize if you have a sure way of detecting bubbles. There are always industry analists claiming a lot of things, but the problem was that the US housing market did not seem over-valued at the time based on the available data. In fact house prices in western europe were a lot higher at the time. The scale of fraudulent behaviour by mortgage providers wasn't fully know untill the crisis started. Nor did anyone expect that the derivative market could create such a spillover effect on the whole financial system.

It isn't the housing bubble, but rather a speculation on borrowing and mortgage bubble. The housing market may not seem over-valued at the time because types of houses are diversified, thus making it difficult to have a standard price for valuating against. Plus that most of the mortgages are ARMs which have a prime plus risk interest, and that the prime interest rose due to increased borrowing and thus hiking the repayment rate, the overall interest significantly increased and thus reducing the home-buyer's ability to repay the mortgage, resulting in a fear of mortgage bonds, hence a extensive short-selling that resulted in the financial crisis.

I suspect it is the use of P/E ratios that resulted in the "over-valuation" of the houses. Those aren't exactly accurate because they are too speculative, the "value" given is based too much on either past or potential earnings (trailing/forward respectively).

[ganbaru]

Syria activists: Troops enter village near border
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...06-23-05-04-45
Now they are trying to stop those than flee to Turkey, just hope than they won't do something (more) stupid as shooting over the border...

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Fascist Corporatism is a bit different from what you have in the US. Fascist Corporatism is the extensive use of public/rpivate partnerships and general extensive control of private companies by the state, for the state's interests. In America it's more just corporations controlling things-> a plutocracy, rule by the rich. Basically, Fascism also is far more centralised then the US is.

An Animal Farm moment... "pigs - humans" "humans - pigs" ... its really a partnership and in the US its such a revolving door between the "state" (politicians) and the corporations (robber barons, plutocrats, etc) that I often shake my head at people who fear government (where you get *some* say) versus corporate dictatorships (where you get *no* say).

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Vexx

An Animal Farm moment... "pigs - humans" "humans - pigs" ... its really a partnership and in the US its such a revolving door between the "state" (politicians) and the corporations (robber barons, plutocrats, etc) that I often shake my head at people who fear government (where you get *some* say) versus corporate dictatorships (where you get *no* say).

Indeed, at least the government depends on you to be elected.

Though in a sense, the corporation also depends on you to sell it's products.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Indeed, at least the government depends on you to be elected.

Though in a sense, the corporation also depends on you to sell it's products.

It is advertising that makes people think that "if they don't buy it, they will lose out".

The reason why I applied for a debit card is to buy my stuff cheaper elsewhere in another part of the world - I could get better-looking stuff for my sister's birthday elsewhere instead of the dull local junk here.

[ganbaru]

Clinton: U.S. won't keep up aid to Pakistan without change
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...75M4M020110623
They should have done than years ago...

[Grifis]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

There was a slight deficit in total debt, but even if there was still an overall deficit, it's the lowest deficit any American government has had in the last 30 years.

Very slight. I thought I saw something like 1 point some tril that Clinton added to the national debt in his 8 years. (Of course this is no comparison to the 5 point some trillion from Bush for 8 years.) The surplus sounds nice. I like how the U.S. government pats itself on the back sometimes. As far as I'm concern, if I have a deficit every year, I don't have a surplus. But it's not like I understand how the government manage their money or anything.

[Decagon]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

... so what am I supposed to do? Buy insurance and pay it with what money?

With student loans of course.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

The mandate will screw students hardcore, because what little health services our schools offer doesn't qualify as health insurance, and we don't qualify for Medicare not being seniors or disabled... so what am I supposed to do? Buy insurance and pay it with what money?

Students should really get ultra cheap health insurance. I mean what are the odds of someone under the age of 30 requiring any serious treatment? Quite low really. Insurance rates should really reflect that...

But alas, they don't seem to. Or not enough.

[Tsuyoshi]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Students should really get ultra cheap health insurance. I mean what are the odds of someone under the age of 30 requiring any serious treatment? Quite low really. Insurance rates should really reflect that...

But alas, they don't seem to. Or not enough.

Since there's quite a number of students, there's quite a demand for it. The price of health insurance for students reflects their demand more than their actual need for it. I remember in uni how we studied the concept of utility, but hardly anyone takes that into consideration irl.