Today’s guest post is by W&T commenter Will.
In a warning given by President Benson, he quoted Edward Gibbon on what caused the fall of the Roman Empire. Here is what he said accounted for the fall:
- Higher and higher taxes and the spending of public monies for free bread and circuses for the populace.
- The undermining of the dignity and sanctity of the home, which is the basis of human society.
- The mad craze for pleasure, sports becoming every year more and more exciting and brutal.
- The building of gigantic armaments when the real enemy was within the decadence of the people.
- The decay of religion—faith fading into mere form, losing touch with life, and becoming impotent to warn and guide the people.
To me, this list is the liberal or progressive movement in this country. I acknowledge my conservative slant on his issue, but to me it is the fruits of liberalism. In my first of a five part series, let’s explore number one on the list:
1. Higher and higher taxes and the spending of public monies for free bread and circuses for the populace.
As the old adage says, “so goes California, so goes the Nation” the same was said for General Motors. An example of Liberalism destroying the public and private sector as follows:
California
At one time, California was one of the most robust economies in the world. Its state GDP rivals the GDP of Italy or the UK. Its GDP is larger than Brazil, Spain, Russia, India, Canada, Mexico, South Korea or Australia. Its GDP is greater than the bottom 100 countries in the world combined. It boasts some of the best companies in the world. However, California is broke. Flat broke. It comes to us in a Golden Bear’s clothing, but is inwardly a bloated sow with her teats sucked dry.
In spite of all this production, the State is flat broke. In spite of massive budget cuts over the past two years, it still faces a 19.1 Billion dollar deficit; and, an expected deficit of 80 Billion over the next five years. Why? It is a State controlled by liberals and their Unions. A State flooded with illegal immigrants, with liberals standing in the way of sane or reasonable measures to stop the bleeding. A liberal congress, who has the State’s power of the purse, spending of public monies for free bread and circuses for the populace.
The California of now – also known as the People’s Republic of California or The Socialist Republic of California – owes you and I, the Federal Taxpayer 8.6 Billion (expected to be 10.3 Billion by year end) just to cover unemployment claims, borrowing almost 40 million dollars a day just to keep up on unemployment claims according to the LA Times. Overall, it has racked up nearly 70 Billion in general obligation debt and 500 Billion in unfunded pension liabilities according to a recent Wall Street Journal article. Their solution: hire Jerry Brown again. They hired him not because he can solve their problems, but because he promises more free bread; or, at least he promises to those who elected him not to stop the gravy train which will most likely lead to higher and higher taxes. Prima fascia evidence marijuana, even for medical reasons, shouldn’t be legalized.
GM
GM was the largest company in the world. Not just the largest automaker, but the largest company in the world. Initially, it started out in 1908 as holding company, but through acquisition and genuine American ingenuity it became of the most powerful entities the world has ever known. It was consistently the largest company in the world from World War II to the turn of the century – every year it was number one on the list. In the 80’s and 90’s it had revenue of nearly $200 Billion. $200 Billion. GM produced more revenue than most countries’ total GDP. Saudi Arabia, for instance, had GDP of $188 Billion in 2000, while GM’s Gross Revenue was $178 Billion. Yep, GM’s revenue was almost as much as the total GDP of one of the largest oil producing nations in the World.
Then, GM stopped being an automaker. It became a health care and retirement company that did its best to cover the expenses of these companies by selling cars. Seeds of free bread it had sowed years earlier demanded by Unions. It paid people to work for 30 to 40 years and then paid them to retire with full health benefits for the next 25 to 30 years — a recipe for disaster. We know the rest of the story. It collapsed. It collapsed because of the liberally charged Unions and their unreasonable demands.
The Government took over GM, Obama Fired the CEO and put one of his cronies in charge, kept 61 percent for the US Government; gave 17.5 percent to the Unions who destroyed the company; gave 11.7 percent to the Canadian Government; and bond holders were left with a mere 9.8 percent. All told, the bailout of GM could cost the taxpayers’ 100 Billion.
Summary
Will the same things that destroyed GM and California destroy America? Will the adage “go goes California (or GM), so goes the Nation” come to fruition? Were the warnings of President Benson our prophetic destiny? Discuss.

this is an ugly screed, and Ezra Taft Benson’s legacy is tarnished by being attached to this crassness.
California destroyed? Obama’s cronies? I know bias is a spectrum and we’re all on it, but come on. California is absolutely one of the best places to live on this earth and is certainly one of the most culturally influential. If you think California is “destroyed”, then maybe you should go visit Uganda or Iraq and see how wonderful it is to live in this supposed religiously-minded utopia we’re slipping away from.
Hell, if you must pretend that anywhere in the U.S. isn’t heaven compared to, say, most of Africa, than perhaps you could switch out California for Michigan and then at least you wouldn’t be starting from a straw-man argument.
What a complete lack of perspective.
Will, thanks for the post. I have very mixed feelings on this and am pulled in opposite directions, so I don’t really know where I stand.
On one hand, I agree with you. I spent 15+ years after high school in yet more training, making little to no money, so understand that side of the equation all too well. But now I am a surgeon and on the other end of the curve. I don’t like being in the highest tax bracket. I don’t like the fact that unless something is done Medicare is going to cut what they pay around 30% in January for the same amount of work. I don’t like how much money I pay into the black hole of government for things with which I disagree. I don’t like entitlement programs and I think help should be voluntary. I like reading Ayn Rand and love Atlas Shrugged. I would make the ideal Tea Party supporter. I would make the ideal member of President Benson’s “radical right-wing” John Birch society.
However, despite all of that, I can’t buy off on this. While I get paid well, I actually went into medicine to help people. I see people on Medicaid. I see people for free. And I treat them all the same. I get offended when a health care executive makes $1 BILLION in salary and stock options for doing absolutely NOTHING towards anyone’s health. And while there are obviously problems, the government does provide a safety net for people who are down on their luck, often through no fault of their own. While we talk about “voluntary compassion”, our voluntary giving is truly pathetic. If people actually had to rely on “voluntary compassion” for their needs, they would die.
I served my mission in Scandinavia. Their taxes are among the highest in the world. But their income disparity between rich and poor is the lowest in the world. And in just about any measure of “happiness”, as a society, they are the highest. People look out for each other as a society. There aren’t a lot of rich people there, but there aren’t a lot of poor either.
The ironic thing is that the people who are most against taxes also tend to claim to look forward to consecration. The tax rate there is effectively 100%. You absolutely rely on someone else to decide what you “need”. And while that program may be “perfect”, it will be administered by imperfect people. Kind of like the Constitution. It may be a “God-inspired” and close to perfect document, but it is administered by imperfect people.
For those who are unfamiliar, many of these points mirror those of the John Birch society, an organization for which Ezra Taft Benson was a very strong proponent. Here’s a brief summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society
Whoa…I am missing Mormon Matters all the sudden.
Forget California and GM. What we need to worry about is all those liberals hanging out at NASCAR races waiting for the next big wreck. Oh yeah, and the liberals demanding that we buy more F-22 Raptors that the Pentagon doesn’t want. (Embarrassingly, both types of liberal actually exist, but most of you will get my point.)
Will wrote: “Will the same things that destroyed GM and California destroy America?”
I would state this thought a little differently:
Will the same things that created economic crisis at GM and California bring economic crisis to America with the potential to destroy American prosperity as we have known it?
The answer, based on historical evidence, is yes.
Our economic prosperity is influenced by the principles of economics, like we are to the law of gravity. Like the law of gravity, when it is violated consequences follow, the same thing applies to economics as currently illustrated by GM and California.
Can GM and Calif recover?, I think the answer is, yes, if we stop violating the principles of economics (and God’s law as pointed out by Pres. Benson).
OK, I guess I have to wait for the third and fourth installments to make those points. Concerning the first, consider that federal receipts in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 were a smaller share of the economy than at any time since 1950.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=205&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=21
Receipts are going back up again in the near future, but the linked chart shows that the fluctuations in receipts/GDP since 1944 (and into the foreseeable future) have been pretty minor. It hardly conforms to the “higher and higher” claim.
Of course, Benson was an eyewitness to the big jump in the 40s, so it might have looked like “higher and higher” to him.
Just FYI: Bronco Mendenhall’s salary is $900,000.00 per year. Just for coaching a sport – at BYU.
#9 Mike S–
Wow, I had no idea they were paid that much. I just googled and found this news piece on Whittingham’s income:
University of Utah head football coach Kyle Whittingham and Director of Athletics Dr. Chris Hill have agreed to a new contract that will pay the Ute coach $6 million over the next five years. The pair signed the agreement today in New Orleans, where the Utah football team is preparing for its Jan. 2 Allstate Sugar Bowl game with Alabama.
The contract, which will pay Whittingham $1,200,000 annually, includes a base salary of $200,000. The remainder will come from radio and television rights, appearance fees, public speaking, fundraising and official outfitter compensation from Under Armour.
I thought monogamy was the downfall of the Roman Empire.
re 5:
Chris,
Here at Wheat & Tares, we believe that “if you can’t make *someone* miss Mormon Matters, then there’s little point in blogging.“
America is being cursed for it’s acceptance of abortion and gay marriage. Are we not warned in the BofM that if we did not service God, we would get swet off the land?
Serve God
Swept off the land
Thanks for doing these posts Will. I look forward to more!
GM “destroyed”? Hmmm.
“According to published reports, General Motors has announced a $1.2 billion profit for the third quarter, a 33-percent jump in production at its domestic auto plants and is in hiring mode again. Next week, the auto company hopes to raise $13 billion in an initial public offering of stock in an effort begin the process of getting government out of the auto business.
Even the still highly troubled Chrysler, barely into its 5 year turnaround plan, has grown market share and has reduced the torrent of red ink it had been spewing down to a flow, cutting its third quarter losses to about half the level of last year, media outlets are reporting. Although still struggling, the automaker has expanded production and added thousands of jobs with talk of more hiring on the horizon.
In fact, the American auto industry is doing so well that as columnist Froma Harrop pointed out, The Economist magazine has issued an apology to President Obama for past articles the publication printed that opposed the auto bailout.
Of course, none of this would have happened had not Uncle Sam bailed out GM and Chrysler. In doing so, the government avoided a collapse of the auto industry and the auto supply chain, prevented a crippling blow to an economy already reeling from the Wall St. crash and saved, by some estimates, up to a million Americans jobs.
Durn government, always messing things up.”
http://www.freep.com/article/20101112/BLOG24/101112002/0/adnetwork/General-Motors-shifts-into-gear
Jon: Define “cursed”
Andrew S,
I guess the crazies need a place on the bloggernacle, too.
“I acknowledge my conservative slant on his issue,”
Only a slant? Feels more like a right angle.
I can relate to comment #3 in many ways. While I don’t have all the answers, there are some parts of both sides of the argument that just don’t feel right to me. I’m all for keeping our governments fiscal “house in order”, and for rewarding those who go the extra mile (or the extra 15 years of school to become a surgeon). Of course entitlements can go to far, but refusing to at least attempt to care for the poor, sick, disabled, elderly, etc. seems to me to put our country at greater risk in the context of the pride cycle.
In my state, a family of 4 must make less than about $16,000 a year to qualify for many assistance programs. I can’t imagine supporting a family of 4 on $1,300 a month, yet many people do it. Rent and childcare alone would typically eat that up in my area. The idea that these people choose ‘free bread’ because it’s so darn comfortable to sit at home and suck the sow’s teat, as you say, is just offensive to me.
Those kinds of attitudes start to feel like some scriptures I’ve read.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/9/30#30
The more I think about this post, the more it irritates me. I think it’s just the straw that broke the camel’s back (what’s it with me and straw today?!), but there is just so much intellectual laziness in this piece.
First: Cherry-picking examples. Ford and Sweden say hi.
Oversimplifying the contributing factors to a problem: Ford and its unions and Sweden and its taxes are waving furiously now.
Hyperbolic Doomsday speak: California is destroyed. GM is destroyed. The U.S. subsequently will be destroyed. (Footnote: destroyed, as near as I can tell from these examples basically just means higher taxes.)
Associating liberalism with de facto higher taxes: If you’re not going to bother understanding an opposing political view, kindly abstain from commenting on it. Just kidding, this is the internet!
But really, what I’m most frustrated with is how completely wonderful it is to be an American in our modern world and what an amazing prosperity and quality of life we enjoy relative to our global neighbors. Our country is wonderful to live in and it’s getting better. We have our challenges for certain. The economy may have tanked on us and debt may be high and companies may be failing, but precisely how many meals did that cause you to miss? How bad was the violence in the street on your commute to work because of the civil unrest? How many of your family members were murdered this week due to the political instability in our country?
As wonderful as America is; however, with our senses of entitlements we look at these little hiccups in our bourgeois lifestyle as harbingers of doom.
As if having to cut your cable bill because you’re now on unemployment somehow portends the apocalypse.
But the fact of the matter is if you look at an organization that was actually destroyed, Sunni Iraq leaps to mind, you will find that this five-point list holds no weight whatsoever. (Iraq’s problem was that it wasn’t religious enough? Right.)
It’s just more middle class conservatives feelings sorry for themselves and the “dire” state of things.
I wish we could take all this energy we spend articulating how bad everything is and how much worse it’s going to get and redirect that to talking about how great everything is and how much better it is going to get. Could you imagine? Wouldn’t that be nice?
re 18:
Actually, Chris, I think one issue was that some people were concerned over whether Mormon Matters was even *part* of the Bloggernacle.
(I’m not sure if I’m supposed to go there…and especially not on this post.)
Val/Dan:
I love California and GM. California is a great place to live and visit; and, I have owned several GM vehicles. They are excellent. I think the escalade is one of the best cars on the market. If you think I am knocking California or GM, you completely missed my point. My point is economies have been destroyed by give-away programs. Give-away programs by the left that bankrupted both of these entities.
I do not actually miss MM. I am just baffled by the post, but I do not know all of you. For me the bloggernacle is anything at Mormon Archipelago. This may not be the case, but it is all I have time to follow.
To the post, the interesting thing about Benson for me is that is politics is horrible and much of it has even been rejected by the right (as they rejected much of Bircher politics). But, in Mormonism we will always have it with us. While it entertains me on one level, I also scares me.
Members of the John Birch Society were batshit crazy…
Justin, that is automatically implied and does not need to be stated as such.
Ever heard of the worse recession in recent memory (caused, mainly by Republican Leadership)? That might have more to do with the debt of California than anything else. Besides for that, the United States was plenty prosperous during the 1960s and 70s when taxes were MUCH higher (to claim that taxes have continued to increase is a ridiculous notion) and entitlement programs were increasing (not mention strong unions and like). So, to claim that liberal policies are going to “destroy” America is so much revisionist history that it doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.
The poster is asking an interesting question. How about these?
1. Does anyone think that the 2004 Asian tsunami took out thousands of future suicide bombers?
2. Does anyone think that the Icelandic volcanic eruption was/is a consequence for Europe’s acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage?
To blame all of the California deficit on liberals is a bit ridiculous. While there is a large liberal population in CA, there is also a large conservative population as well. I see the problem being that the liberals want more governmental services and the conservative refuse to pay for it (even though many conservatives often come to appreciated the services). That is probably an oversimplification but I do see some truth in that. I am all about universal health care, but I am also all about living within our means as a country. The only way to reconcile this craziness is, dare I say, raise taxes. Either that or reallocating funds from the military.
Lol Jon #26 – That reminds me of a friend of mine who recently challenged another friend to think of ANYTHING (pencils, trees, cars, fish, whatever) and see if someone had not made porn out of it online somewhere. After a short google search, friend #2 assured me that if you can think it, there is porn for it. I think these types of questions are the same. If you can ask it, there will be SOMEONE out there who will agree.
#26:
1. No
2. No
My question is whether we treat questions like those asked by Jon Miranda as serious questions that should be engaged or do we dismiss them as madness. I think that are madness, but I am not sure is dismissing them does any good. I am just tired of dealing with this stuff as a huge part of my religious community.
The problem with prophecies of doom is that they are almost invariably premature. (Just ask Jonah.) And that tends to make the prophets look a bit silly. And the extent of doom often gets played up; Rome fell, all right, but Western civilization, after a few centuries of hiccups, took off again and rose orders of magnitude higher than before.
Yet that doesn’t mean that the doom-and-gloomers are entirely all wet.
There’s an interesting book by one Joseph Tainter, The Collapse of Complex Societies. (http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Complex-Societies-Studies-Archaeology/dp/052138673X). The thesis is that increasing the complexity of a society increases its productivity and resilience — up to a point. After that point, further increases in complexity tend to have diminishing returns, and may eventually start adding net deadweight to the society. If the society keeps futilely trying to solve its problems by increasing its increasingly-useless compexity, it slides down the right side of the curve and may ultimately collapse.
No society is invulnerable: “[A]nd the people of Ammonihah were destroyed; yea, every living soul of the Ammonihahites was destroyed, and also their great city, which they said God could not destroy, because of its greatness.” (Alma 16:9.) Sure, we are better off than African or Near Eastern basket cases. The handful of good Anglo-American ideas that basically form the social capital of the entire modern order, constitute a vast capital stock that can be drawn down an awful lot before failing. But it’s not inexhaustible. And I do think we are probably near the top, or even on the right slope, of the complexity/utility curve. So much of the additional complexity of the modern world, in my appraisal, serves less of any useful purpose than it serves to screw things up.
The financial crisis is a classic example: Everybody — from central banks to legislators to investment banks to individuals — overappraised the utility of the increased complexity of the financial system from the mid-1990s on. As it turned out, the increased complexity did less to spread and diversify risk, than it simply allowed risk to be hidden in the weeds of complexity. What we have is a declining level of competence, coupled with an increased level of arrogance — of an unjustified confidence that the economy can be understood sufficiently enough for “experts” to manipulate it for the overall good.
I have one very simple principle to apply to an economy: The further you get from the law of the harvest — where you reap what you sow, and where the enjoyer of the benefit is the man whose brow-sweat created it — the greater the chances the incentives will be misunderstood and misaligned. Again, a wealthy society with a good New England heritage can coast along despite some misaligned incentives — but nothing is infinite, and there are strong incentives that we are pushing up against the limits. California, nice as it has been and in many ways still is, is definitely pushing up against those limits where no more blood can be squeezed out of the turnips. It’ll be an interesting decade, assuming I stick around.
re 26,
Jon Miranda,
this may be a new low. And that’s quite an accomplishment for you.
Re #26, Fascinating, relevant questions. Here are some more:
1. Will homeschooling that uses only religious texts really help us develop those new vaccines?
2. Can we reduce milk spoilage by burning witches?
“While there is a large liberal population in CA, there is also a large conservative population as well. I see the problem being that the liberals want more governmental services and the conservative refuse to pay for it (even though many conservatives often come to appreciated the services).”
Except that California is already one of the most heavily taxed states in the Union. There may be a sizeable conservative population in California, but under winner-take-all democracy, if they’re not 51%, they might as well be four cranky guys in a bar somewhere. Sure, California does have some structural restraints on increasing taxes (without which it would be *the* highest-taxed state, not just *one* of the highest). But then again, the last round of tax-rate increases didn’t raise any appreciably additional revenue, which indicates that California has probably already maxed out its ability to tax the people whom it is politically possible to tax. (California’s tax system depends heavily on income taxes from high-income earners, which is a guaranteed recipe for revenue instability — high-income earners’ income, much of which comes from business profits, varies far more across the business cycle than wage income does.)
“Does anyone think that the Icelandic volcanic eruption was/is a consequence for Europe’s acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage?”
There’s a great episode in the great Icelandic saga Njal’s Saga, which takes place around the time Iceland decided (by a vote of the chiefs) to become Christian. During the debate at the assembly, which used to be held in a volcanic rift valley right out of Lord of the Rings, the news comes in that a volcano is erupting in a neighboring district and threatening some farms.
The pro-pagan holdouts all say “a-ha! The gods are angry with us for thinking about discarding them!” One of the pro-Christian faction stands up, waves his arm around at all the ancient lava beds, and says, “What were the gods angry about when this lava was burning?
This post is completely intellectually bankrupt, what is it doing on this blog? I don’t mind a conservative point of view but why is a thoughtless ideologue given the opportunity to post when you have a number of thoughtful bloggers here who’s ideas have some relation to reality. I too am suddenly missing Mormon Matters.
By the way the new GM IPO is scheduled for next week with high demand for shares and an estimated share price of $30. Further, most analysits put the demise of the old GM on issues such as making products that the buying public was cool towards as well as poor quality in relation to their competitors. Balme the R&D, marketing and engeneering departments as well as senior management for these sorts of problems. Its not that issues such as pension and benefits played no role in the challenges that the company faced but, these were not first order issues. Making cars is the first order issue.
Pointing at natural disasters and claiming them to be God punishing those who you disagree with is about as damaging as damaging gets.
I am sure that many people who disagree would point to the tornado in downtown Salt Lake City as some sort of evidence that God disproves of Mormons.
Chris H Andrew S
Why put out a blog if you don’t want all kinds of interesting viewpoints that people have? For a while I was for censoring or semi-censoring blogs but whats the point? You don’t get the real story.
“Ever heard of the worse recession in recent memory (caused, mainly by Republican Leadership)?”
Still waiting for a credible explanation of that last bit. Considering that the financial bubble/meltdown has been global, and last I noticed, “Republican Leadership” has been limited to this country, a little “show your work” is probably called for.
The Republican leadership of 2002-2006 (the Democrats had control of Congress after that) could, I suppose, have taken drastic measure to pop the housing bubble before it spun out of control. However, there has not been a single instance in all of the history of the entire developed world, where it’s been politically possible for a government to do that — to take away the punchbowl just as the party’s getting started. George W. Bush’s one effort to do something about — to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — was defeated by legislators in both parties, but most famously by Barney Frank (D, Fantasyland), who in one of the most hilariously un-prescient lines ever managed to go on record in mid-decade arguing that there was nothing wrong with the housing market, and we ought to keep “rolling the dice.”
We’re in the fix we’re in, because the baby boomers were (1) too progressive and self-absorbed to have kids; (2) too short-sighted to properly save for their retirements, and (3) too politically powerful, because there are just so damn many of them, to allow government to prepare for the coming demographic crunch instead of spending money on them.
California is not in financial crisis just because of the recession-driven revenue loss. If government spending had just risen at the rate of population growth plus inflation, the deficit would be manageable. But it didn’t, and so it’s not.
re 37:
Jon Miranda,
notice how no one is preventing you from saying what you are saying? Notice how Will has nevertheless been allowed to guest post?
And it’s at this time that our current tagline is most prescient.
BUT…just because you CAN do something…does that mean you SHOULD?
You say that “you don’t get the real story.” But have you ever asked yourself whether you even have the real story to begin with?
I can see and hear a lot of interesting viewpoints from a lot of sources. They don’t all have to be from the same source, and more importantly, just because a viewpoint is interesting doesn’t mean that it is helpful, true, uplifting, moral, reasonable, or anything else.
#37 – Jon, your comment #26 was not an interesting viewpoint. It was vile and hateful, which is pretty much par for the course. I guess, though, that celebrating the deaths of thousands of people after the fact as opposed to simply hoping prospectively for their deaths is new for you. I guess in some perverse way that’s interesting.
@ JohnE (#36) – Indeed. And what should one make of the rainbow that graced Salt Lake City as hundreds of marriage equality supporters marched around Temple Square in celebration of Judge Walker’s slapdown of Prop 8?
🙂
#37 “Why put out a blog if you don’t want all kinds of interesting viewpoints that people have? For a while I was for censoring or semi-censoring blogs but whats the point? You don’t get the real story.”
Maybe because you want informed and thoughtful discussion that actually is interesting. That would be one reasons to to have a blog. Ideologues from any point of view just don’t have anything to contribute. What you are talking about is a circus. Why not invite Mike Malloy and John Hagee to post here? Would that give one the real story? Of course not, it would just be expanding the public presense of a couple of hacks. Its not the OP’s political point of view that’s the problem. The problem is that the OP is stupid, its full of ideologically based claims that are not supported by any credible analysis of the issues under discussion.
clarification for my #36:
I meant to say:
I am sure that many people who disagree with (the Mormon Church) would point to the tornado in downtown Salt Lake City as some sort of evidence that God disproves of Mormons.
The interesting thing is most of the damage from wildfires in CA tend to occur in the more conservative areas. They, after all, want lower taxes, and so leach off their liberal neighbors for firefighting equipment.
What? At least this comment was based a little bit on reality, unlike this blog posting.
“Why put out a blog if you don’t want all kinds of interesting viewpoints that people have?” I enjoy interesting viewpoints. You know what makes a viewpoint interesting to me? It’s something I haven’t thought of, and is based on reality. Since this blog post wasn’t based on reality but on Tea-Party/Bircher/Beckian rantings, it’s not very interesting.
Will, a little advice politics & ideology mix like throwing water on a inflamed oil spill.
I do agree that increasing taxes stifles economic growth, lowering taxes can bring a greater yield, Hong Kong is a great example.
Salt Lake is doing well despite the recession, which the PR machine of the LDS newsroom has been bragging about.
I’d like to go back to a few points about the original post.
Will — you describe pension plans as ‘free bread’ What about the money that I put in, willingly into the company pension plan (OK, seeing as I’m still in school, this is all theoretical 😦 ). The idea of a pension isn’t free. It’s paid for over the 30+ years you work with the company. It is savings. When you contribute to a pension plan, you are saving for the future. Now, can you depend on it too much, by not saving more, absolutely. But it isn’t ‘free’.
Point 2. Your argument about California is not actually a critique about liberal policy of providing public support via education, health coverage, social services, emergency rooms, an excellent university system. Your critique is that people weren’t willing to pay for them. Thus, you have not shown that these programs in themselves have ‘destroyed’ California, just that people weren’t willing to be intelligent enough at the start to pay what was going to be needed. That is a problem, but it is not logical to conclude that the programs do no good and that ‘liberalism’ is destroying our country.
Are ETB’s words here prophetic? Only if prophetic = regurgitating doomsaying predictions straight from John Birch society propaganda. Having said that, though, there is some valid discussion to be had. While I don’t agree with the OP, I also disagree with some of the complacency inherent in our commentary. The US is not good enough, IMO, just because we are better than war-torn or 3rd world countries. We are not as innovative as we once were. We are losing industry relevance in many sectors. We have a contingency of Americans who are pretty complacent about that (of all political parties), and another contingency who are high fiving each other over how frickin’ awesome we are, when we should be striving to be #1, not just #11 or #whatever we are depending on which criteria you consider. We are not the best in health care, education, quality of life, etc. We’re not the worst (for obvious reasons), but we should aspire to more, IMO.
I don’t really agree that it’s bread and circuses spending that’s gotten us there. To me, it’s complacency and feeling smug as a country. We should be fueled to compete. We should be more aware of just how well some other nations are doing and not just assume (in Lake Woebegone fashion) that just because we’re Americans we have the best ideas and the best of everything. I’m not accusing anyone here of that specifically, but Americans are prone to sniff our own fragrance, and we like what we smell.
@Thomas: To claim that the financial meltdown wasn’t caused by American institutions is silly. It was global meltdown because our financial system is integrally tied to others. The financial crisis was a result of the dismantling, mainly by republicans, of the financial regulatory system.
The vast majority of the Federal deficit was incurred under three republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush). And Dick Cheney famously said that Reagan proved that the deficit didn’t matter.
California IS mainly in debt because of the recession, not because of liberal social policies and safety nets.
AndrewJDavis — Oh, we do pay for them. And how.
Californians have traditionally not minded paying for the core functions of government — infrastructure, public safety, a basic social safety net, adequate public education. Some of those things are genuinely public investments — they increase productivity, and so increase economic output and consequently the tax base. Done right, that kind of government should actually increase the resilience of the government’s financial position.
The problem is that California government has increasingly moved away from its core functions, and towards being one big check-writing machine. Case in point: Infrastructure has declined from 20% of public spending, under the old-school Democrat Pat Brown, to something like 5%. What is sold as “investment” — like increased education funding, past a certain basic level we long ago achieved — has, measurably and objectively, no additional effect on productivity. (Much of that spending is devoted to closing “gaps” in the achievement between high- and low-achieving ethnic groups, which is an overwhelmingly cultural problem and not susceptible to being simply funded away.) We are paying more to get less.
That’s not a matter of being “not intelligent enough” to pay what is needed — it is a function of the people who consume the services, and the people who use the services, not being the same people. Again, the cold logic of the Law of the Harvest is kicking in: When who pays and who benefits are too far separated, the system breaks down.
Re: pensions, thanks to the 1978 legalization of public-sector collective bargaining by our great governor-elect on his last go-round mucking up the state, there is a colossal misincentive at play. Public officials have incentives to make public-sector unions happy — that gets you all kinds of nice contributions. And yet they also have the incentive to keep their constituents happy, such as by not raising their taxes. Generous pensions provide a perfect opportunity to do both: You please the unions by giving them expensive benefits — but paying for them will be your successor’s problem, not yours.
One other thought for those questioning why W&T would give Will air space when his OP contradicts majority opinion among our permas – Will gets one vote in all US elections, just like the rest of us. We can say his opinions aren’t worth discussing, but his vote counts nonetheless. Blogging gives people a chance to debunk and inform as well as air space to vent unpopular opinions.
Hawkgrrl,
I a not complacecent. I think America totally sucks.
“The vast majority of the Federal deficit was incurred under three republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush). And Dick Cheney famously said that Reagan proved that the deficit didn’t matter.”
Objectively false. As much federal debt has been run up under two years of Pelosi/Reid/Obama, as was run up under every president from Washington to Bush. And that was some achievement, considering that Bush wasn’t exactly a paragon of fiscal restraint — especially in the last two years of his administration, when you-know-who was writing the budgets.
Ironically enough, Cheney was at least partially right about deficits — he just didn’t complete his sentence. He should have said that in an inflationary environment, deficits don’t matter, within reason.
I was annoyed with the Bush administration’s deficits in the $3-600 billion range, but the bond markets don’t lie — there was no effect on the government’s credit. But if that annoyed me, then logically I ought to be somewhat more annoyed by deficits in the range of $1.5 trillion, no?
Jon,
I guess the Jews had it coming to them back in the 30s, eh?
Those dirtbags in New Orleans sure had it coming to them back in 2005, didn’t they?
re 54:
Yes, Dan, those dirtbags in New Orleans did have it coming to them! All of the debauchery of mardi gras!
I’m rather surprised no one has actually confronted Will about why he hasn’t actually provided Ezra Taft Benson’s actual words. Or why Will is a chicken who hides behind a prophet to hurl garbage at people, not minding that the prophet gets slimed instead of him. What an utterly disgusting piece of garbage this post is.
Douglas/Van;
Name-call, rant, rave, jeer and mock all you want. Fools mock. If you can’t see the underlying problem, Douglas, than it is you that has the problem. GM went bankrupt. California is bankrupt, but is not accepting the truth. Likewise, the US is bankrupt and is not accepting the truth. The ticking time-bomb in both entities is unfunded pensions. Retirement and government run health care programs. Social Security and Medicare will be the final financial blow to this country unless something is done. And those that are the most dependant on the Government will be the ones that suffer the most. The classic example of the adage it is cruel to be kind and kind to be cruel.
We need to make major changes in these programs – changes that will lead to self sufficiency. When the Lord instructed Adam in the Garden he told him the land would be cursed all the days of his life and it would be by the sweat of his brow that he would eat. He did not mean by someone elses brow, but by Adams. The retirement model we have in this country is broken. It is unfunded. Most people collect what they paid into it within a few years after retirement. It will collapse unless something is done. The writing is on the wall. If you don’t have the courage or integrity to see that, then you are the one with the problem.
If only those damn old people would just die.
“The financial crisis was a result of the dismantling, mainly by republicans, of the financial regulatory system.”
Sorry, but you simply have no idea what you’re talking about.
The only substantial act of financial deregulation anytime remotely relevant to the financial crisis was the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which prevented commercial banks from engaging in investment banking or insurance. The problem with that argument — a standard left-liberal talking point — is that there was no difference, in the frequency of financial distress, between firms that took advantage of that repeal to combine commercial and investment banking, and those that didn’t. If anything, the entities that combined the practices, like JP Morgan Chase, have come through the crisis healthier than the guys who stayed plain banks or plain investment banks/insurance companies.
No serious economist, writing within the sphere of his competence (looking at you, Paul K.!) blames Glass-Steagall for more than a trivial fraction of the 2008 financial crisis. The bottom line is that the powers that be — in large part, the Progressive-instituted Federal Reserve — consciously decided to blow a housing bubble to replace the collapsed dot-com bubble. With utterly predictable effects. Thanks, jerks.
Dan,
Here is the article. By way reiteration, the OP says ‘In a warning given by President Benson, he QUOTED Edward Gibbon on what caused the fall of the Roman Empire”
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=9a1cd2b9ae76b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
After that quote, I expressed my thoughts about the quote and said as much by saying TOO ME. President Benson does say the follwoing, however.
“Is there a parallel for us in America today? Could the same reasons that destroyed Rome destroy America and possibly other countries of the free world? ”
I would encourage you and others to read what he said.
Thomas,
#59,
yeah, I know…that’s what we get for putting a silly conservative in charge of a progressive institution. Alan Greenspan did one hell of a terrible number on America with his silly Objectivism.
“If only those damn old people would just die.”
Yea, that’s what I’m saying. Resort to name calling and jeering when you don’t have an answer. Again, fools mock. It is a serious issue and it needs some serious thought. The thing for sure is the current system is broken. It is unfunded. Without a serious solution it will collapse. WHEN it collapse the old will be the ones that suffer the most. So I guess what you are saying is “Let them suffer”
Fools mock.
I can’t imagine that soothsaying is any more helpful than name-calling, Will.
Dan, if you think Objectivism has anything to do with the way Alan Greenspan ran the Federal Reserve, you need to look again.
And of course if “progressive” institutions only work when progressives are in charge of them, then maybe you need to check your premises. Because unless you institute a one-party state (which some liberals like Thomas Friedman seem to half-pine for), your people aren’t always going to be in charge.
There is a conceit that the reason public policies go t…I mean, feet up, is “ideology.” That is, if only our wise right-thinking people were in charge, as opposed to the ideologically-deluded opposition, everything would be peachy.
My own thinking is that nobody — no single person or institution — ever has sufficient information or infallibility to really manage an economy. So don’t “manage” it. Provide a stable currency (now that’s something out of Rand, even if she took the gold fetish too far); don’t slam the throttle every which way in response to every economic hiccup. We have a solid data record of the results, which seems to be “marginally fewer recessions, but deeper ones that require ever-more drastic central-bank action to keep the system from flying to pieces completely.” If we had pursued a price-rule monetary policy, not pretending to “fine-tune” the economy, we would not be in as horrible a mess — with zombie debt being hidden in every available nook and cranny by the powers that be, and central banks plowing damn-the-torpedoes ahead into truly uncharted quantitative-easing territory — as we now find ourselves.
Fools mock!
notice how no one is preventing you from saying what you are saying? Notice how Will has nevertheless been allowed to guest post?
Why do people villify Will so much?
“If only those damn old people would just die.”
Well, that, or adjust the actuarial tables to account for their longer lifespan. Frankly, the second seems like the nicer choice, but the damn old people don’t seem too keen for that, either.
oh Will, Ezra Taft Benson is in such trouble for writing such a terribly sloppy piece. One of his major errors is the quote attributed to Alex de Tocqueville which is nowhere to be found in Democracy in America. ETB quotes:
If you note there, the quote is not directly from Democracy in America. And that is because that quote is nowhere to be found in Democracy in America. as you can see here, it comes from someone else wholly different (and much later) than de Tocqueville. You fail, Will, in the same way Ezra Taft Benson failed, by trying to hide behind better men while lobbing crap at the world.
Fools…mock!
Thomas,
Right, uh huh, they’re only conservative when not running the country. They’re only Objectivist when not in power. How utterly silly, Thomas.
I was making a funny.
Jon,
Because he wrote such a crappy piece.
“Right, uh huh, they’re only conservative when not running the country. They’re only Objectivist when not in power. How utterly silly, Thomas.”
Well, nanny, nanny boo boo to you to, Sir.
Look, this is really easy:
(a) What was the Objectivist thinking about monetary policy? Hard money. The gold standard. Minimal government manipulation fo the money supply. You can look it up.
(b) What was the policy of the Federal Reserve during Alan Greenspan’s tenure?
If (b) /= (a), then all the sixth-grade sarcasm in the world won’t change that fact.
By me posing my questions I just want people to think. I really don’t mean to offend. For example, remember when Moses came down from the Mount and threw the tablets into the midst of the people and the earth opened swallowed people up and other things? People died, period. People scoff at the possibility that one of the purposes of the tsunami may have been to take out future suicide bombers or any similar event in history. How do you know that it wasn’t one of the purposes? The line between God’s patience and wrath can be very thin.
Thomas,
#73,
You’re essentially saying that Greenspan abrogated his beliefs by joining the Fed, because a true Objectivist would not dare join the Evil Empire…
Maybe, just maybe, Objectivism and also libertarianism just cannot handle reality, because when the rubber hits the road, you need a more practical approach.
Mose? Fools mock!
Last Lemming @9:54, a thoughtful post. A couple of things about those tables:
(1) The relatively small amount of fluctuation over the years in tax receipts, notwithstanding that the highest marginal tax rates were, in many of those years, orders of magnitude higher than they are in other years, suggests that pre-Kennedy/Reagan marginal tax rates in the 70-90% range, don’t raise much if any additional revenue than is raised when the top rate is in the 30-40% range. There’s actually a name for this, “Hauser’s Law,” which posits that the most tax revenue you can sustainably extract from the American economy is about 19-20%, no matter what the marginal rates are.
(2) The ratios depend on the reliability of measurements of GDP. As the economy has gotten more service- and finance-oriented, there is probably more fudge-factor in GDP estimates. Think, for instance, of all the income banks booked on accrued-but-unpaid interest on option-ARM loans — which never had the remotest possibility of ever being paid back. American accounting standards have gone absolutely to hell, with the connivance of politicians (of both parties) with every interest in making the economy look better than it is.
So even though there may be listed a relatively low nominal tax receipts/GDP ratio of 15% for 2009, I question whether the ratio of receipts to actual national income is much different than it has been in previous years. Inflate the denominator, and the numerator looks smaller in comparison. And the GDP denominator is almost surely inflated.
Jon,
There are such things as offensive questions. Here’s one for you. Were the Jews responsible for killing Christ? After all, according to the written record, they yelled out to Pontius Pilate that his blood be on us and on our children. Should not the blood of Jesus be on the heads of all Jews and their children? I mean, I’m just posing my questions just wanting people to think. I really don’t mean to offend.
Dude, you do not know your own scriptures. Was a prophet of God recently in Indonesia, India, Sri Lanka, and wherever else the 250,000 people that died, to warn them of catastrophe if they did not listen to God? Did a prophet warn them specifically in relation to “suicide bombers?” Hell, you don’t even know your current events or your geography. Suicide bombers in droves from India, Sri Lanka and Indonesia? Toward whom? God’s Kingdom on earth? The US? Your point is utterly stupid. I bet almost all of those 250,000 people who died in the tsunami never got a chance to hear from one of God’s missionaries. So maybe they got what they deserved because they sucked in the premortal life. After all, if they were actually valiant in the premortal existence, then they assuredly would have been born into middle class Idaho families.
“You’re essentially saying that Greenspan abrogated his beliefs by joining the Fed, because a true Objectivist would not dare join the Evil Empire…”
Just like no idealistic community organizer would ever go work for a corporate law firm.
“Maybe, just maybe, Objectivism and also libertarianism just cannot handle reality, because when the rubber hits the road, you need a more practical approach.”
Practical approaches are, well, practical They work in practice. I question whether engineering two successive asset bubbles, the second of which splattered zombie-debt slime across the entire observable universe, fits under any good definition of “practical.”
Thomas,
Says who? I didn’t know community organizers had a workable ideology…
#57- First of all I didn’t mock you. I called you an ideologue and I called your post stupid. The first is a criticism, the second is my opinion, but if you wish to call it name calling that would be fine.
You write: ” If you can’t see the underlying problem, Douglas, than it is you that has the problem. ”
Here is your description of the underlying problem in CA:
” It is a State controlled by liberals and their Unions. A State flooded with illegal immigrants, with liberals standing in the way of sane or reasonable measures to stop the bleeding. A liberal congress, who has the State’s power of the purse, spending of public monies for free bread and circuses for the populace.”
If you want to be taken seriously then you need to do the work. You need to show us readers exactly how liberals and unions are controlling the state and how they have more material power and control than say conservatives, corporations and stock brokers, etc. You also throw out immigration but don’t connect it to anything. Again, give us some non-ideological information here. What do the social scientists who study immigration say about its impact on CA and the control those liberal, socialist, union folks have on the state?
You have a choice here to either take the negative criticism you are getting and learn something about your writing from it, or you can pretend that the criticisms are unreasonable and come from nowhere. Its up to you.
First, these are not President Benson’s words; at best they are Elder Benson’s words. He was not president of the church, nor of the 12 in 1973.
Second, your analysis of GM’s bankruptcy, while mimicking the conservative right wing, ignores the fact that their major US competitor had the same union issues that GM had and stayed solvent. Ford stayed solvent because it had the foresight to borrow in the financial markets for what it saw was a market downturn when the financial markets were healthy. GM and Chrysler failed to do so, and therefore could not have withstood the economic downturn driven by the financial meltdown.
Yes, GM had management issues, but those were not of the union’s making. And yes, GM’s IPO is coming and will suggest that many investors have faith in the “new” GM, its products, and its future.
As for California, it seems at least a portion of its problem is its own governmental structure which rules by ballot initiative rather than by legislation.
All I can say is Holy Cow, I think this is complete lunacy.
I must admit I love the banter between Thomas and Dan. Very entertaining!!!
“Prima fascia evidence marijuana, even for medical reasons, shouldn’t be legalized.”
Here in Oregon (where marijuana is legal for medical reasons) new businesses that cater to the needs of those who have the right to use marijuana are flourishing. On the back page of our small town ‘shopper’ newspaper, you can see multiple advertisements for new businesses of this type. So there are some business taxes that are propping up the economy during the recessions.
On the other hand, the drive for those who may be able to return to work despite a past disability (which may have improved) has been replaced. The boredom from not working and frustration at living below the means by which one can qualify for disability is mellowed and swallowed up by the mind-altering state of the cannibis experience.
Where marijuana use and disability is generational, you could argue that the dignity and sanctity of the home has been undermined.
“Again, give us some non-ideological information here.”
T’ain’t no such thing.
“What do the social scientists who study immigration say about its impact on CA….?”
Generally speaking, the things that won’t get their friends in the faculty lounge mad at them.
But since California has 12% of the country’s population and 32% of the country’s welfare case load, I think we can’t discount at least the possibility that something north of 4 million low-skill, low-wage, low-education people, who have more children than the average, may have something of an effect on the state’s bottom line.
80+ comments by 2:30 in the afternoon is pretty awesome. Whether people like the post or not, think it’s grounded in reality or not, it certainly is generating comments. I say, everyone commenting here and complaining about Will’s post needs to go over to Stephen’s post about Jack Green and write in RAEBNC.
I have taught at 5 different colleges and universities. None had a faculty lounge.
Thomas,
maybe making them all citizens might help the state’s bottom line…just sayin…
Douglas,
You are the one who looks uninformed here. The California legislature has been controlled by the left since 1970, with the exception of a brief Republic majority in the mid 1990’s. The congress, as in most legislative bodies, has the power of the purse. I would hold the body that has the power over the budget, and has for the past 40 years, responsive for its massive debt.
Paul,
Horse puckey – he was ordained an Apostle in 1943 and set apart as President of the quorum in 1973. Yes, President of the Quorum in 1973; thus, President. Also, it is a matter of respect to refer to a president of the Church as president, regardless of when he held the title.
Yea, if someone gave me 100 Billion dollars, I’m sure I would have a lot of interested parties in an IPO as well. As for Ford, I would attribute the windfall to people like me that abandoned GM when it was taken over by the Government.
#88 – Fools mock, Chris H.
Fools Mock! Thanks for the reminder #91, I almost forgot.
Will, in #90, shows how little he knows of California politics. How, for example, a certain proposition from back in the 70s forced the legislature to require a supermajority vote for any budget law, thus the legislature was always at the whim of the most extreme elements in the minority party.
Will also shows his utter ignorance at how IPOs and investment works. It doesn’t matter if you have lots of money. What matters is your business plan and your quarterly reports.
Utter poppycock bullcrap.
57: “The retirement model we have in this country is broken.” If you mean Social Security, you’re right. It was structured as a pay-as-you-go plan, not a personal savings plan. But it is also NOT “the retirement plan we have in this country.”
Company pensions operated differently in that they take contributions and invest them with the intent of covering future payments through sound investment. If companies defer their payment into those funds, then shame on the companies.
The new model is “every man for himself” at a time when lack of regulatory control on Wall Street has ruined the retirement savings of many private investors.
So what “new model” do you propose?
Just looking back through some previous posts:
1. I think the tsunami was the result of plate tectonics. The sea floor raised several meters, along with all of the overlying water. That is absolutely astounding to me when I think of the energy that involves. If God would do that to “kill thousands of terrorists”, as well as hundreds of thousands of other people, perhaps He might instead cause a plane to run out of fuel next time, or a detonator to misfire.
2. I also think that the Iceland volcano perhaps has something to do with the fact that Iceland IS a volcano. If not, it would just be open water in the middle of the Atlantic. And perhaps that is also caused by plate tectonics with two plates spreading apart. I fail to make the connection between some ash grounding planes for a short time with abortion.
“maybe making them all citizens might help the state’s bottom line…just sayin…”
By making them eligible for even more public services and refundable tax credits? (And encouraging milions more illegal migrants expecting the same treatment a few years down the line?)
This will help how?
#90 Horse puckey yourself.
President Lee passed away on December 26, 1973.
The article you cite was published in July 1973. Unless I missed something Elder Benson did not become President Benson until after President Kimball (then President of the Quorum of the 12) became president of the church after the death of President Lee.
As for Ford’s share increase — there is no doubt that Ford has benefited from GM’s receiving government money and the public backlash it engendered. But the fact remains that Ford stayed out of bankruptcy because it had sufficient cash to weather a credit crisis. GM’s bankruptcy was due to a lack of cash during that same credit crisis. Had GM had access to cash, it would have continued to borrow and would have avoided bankruptcy. (And probably would have prevented the “right sizing” of the US auto industry in the process, by the way, which would have been to the detriment of the entire industry.)
Furthermore, how is it that a pension, which is part of compensation for labor provided, is “free bread and circus” for the masses? I fully intend to collect my pension which I have earned over years of service to my company as part of my competitive compensation.
“
Will also shows his utter ignorance at how IPOs and investment works. It doesn’t matter if you have lots of money. What matters is your business plan and your quarterly reports.”
What matters is the company’s overall financial position. All things being equal, if you add $100 billion to a company’s capital, you’ve just increased its market cap by $100 billion — even if the business plan is just to pile that money in a conference room and roll around in it on Fridays.
The GM IPO has been priced at about $50 billion — coincidentally, pretty much exactly what the government provided GM in exchange for its 60% equity stake. So the government’s $50 billion, if the IPO goes as planned (and it may not), is now $30 billion. So yes, in effect, the government basically just gave GM, slash, the UAW, a $20 billion gift. Merry Christmas. The hopeless financial illiterate Will has a point.
Two things about GM’s IPO:
1. IPOs are often priced below expected market cap in order to reward those investors who buy in. What will be more interesting that the price of the IPO is the market cap of GM after the IPO.
2. Preliminary reports suggest GM’s value is $39-$44/share instead of the $26-29 spread they set for the offering.
3. A report today also indicated that GM has orders for $60 billion (far in excess of the stake they had intended to sell for about $10 billion).
The market clearly sees demand for GM stock.
Er, oops — that would be THREE things…
People, even I got it that Jon Miranda was joking about the tsunami. Are jokes related to hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths now off limits?
Hawkgirl:
Deaths are tragic and anybody that survives is almost always left wondering who, what, where and why. Thoughts race through people’s heads are to why things happen and the timing. By no means did I mean to make light of all that tragedy. Just thoughts that crossed my mind.
#102 – Jon, I found your comment to be far more offensive than a joke about the dead would have been.
Dan,
California is a deep blue state. It is controlled by the left. As mentioned, the legislature has been controlled by the left (except 1994 and 1995). The Republicians that have been elected to state wide office are moderate at best and would most likely had a D by there name in most other states in the union. The left controls this bankrupt State. The fault inon thief shoulders.
As for the IPO comment, you missed my point. It was the 100 billion in restructuring that made the IPO possible. Most importantly, going from a viable company to bankruptcy was the whole point of the OP. It was thief horrible expense structure that caused this mess — a mess created by free bread. If they would have let there employees manage thief own retirement and health care everyone would be better off. If they want to contribute to an employees plan as part of thief compensation, that would be fine.
Paul,
You are right; however, would you dismiss the words of an Apostle (who can technically be referred to as a Prophet)? I think not. Knowing your background I know not.
You are also right about SS and are supporting my point. If YOU were to invest YOUR money in a private account, you and our Government would be better off. The left wants to socialize retirement to compensate CIR the irresponsible in our nation. They need to stay out of social programs, they only make things worse.
As for the IPO see my comments to Dan
“Preliminary reports suggest GM’s value is $39-$44/share instead of the $26-29 spread they set for the offering.”
With GM’s market share basically identical to Ford’s, and Ford’s stock trading (after a strong stock rally) close to a 52-week high in the $16 per share range, AND what looks to be shaping up to be fair-to-middlin’ market correction after the runup to the Fed’s quantitative-easing announcement, $39 per share for an American car company that just emerged from bankruptcy, whose stock is still heavily owned by a government that wants to unload it, and which still faces serious debts and pension obligations…would surprise me.
If the IPO next Wednesday yields a price north of $25, I would seriously consider shorting the stock. There are just too many political (read: not necessarily logical) reasons for an artificially high price to be sought for the high-profile IPO. What happens later — the drop of the stock to its sustainable price — is stuff for the third page of the business section.
#102 Jon, I like to think the Almighty has better aim than that. If the Lord wanted to wipe away a handful of future suicide bombers, surely a few well-placed cases of dengue fever would do the trick much more elegantly than swamping half of South Asia with a tsunami.
Then again, I’m still reeling from my former bishop passing on an alleged comment from my former stake president, to the effect that the Lord fired up the Mount Tambora eruption in 1803 for the specific purpose of chilling down the New England climate, in order to get the Smiths to pack up to the neighborhood of Cumorah. The Lord may move in mysterious ways, but that’s just too Rube Goldberg to me. Surely there’s a more efficient way of getting one farm family to move a couple hundred miles west without blowing up a bunch of poor expendable Indonesians.
I think the military calls this “economy of force.”
Sorry for the typo’s, trying to respond via my iPhone
The building of gigantic armaments
Indeed, military adventures (condemned by George Washington), the military-industrial complex and other issues are a real problem.
Thomas,
#96,
How it helps all citizens.
I’m amazed at how fearful a lot of people are of hearing a different viewpoint from there own. It’s okay to make a political commentary on this blog but ONLY if it falls on the left side of things. Otherwise you will be called names, not many will try to have an honest discussion, we just like name calling.
Personally I have a lot of similar concerns. I am a business owner in California and it is progressively harder to run a business here. I am tired of being punished for my success. If I want to help somebody that doesn’t want to get off their tail and work then I will but who gave the government the right to take my money away and give it to someone else. This may be an oversimplification of things but I would like the question answered. There are a lot of charities that I am willing to contribute to but why should I when the government takes so much it makes it tough for me to stay in business.
If the government does continue to increase taxes then we will start to look like Scandinavia. Everyone will be about the same… poor. I personally want the opportunity to work harder than everyone else and have more. I don’t think that makes me a bad person. However, judging from the comments on this blog I should be ashamed of myself.
My two cents, I enjoyed the OP, I may or may not agree with it 100% but it’s nice to hear a political commentary that isn’t from the liberal slant of things.
Jenkins,
Phooey.
Equally phooey.
Triple phooey.
That’s between you and your god.
Out of curiosity, can you share evidence of the last time your taxes were increased?
You must never have been to Scandinavia.
You should only be ashamed of yourself if you make stupid points. Or if you wish to be perceived as a persecuted victim (which your comment is dripping with). Seriously dude.
Dan,
It’s okay to make a political commentary on this blog but ONLY if it falls on the left side of things
Phooey.
-You did a good job of proving me right by not having a conversation with me, instead you are only trying to make me look stupid.
I am a business owner in California and it is progressively harder to run a business here.
Equally phooey.
-??? That’s your response? I have clients who may go under because they can’t farm because of government involvement in water. This makes it more difficult for me to run my business. It’s more expensive to drive a car every year. This makes it difficult for me to run my business. Don’t tell me you know more about my business than I do.
I am tired of being punished for my success.
Triple phooey.
-If I made less money I could live in government subsidized housing, I could have government subsidized health care… Do I need to continue? If I make more money I pay a greater percentage of taxes to pay for others who may or may not be capable of making a living.
There are a lot of charities that I am willing to contribute to but why should I when the government takes so much it makes it tough for me to stay in business.
That’s between you and your god.
-Until the government decides I have to pay to them.
If the government does continue to increase taxes then we will start to look like Scandinavia.
Out of curiosity, can you share evidence of the last time your taxes were increased?
-Is this not what the OP posted about?
Everyone will be about the same… poor.
You must never have been to Scandinavia.
-Enlighten me, don’t just try to act much smarter without actually saying anything.
However, judging from the comments on this blog I should be ashamed of myself.
You should only be ashamed of yourself if you make stupid points. Or if you wish to be perceived as a persecuted victim (which your comment is dripping with). Seriously dude.
-You sound very smart Dan. Unfortunately we all aren’t as smart as you or we’d be living the liberal utopia.
Jenkins,
Next time, don’t play the victim.
I have absolutely no idea about your personal business. You offer no specifics, thus I cannot reply back except with sarcastic quips about your victimhood.
You keep saying this kind of stuff and wonder why you get ridiculed. It seems you know little to nothing at all about taxation.
Should I pull out my violin and play a tune lamenting your victimhood?
Answer my question. Show me evidence of the last time your taxes were increased. All you need to offer me is a particular law passed by the federal government, and what year. I’m not interested in state taxes. After all, y’all believe states should better decide local matters. Show me the last time the federal government increased your taxes.
Just simply saying that your point is ridiculous saying that Americans would be poor if we had a tax system as that in Scandinavia. Scandinavians are living fairly good lives, and are generally among the happiest people in the world. They’re doing something right up there.
Will, I did not say whether I agree with Elder Benson’s comments or not, only that Elder Benson said them; President Benson did not. Yes, he was an apostle at the time. And as an apostle, he was relatively famous for political commentary that his brethren in the quorum did not universally accept. I note that there was none of that when he was president of the church.
I still think you’re off track on the GM comment, suggesting that their bankruptcy was because they offered pensions and health care as part of the compensation to their unionized workforce. That was a business decision made by management, just as many of their failed product programs were business decisions made by management. I think it fails the “free bread and circuses” test.
Paul,
The PBGC (Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp), which includes the GM line (GM, Delphi, etc) estimates $168 Billion in pension terminations. It is largely due to the huge payouts to GM retiree’s, with some (mostly management) receiving up to $54,000 per year. Think about how stupid that is. You work from the age of 25 to 65, or 40 years; and, then you receive $54,000 a year until you die, possibly 30 years. That is 1.6 Million dollars in retirement payments PER EMPLOYEE. You say this is not free bread, you’re right, it’s free Gold. This is why GM failed; and, it’s not over. It is estimated GM will have to feed the pension fund to the tune of $12 Billion a year in 2013 and 2014 just to keep the fund solvent. No way in Hades the IPO will yield what you are saying. Investors will catch site of this and stay away like a plague. Especially, when it is compared to Toyota that does what every other sane employer does and matches employee 401 K plans until they retire.
I’m not going to argue that Scandinavia doesn’t have impressive results in quality of education, quality of life, etc. They absolutely do! But it’s not in the same category as the USA in terms of size (~25 million Scandinavians vs. 300 million Americans). It’s like comparing Miss Idaho with Miss Universe. Different playing fields. Using Scandinavian practices to solve US problems won’t make US as successful as Scandinavia.
#90-
“The California legislature has been controlled by the left since 1970, with the exception of a brief Republic majority in the mid 1990’s. The congress, as in most legislative bodies, has the power of the purse. I would hold the body that has the power over the budget, and has for the past 40 years, responsive for its massive debt.”
Not so fast mt man. A few things you need to know.
1- as has been metioned a super majority is necessary to pass budgetary bill in the state legislature.
2- A huge portion of the CA budget is stipulated by ballot props that actually write spending or the issuing of debt into the state constitution. While it takes a super majority of law makers in state government to pass a budget, it only takes a simple majority of voters to pass a ballot prop that initiates the issuing of new debt. Hundred and hundreds of millions of dollars of state debt have been created this way in CA. This is debt that is not created by the legislature.
So you are claiming that one group has total control of the budget in a situation where a supermajority is needed to pass spending bills, AND spending can be stipulated by means that do not require a vote in the legislature.
FROM CHINA:
“I’m not going to argue that the US doesn’t have impressive results in political freedoms, civil freedoms [ok, actually, I will, by releasing a mock report on the civil abuses that occur in the US to compete with the US’s similar report on our abuses], etc., They absolutely do! But it’s not in the same category as China in terms of size (~300 million Americans vs. 1.2 billion Chinese.) It’s like comparing Miss Chongqing with Miss Yuzhou. Different playing fields. Using American practices to solve Chinese problems won’t make China as successful as the U.S.”
Andrew – well played, sir!
…although I do agree with the sentiment that countries, like business organizations, should diagnose their particular problems rather than just going with whatever popular fix seems to be circulating at the time.
The question is: are “best practices” relativistic? What impact does that have for the *moral* aspects of government?
Douglas,
Thanks for the insight – insight that further bolsters by point. Instead of leftists voting in leftists who act irresponsibility, liberals simply vote themselves money from the State treasury. Either way, the problem was created by the left. As we both know the Socialist Republic of California is a left of center State, buy almost anyone’s standards. Ok, maybe it is right of center to Kim Jung Ill. As mentioned, by Thomas it includes 12 percent of the nation’s citizens and 38 percent of the welfare recipients. A true welfare State voting themselves free bread, sounds like a financial disaster too me.
Hawkgrrl,
@116, just the point I was going to make.
Those union pension and health care decisions were a joint management-union “decision” — if you call the results of strike settlement talks a “decision”. When I was growing up in the Detroit suburbs in the late 50’s and 60’s, the UAW and which ever of the Big Three was chosen as the strike target was covered the way the elections of Congress are covered now.
Workers wanted their share after the harsh conditions of the Great Depression and World War 2, and it took a decade or two before a new balance could be struck. Everybody decided they could make more money in symbiosis than having damaging strikes, and developed the same peace now, pay later incentives that we’re seeing in public sector unions, too. After all, there was plenty of money to go around then; I even did my graduate research in a low-magnetic field laboratory specially built by GM in an isolated part of the Oakland University campus just to do fundamental research on an obscure magnetic effect that might tell them something new about chemical physics — something a national lab would do today.
But the balance couldn’t be sustained over time once Europe and Japan were rebuilt and could start producing quality vehicles of their own in quantity again.
We talk about “sustainable development”; maybe we need to think about a concept of sustainable justice, too.
Someone waaay upthread stated that Pres. (or Apostle) Benson was just agreeing with the great historian of rome, Gibbon. No No No No No No No No No. Gibbon clearly and plainly placed the fall of rome on Christianity. Fie, I say, Fie.
Also, the republican backed Prop. 13 hopelessly screwed up California. It does cost money to run a state and between the inability to get reasonable property taxes (due to prop. 13) and the requirement for a super-majority to pass a tax increase, the citizens of California have a state that doesn’t have the means to collect enough taxes to pay for itself; where “itself” = things like firemen.
Why do some people (Thomas?) think that having their kids die in a fire is a good thing?
Hawkgrrl, the US managed to be Scandinavian values of decent from between roughly 1935 and 1979. Why shouldn’t decency scale?
Comparing California and Texas, rather than California and Scandinavia, is more of an apples to apples comparison. Both are big border states with huge economies, moving in very different directions.
Several people have taken Will to task for lacking perspective. I think someone up in comment #2 implied that if he wants to complain about California, maybe he should go to Uganda for some perspective. This kind of reasoning has a way of shutting down real discussion. How does this feel? “Hey all you (insert aggrieved group here), maybe you should go see how things are in Iran and then you can stop being a bunch of cry babies. Gosh, you people need to get some perspective.” Kind of shuts down any complaints doesn’t it? Maybe I’ll try that on my kids next time they are whining about something!
This post attempted to combine both politics and religion. A bold move! One I’m not sure we are ready for. Maybe it’s a test of our political-tolerance-o-diversity meter?
As a California resident, I will say that people on both ends of the political spectrum agree that the state is in a financial mess. Really, it’s not controversial. Texas is looking better all the time.
Fools mock! Good luck all with your experiment in blogging. W&T is not for me, but I can see that much fun will be had.
See you all on the dark side of the moon.
Oh, djinn…good to see you. It has been a while.
If you want to compare California and Texas:
http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_4_california.html
I have not read the 120+ comments preceding mine so I may be repeating something already stated.
First off, when I read this in my rss reader, I honestly thought it was someone intentionally trying to be provocative with tongue firmly planted in cheek.
Second, since that may not be the case, I’ll point out that “The building of gigantic armaments” has been a specialty of conservatives for the last 40 years, not liberals. Progressives would prefer to build bridges of dialogue, not missiles. Growing up near STRATCOM, I was acutely aware of how much Reagan was spending on defense.
Third, if you want to talk economics, take a look at statistics through the years for the gap between the lowest and highest paid workers at most companies. Wealth distribution has become heavily slanted in the US and that is a contributor to a lot of social ills.
Fourth, oh if only it were about economics. But it isn’t. Economics is the straw man, an excuse to kvetch about govt, immigration, and blanket judgments on everyone else’s behavior. I get it. I went through that for about 10 years. Then I realized the real enemy is within. Beam & mote, you know the verse. Internalizing that is the key to change and peace in your own life despite whatever is going on around you.
hawkgrrl,
#116,
Please don’t misunderstand my comment. I wasn’t implying that we ought to emulate Scandinavia in all senses. I was merely countering the point that Scandinavians are poor. They’re anything but poor.
Rebecca,
#126,
I guess you missed the news that Texas is facing a $25 billion dollar hole in its budget. How’s that low taxes crap workin’ for ya? oh and hey, whadda ya know… Texas has a higher poverty rate than California. In fact, comparing with all the other largest states in the Union (by population) Texas has the worst poverty rate in the country. Texas also has a mediocre educational system (in the middle of the pack), while New York, and well, practically all of New England, rocks. California is near the bottom. Texas also has the highest number of uninsured people in the country. California is 9th. New York is in the middle, and Massachusetts has the fewest (thanks to Romneycare, which is now Obamacare). You wanna talk trash between states, Texas doesn’t really match up well.
oh and San Francisco beat Texas in the World Series! Booyah!!!
Interesting points. Though the article misses that California feels crowded, Texas does not.
I can believe it. /Sigh.
Dan, so, $25 billion dollar hole or $125 billion?
With veterans days this week I’ve been reflecting on the sacrifices made by soldiers. What would the world be like if Japan and Germany would have won WWII? How would things be today in Scandinavian, Texas, and California?
The American constitution needs to be celebrated for what it has done for the world. What would the world be like if it wasn’t for the American founding fathers?
Freedom, world wide, as we’ve known it wouldn’t exist.
We can argue about the details all we want, but lets not forget what the world would be like if America never came into being. Though far from perfect, America is a gift from God to all mankind. I hope He will bless us with the wisdom not to entirely destroy its divine possibilities.
“the citizens of California have a state that doesn’t have the means to collect enough taxes to pay for itself”
It is that type of liberal nonsense that got the State in the financial mess it is in. The problem is not that California does not have enough revenue, it is that The Socialist Republic of California has to much spending. Too many people firmly attached to the nipple.
Stephen,
Just saying that Texas is no paradise, that one shouldn’t look at Texas as some better place than California because of the economic downturn. Both places have great problems to deal with. One is not necessarily all that better than the other. However, California has better weather and more beautiful mountains, and better beaches. 🙂
Will,
No, silly Willy. California’s problem is the problem facing every single state or country in an economic downturn: lower tax receipts.
Jared,
It’s a silly question because they could not have won. They simply didn’t have the numbers.
Someone else would have created a free place. This kind of thinking is silly. The creation of America wasn’t done in a vacuum. A lot of pieces had been put in place beforehand that allowed it to take shape. The real big reason for the success of the colonies was the Atlantic Ocean and the great separation that had between the colonies and the motherland. Inevitably someone else would have broken away (as practically every other nation did in the Americas) and even created a somewhat similar state as the current United States. But of course, we’ll never know. If Alexander Hamilton had not gone to New York but rather stayed in the Caribbean, would we have had the Federalist Papers? Probably not. Would that have affected our understanding of the Constitution? I bet it would have. Is there another individual who would have made clearer points but we don’t have because fate had moved that individual away from possibly influencing the direction of history? Of course. What if Martin Harris had never desired the manuscript? We would never have known what exactly was the whole issue with both Nephi and Mormon saying there was some wise purpose in Nephi writing his notes separate from the larger plates. I like speculation solely for fiction. It is silly to try and think of the what-ifs of history. What if Hitler was happy with Germany’s strength exactly where it was and never wanted to expand? Who knows, and who cares.
#139 Dan, Dan the commenting man–
You may think my questions are silly. I think they are reasonable.
Further, underlaying both questions is my belief that God has and is uniquely involved with the founding and preserving of the USA.
It appears you agree with this when you wrote: “The creation of America wasn’t done in a vacuum. A lot of pieces had been put in place beforehand that allowed it to take shape.”
Jared #140
“Further, underlaying both questions is my belief that God has and is uniquely involved with the founding and preserving of the USA.”
I take exception to your use of the word uniquely – justification is warranted here.
God has been responsible of the founding and preserving of many nations, put simply Good things come from God.
115:
Toyota’s primary work force is in Japan, not the US. Their pension structure (and health care) is driven by Japanese law.
It’s true their US employees have a different compensation package than UAW workers here, but GM management signed those contracts.
By the way, MY pension benefit will be greater than $54,000 per year. Companies contribute to pension funds while their workers are employed and funds are invested according to applicable statute. GM was NEVER making those pension payments out of pocket as you describe.
When a person makes a choice to accept employment, he considers the entire compensation package, including wage (or salary) and benefits. It’s true that GM offered terrific benefits, developed in a time of remarkable prosperity. And that compensation created a middle class in America that fueled economic growth through that class’s consumption.
You are correct that in the last decade, far more employers have moved to defined contribution pensions instead of defined benefit pensions.
GM’s performance against Toyota is certainly driven in part by a cost disparity. But it is also that GM on average cannot command the same revenue for its vehicles as Toyota; that revenue potential is driven by perceived quality and brand issues and has nothing to do with union contracts.
I do not intend to continue to defend GM. I don’t work for GM, and I don’t even like them or their products. But your assertion that it is solely their pension obligation to unionized workers is just off the chart.
#118: at 35 million, greater Chongqing is far more populous than Idaho…but very well played, indeed.
Paul,
Now we are getting at the heart of the issue.
“GM was NEVER making those pension payments”
Sure, while the company was fat and its working force relatively young. But, now; now is a different story. The seeds of over compensation and short sited management; whatever, you want to call it; are rearing their ugly head. Again, GM will have to come up with 12 Billion in 2013 and 2014 just to keep the fund solvent. The defined benefit pensions, or its cousin Social Security, are one big huge pyramid scheme. This is why most of them are un-funded. Social Security is un-funded. They make companies like GM and our nation as a whole uncompetitive. It is not a moral issue. It is not an ethical issue. It is not a political issue. It is basic math. Defined benefit pensions are crushing companies, States and the Federal Government. Social Security is gleaned from the seeds of socialism and it will deliver its punishing financial death blow to our nation. To anyone who has the courage, integrity and wherewithal to do the math, they will come to the same conclusion.
Paul: Look at the quality and brand issues, and you see things related to unions again (inability to change work rules, inability to adopt TQM on the production line, reward or discipline individual workers differently, and the necessity to produce large cars to raise profit per vehicle, for example).
Unions were necessary to correct things that were wrong, but that doesn’t mean those solutions can be sustainable without shutting off world markets and world competition. Everybody on the planet can’t make a living off of exports unless the little green men land.
Defined benefit pensions are not the same as social security. Social security was intended to be funded by “current” contributions. Pension plans are funded by regular contributions of the companies or participants, invested, and benefits paid on returns. Government regulation determines the level at which a pension fund should be funded based on actuarial tables and probably political forces. When the markets sour, then a fund may become under funded as is the case with GM.
GM is hardly the only company in America to offer defined benefit pensions. My father’s engineering company in Pittsburgh paid him a defined benefit pension, as well. At the end of his working years, they funded an annuity to pay his benefit.
Fire Tag, I grew in heavily unionized southwestern Pennsylvania, so I understand the playing out of union/management battles in the press.
I also note that the UAW of today is not the UAW of the 70’s. GM’s primary domestic competitor, Ford, was able to get 95% of the same union concessions that GM got without declaring bankruptcy. I still maintain this is an issue of management, not a union issue. Further, I still don’t get the “free bread” argument.
In Pittsburgh at the turn of the 20th century, company owners enslaved workers by paying them less than a living wage, housing them in company housing and causing them to be perpetually in debt to the “company” store.
Only through collective bargaining (and legislation to make it possible) was the stranglehold of owners loosened so that families could enjoy the liberties of a free life.
Fire Tag, you are right that not every country can be a net exporter. In the EU today that very issue is looming large as Germany’s economy grows at a pace far greater than the rest of the EU as Germany enjoys a substantially higher trade surplus than its neighbors, owing partly to its superior precision manufacturing capability, but just as much to the fact that real wage growth in Germany is far behind much of the developed world, effectively limiting domestic demand.
Paul:
My grandfather was a miner, too (in Southern Illinois) during the Depression. Nobody had it harder than the miners, so I think I understand where you’re coming from. The math still doesn’t work, so things have to change.
Paul,
I understand the difference between the deferred benefit pensions and SS and I hope my thoughts don’t come across as an attack on retiree’s. Just the opposite; it is a voice of concern. Having done the math; and, having witnessed a number underfunded pensions I see a huge financial calamity on the horizon. It will catch most seniors, some of the most vulnerable in our society, by surprise. When I was at America First today making a deposit, the TV giving the news of the day profiled yet another concession for a retirement plan.
People like you that are responsible and plan for their future will be fine. As for Social Security, it is a train wreck. With the baby boomers blossoming it will collapse. It is a simple math problem. The free bread comes when the funding is not available in these plans (SS and Pensions) and the retirees still expect to be paid. Most people receiving Social Security will draw everything they contributed within the first two years of retirement. The time after that is free bread. There is no way our companies can compete with the swifter, more agile Toyotas of the world that offer 401 matching that ends WHEN the employee retires or is terminated. The collapse of GM, AIG and the like is a walk in the park when compared to the eventual collapse of Social Security – a ticking time bomb.
Dan,
The best run State in the Union, our State of Utah, planned for the downturn with a rainy day fund. Best run state = highly conservative republican controlled Utah. Bankrupt States = democrat controlled Michigan, California, etc…. The evidence is overwhelming.
Actually Will, the best run state in the union is Massachusetts. They have the best education in the country. They have the best health care in the country. They have the one of the best per capita personal income in the country ($45,000 compared to Utah’s paltry $30,000). heh, in fact, only Mississippi had a worse personal income per capita than Utah.
oh, and when was the last time the Jazz won a championship…
Will,
Go back to school and take math again. Social Security is not our long term problem. Medicare is. Health care is the number one financial concern that our country faces for the foreseeable future.
oh, and Massachusetts has more small businesses per capita than Utah. Massachusetts has 600,000 small businesses for 6.5 million people. Utah has 200,000 small businesses for 2.8 million people.
Dan:
I’m sorry to say but you come across as smug, arrogant, and self-righteous. Granted, you are smart, but you don’t live in this world alone.
Dan,
Just going with Forbes ranking of the best State for Business, with Utah number one and your pick was ranked number 16. Sorry to spoil your party. Here is the list:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/10/13/best-states-for-business-business-beltway-best-states.html
As for your comment about Social Security, this just happened to be the topic of conversation Paul and I were having; but, thanks for reminding us of another failed program implemented by the left.
I wonder what would be a better metric for determining “best run states”
…would it be “best state for business” or something like “best quality of life,” (where Massachusetts is 1st) (as even the forbes ranking will list in its table)?
It’s just interesting to see how people across the spectrum weigh the different rankings differently.
Will,
Utah may be ranked by a business friendly magazine as the best state for business (low taxes, low wages, etc) and I have no problem with that. In the end, Massachusetts still has more small businesses per capita than Utah does. Massachusetts pays its people far better than Utah does.
Being proud that Utah is great for business is like being proud that Bangladesh is great for business. After all, you’ve got gazillions of low wage workers just waiting for your investment. The only way to go is up. One day, you might get to the level of Massachusetts. Or New York. But Utah will always be looking up.
Dan,
Ok, go to your leftist magazine Newsweek and it is still ranked first:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/08/how-utah-became-an-economic-zion.html
um, Newsweek is not a leftist magazine. Except of course if reality is leftist. 🙂
#121- facepalm.
Look I’ve lived in CA for ten years. Calling it a liberal state does not capture the dynamic at work here at all. Southern Cali has a great number of conservatives. Regardless your notion that “liberals simply vote themselves money from the State treasury. Either way, the problem was created by the left.” is not accurate. Groups from across the political spectrum get props on the ballot that stipulate spending. And not all spending issues can be catagorized along narrow political lines. Again your comments are merely ideological. I get it. You don’t like liberals, and want to blame them for everything. Not exactly an erudite perspective. I am done now.
Dan:
The logical inference of 600 K small businesses in a population of6.5 M people would be that Massachusetts is very BAD at letting businesses grow to the point that they actually generate job growth — unless Mass. still has some pretty archaic child labor laws.
I don’t think that statistic exactly helps your case. Small businesses per capita is not a statistic in which one WANTS to be ranked highest.
jeez, Firetag, should I compare large businesses per capita as well? Maybe even corporations? My guess is that in all three categories Massachusetts, New York, California top Utah.
Look dude, in Massachusetts and California, there are 9 small businesses for every 100 people. In Utah there are 7 small businesses for every 100 people. In both Massachusetts and California, the average salary for all workers is vastly greater than in Utah. This tells you that the higher taxes in California and Massachusetts do not negatively affect small business growth or creation. If we assume the conservative position that higher taxes affect business growth, then the salaries of workers in California and Massachusetts ought not to be so high, because businesses would not be able to afford paying their employees so well. If we are to assume the conservative position, then salaries in Utah ought to be higher at the small business level and overall, because low taxes spur growth and pay. At least, if we are to assume the conservative position. Methinks the conservative position vis a vis taxes is worth less than fool’s gold.
Firetag, I think the math has changed for the UAW. In the round of negotiations associated with the restructuring of the “Detroit 3”, the new UAW contract has lower wages and lower benefits, nearly equal in cost to the US Toyota benefits for new workers. Of course there are still issues, like the fact that we’re not likely to see any new UAW workers any time soon because of reductions in workforce due to restructuring and the year-over-year efficiencies that automakers continue to build into their business plans.
Will, as I mentioned before, Toyota’s real benefit vis-a-vis retirees is Japan’s government sponsored retirement benefits that Toyota does not need to pay for. That’s were the bulk of their workers are.
As for Social Security — you’re right. Social Security needs to be repaired. Good luck to all who work to make that happen.
Of course the economic issue in the US is that real wages continue to fall, partly due to the exportation of higher paying manufacturing jobs. The higher paying high tech jobs that might normally replace them are often also outsourced to lower wage countries. It’s further exacerbated by many (including mostly right-of-center legislators) who believe that America no longer needs to manufacture anything, and therefore structure policy to disincentivize US manufacturing.
Well, Dan, Dude, why is per capita a bad measure? It’s because people are not equal to labor force. Your data suggests that if every person in the state worked in a small business, an impossibility, the average small business could be employing only 10 people. Not exactly the ultra-rich, unless, of course you’re talking Boston Legal – type firms with a couple of lawyers pulling in millions.
Small businesses come in all sizes. Lumping in the mom and pop operations, the going to be large businesses, and the self-employees obscures rather than illuminates. Jobs come from getting people into the second category, and as somebody who has been in third, I’ll tell you that the government is a big barrier to getting into the second — not through taxes, but through tax paperwork.
Firstly, it is a ludicrous notion to suggest that one political party has so much power that it can co-opt an entire state like California. No, my friend Will, that takes the complete cooperation of both dominant parties to make that happen. It is equally ridiculous to act as though a conservative never accepted a dime of government handouts ala Medicare, Social Security or anything else because the liberals all kept the money for themselves. I’ve yet to hear of a conservative old person giving back the money sent to them. the fact that they feed at the trough while protesting it at the same time is mere hypocrisy.
If those predictions are correct, there is plenty of blame on both sides to go around.
Jeff,
The main point is all these massive budget busting, dignity robing, nipple latching programs were implemented by the left. Thank them for the demise of our financial system.
Dear Will,
“The main point is all these massive budget busting, dignity robing, nipple latching programs were implemented by the left. Thank them for the demise of our financial system.”
Sorry, Will. but you are just plain wrong on this. It takes two to tango in American politics. Both sides are equally guilty. its easy to point the finger and certainly one side has a slant that is different than the others. But neither side really wants to mess with the sacred cows on entitlement, for people or business.
I agree. It takes 2 to tango. Politicians like to give out money as it gets them reelected. They like to play accounting games to push the cost down the road.
And suggesting the “left” is responsible for things that are breaking the budget is wrong. It takes both sides. And I would also argue that the “right” is more responsible for the trillions we have spent on various wars over the past few decades. Military spending went up under Reagan and the Bushes. It went down under Clinton.
Mike S.
Military spending went down under Clinton because we won the Cold War due to Reagan. I have a post in mind on the rise and fall in the number of wars. The data I found surprised me, and may surprise some others.
I am a business owner in California and feel the burden of laws that are impossible to sustain and so is the lifestyle! I live in a 500 sq. ft rental and am glad I taught my children to work and pay for their own education! Three of them support themselves. Only someone who is living with their head in the ground, could decieve themselves that California is utopia! Back before I had a testimony of the church–the girls were easy. Oh but that culture and the life of leisure is all over now!
Send me back to the farm in Canada where we didn’t have to worry about paying taxes, paying insurance, worker’s compensation. lawyers (whose one purpose is to get gain) and laws upon laws. We understood the law of the harvest. We understood that we planted, shoveled manure till our backs ached, the cow got pregnant and calfed yearly and we drank the milk only if we got up to milk her at 6 am and then again at 6 p.m and only then got to eat dinner. Those were the birds and the bees of economics and you got dressed for it or you died.
It isn’t just the party in power; its the idiocy of politicos and the uselessness of idiologues and bureaucrats that destroy society. Guest is right; California is doomed: even the governator couldn’t save it; in fact was corrupted by the girlymen. It may look like the land bountiful, but the King Noahs run it and Zarahemla and Nephihah are everywhere waiting for Christ next and more eventful coming.
Jeff:
“Sorry, Will. but you are just plain wrong on this. It takes two to tango in American politics”
Again, it is the entitlement programs (and interest on the debt caused by the entitlement programs) that are killing the budget. ALL of these entitlements were implemented by the left. It is the easy, but dishonest answer to say “It takes two to tango”. It tries to put the blame on both sides to avoid putting the finger on the real problem. Until America is willing to focus on the real problem and the source of the problem, we will never find an answer. You can’t solve a problem you don’t properly define; and, the problem is the big entitlement programs implemented by the left.
It would be interesting to take a poll regarding all of the people who complain about “entitlement” programs and see how many have ever:
– Used a government-backed student loan
– Been on or had a child/family member on Medicaid
– Been on or had a parent on Medicare
– Used food stamps / free lunch / reduced lunch programs at school for them or their children
– Are themselves or have a parent/grandparent basically living on social security
– Have ever lived in any type os subsidized housing
– Etc.
Also, the cost of a knee replacement, for example, is around $30,000 to the system. The cost of a prenatal birth in the first year of life is around $49,000. For those who espouse “voluntary charity”, have ANY of you donated even close to this amount of money towards health care for those less fortunate than you?
How many of us put our money where our mouth is and actually donate to charity/humanitarian needs (and I do NOT count tithing in this category – as that builds temples, church buildings, BYU’s programs, etc.)? Even the Church isn’t very good at it, for all of the press they give. They only spend around 1% of the money they take in on actual humanitarian needs.
Overall, we suck at voluntary programs, as individuals, as a Church, etc. So, do we as a society take care of our less fortunate through government programs or do we let them suffer? Which would you prefer?
Wasn’t Rome invaded by outside tribes, barbarians or whatever they were?
That would have been a VERY significant factor wouldn’t you think?
In some ways the California debate is pretty simple and I don’t get why people are giving the OP so much grief. As I see it, California has spent way more money than it took in and has done so for a long time. Whenever you run a deficit like that, you are eventually going to have to pay the piper. It is just not sustainable – for a family, church, government, or any other group of people. Yeah, the unions are at least partially to blame for that. Entitlements absolutely played a role as well. I’s sure that there were other factors involved, but to completely discount the OPs points is completely asenine. Just my two cents.
Aaron,
Dude, states are not allowed to run deficits. Each year, they must balance their budgets. California has never and I mean never run a deficit. California has never spent more money than they took in. They are not allowed to by state law. Each year every state in the Union must balance their budgets. More often than not, states receive money from the federal government to balance their budgets. They also raise taxes and cut spending as needed. That is, unless you’re California and your citizens put a ridiculous rule that all budgetary matters must require a super majority, thus putting the matter of the fiscal health of the state in the hands of idiotic extremists who have nothing to lose when the state defaults on its debt.
Aaron L, #174,
“I’s sure that there were other factors involved, but to completely discount the OPs points is completely asinine. Just my two cents.”
Not sure we are disputing the state that California is in. Just that the OP decided to blame one side for all the trouble. And use it as a diatribe against liberals.
Does not begin to address how it all really went down.
#174 – Point well taken. It is useless to blame one side or the other. I don’t care who got California or the USA in the mess they are in, but it is clear to me that the massive spending has to stop or the problem will continue to get worse and worse
Jeff,
“Just that the OP decided to blame one side for all the trouble”
Ok, let’s put it another way:
Social Security 2011 budget: $730 Billion
(passed in 1935 By a Democrat as President and both houses of congress controlled by Democrats)
Medicare 2011 budget: $492 Billion
(passed in 1965 By a Democrat as President and both houses of congress controlled by Democrats)
Medicaid 2011 budget: $271 Billion
(passed in 1965 By a Democrat as President and both houses of congress controlled by Democrats)
Total Big Entitlements 2011 budget: 1.5 Trillion compared to revenue of 2.5 trillion, or 60 %.
Sixty percent of our money is spent just covering Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. If Democrats passed all these massive entitlements, how can ‘It takes two to tangle’ apply? I am pointing the finger at the left, because the finger deserves to be pointed in that direction. Jeff, where am I wrong in my reasoning?
gotta love how Will conveniently forgets Medicare Part D. So typical.
Dan,
As usual, you’re missing the point. I will acknowledge Republicans and done stupid things; and, have spent too much money. However, back to the OP, the main problem is spending of public monies for free bread and circuses for the populace. Moreover, the finger can be pointed squarely at the left for the establishment of these entitlements. Hopefully, they will be able to defund Obamacare; yet another big government, big entitlement program that purpose is not to help the poor or needy, but is used by the left to create a constituency. They are not out to help the poor and un-educated; they are out to control the poor and un-educated.
Will,
If we go back to the original post, this is what you say:
It’s all about liberalism and progressivism. You realize the moment anyone brings up exorbitant spending by conservatives it destroys your point completely. If conservatives add to the entitlement program, your point is destroyed. With Medicare Part D., conservatives added to the entitlement program. What’s worse, your “fiscal conservatives” in Congress failed to fund Medicare Part D in any manner whatsoever. The original Medicare from the 1960s, the original Social Security from the 1930s, Obamacare, all have actual funding. Whether you think such programs are any worth, they’re actually funded through taxes. Medicare Part D has absolutely no funding. It is simply added debt to our deficit. Where is your damnation of conservatives for Medicare Part D., Will? Where is your damnation for them supposedly selling out on their principles?
Your points are utter bunk. And it reduces Wheat and Tares that they allowed your ugly screed to be put up. Surely they could have found a more thoughtful conservative to challenge liberals. Surely they could have said, “hey Will, you wrote a piece of crap. Please clean it up.”
Dan (175) –
I honestly don’t really know how the whole state deficit thing works so thanks for the clarification. According to the NSCL.org, most states are not permitted to run deficits for their operational budget, but can do so for their capital budget (roads, buildings, infrastructure, etc…) so your statement was partially correct. If you want to clarify further, I’m all ears.
In any case, this is the problem I see. California doubled their spending from 1998-2008. During most of this time their economy was rocking and they probably assumed that their revenue would continue to grow at the same rate. As you know, the recession hit and the revenue dropped. I don’t think you can blame everything on decreased revenue, but it was admittedly a factor. The problem is that California didn’t plan for a recession, even though history has shown that recessions are inevitable time to time. They didn’t save for a rainy day and assumed the best case scenario for money coming into the coffers. Such as thing is shortsighted. I saw the same thing in our local economy where most builders didn’t save and plan for hard times during the housing boom in the early mid 2000s. Now many of them are not surprisingly losing their shirts. Back to the problem – even after the recession hit, spending in California continued to rise, and is still trending that direction. You could say the same for our federal government. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Back to the state deficit that you say can’t exist. So from what I understand, at the beginning of the year the state has to figure out a budget on paper that is balanced. Then at the end of the year, if they don’t have enough funding they have to go to the feds to get bailed out. If this is the case (correct me if I am wrong), then they did for all practical purposes run a deficit. You can blame whoever you want, but at the end of the day it happened and a big part of the reason is too much spending, largely because they based all of the their financial projections on a best cased scenario that oftentimes just isn’t a reality.
Aaron,
Who pushes for tax cuts? Who is pushing for the reduction of government revenue? Is that not shortsighted? Was it not shortsighted for George W Bush to pass his unfunded tax cut in 2001 with a surplus, instead of actually worrying about our deficit? I’m just saying. Blaming one side for excess spending is ridiculous
“It is simply added debt to our deficit. Where is your damnation of conservatives for Medicare Part D., Will?”
If they pass big goverment programs, then they aren’t conservatives. RINO’s posibly, but not conservative.
Exactly, Will. No conservative ever does anything wrong. Tell me something Will. I will name you Republicans and you tell me how conservative they are:
Bennett (Utah)
Brownback (Kansas)
Chambliss (Georgia)
Cornyn (Texas)
Crapo (Idaho)
Enzi (Wyoming)
Frist (Tennessee)
Grassley (Iowa)
Hatch (Utah)
Inhofe (Oklahoma)
McConnell (Kentucky)
Santorum (Pennsylvania)
Sessions (Alabama)
Shelby (Alabama)
and among Representatives
Paul Ryan (Wisconsin)
John Boehner (Ohio)
Pete Hoekstra
Chris Cannon
Tom DeLay
What do you think, Will? Out of all those, how many are hardcore conservative?
I could look up the numbers, but it seems we spent over a trillion dollars (at least) on our Middle East wars. They don’t seem to have accomplished much. They seem to have been pushed by the more conservative side.
The real escalation of the Vietnam War occurred on the Republican watch. That also cost a lot of money and lives and didn’t seem to accomplish too much either.
Mike S.,
I’ll give Nixon credit though. He actually paid for the Vietnam War. George Bush and today’s Republicans suck so bad that they would prefer that their children pay for their wars. What a bunch of ….. (fill in the blank with your favorite cuss word).
Dan,
I got your point the first time. Some abandoned their conservative principles and got fired; some of their terms are not up and hopefully they will get fired. Finally, we the people said no more. Finally, we the people said cut spending. Finally, we the people said cut taxes. Finally, we the people said repeal Obamacare; and, when Obama veto’s it; repeal it again and again and again. Force him to defend yet another big Government program. Then, in 2012, fire him and hire someone who will repeal Obamacare.
Some? Those are the leaders of the Republican party and the conservative movement. This is my last comment to you and your post. Those Republicans voted for Medicare Part D. Those people represent you, Will. You probably voted for them. Thus your point here is hypocritical. That’s all I have to say.
“I’ll give Nixon credit though. He actually paid for the Vietnam War.”
By running up unprecedented deficits, which forced the United States to go off the remains of the gold standard and abandon the Bretton Woods global currency understanding, resulting in the inflation of the 1970s.
If I may so ungracious as to ask, just what kind of books are there in that library you run, and why in Zeus’s name won’t you crack a real one* or two.
*I.e., not one by Howard Zinn.
Dan – I don’t remember blaming any specific side. Please don’t put words into my mouth and do me a favor by dropping the partisan rhetoric for a few minutes. This discussion isn’t about throwing stones at the other side. I’m legitimately trying to broaden mu understanding and I’d be willing to bet that I’m more on your side than you think. I as much as anyone believe that both sides are to blame, especially as far as spending is concerned. Irregardless of who is at fault, the spending needs to come down.
Concerning the other half of the coin (i.e. revenue/taxes) I’m still trying to make up my mind. US GDP and revenue has continues to rise almost uninterrupted, seemingly independent of the tax rates. Yeah there have been dips in revenue in 2001 and 2008, but I attribute those to the respective recessions rather than tax policy. You’ll probably argue that the 2001 drop in revenue was from the Bush tax cuts, but I don’t think that was the primary cause. After all, when tax rates for the highest tax bracket came down drastically from the 90+% in the 50s and 60s, revenue continued to rise, not drop. If you have a good argument for how taxation correlates to government revenue, I’d love to hear it.
Aaron,
Wanna show me the actual numbers on that, please? 🙂
In regards to the 2001 cuts, I just look at the yearly deficit from 2001 onwards. Each year, the deficit was around $400 billion or worse until the 2009 fiscal year. That is when the economy dropped, thus dropping tax receipts. The main reason 2009’s fiscal numbers were so bad are because of the downturn in the economy. The very next thing on the list is Bush’s unfunded tax cuts. Those tax cuts have not magically turned into revenue at a greater rate than the cost of the tax cuts, Aaron. In fact, going forward in time, those tax cuts are projected to continue costing us revenue at a time when we’re running deficits. It makes absolutely zero sense to keep those tax cuts in place. It made little sense to have them in the first place, but we can’t cry over spilled milk. What do we do going forward? Do we clean up the spilled milk, or do we spill more milk?
Now, in regards to the Reagan tax cuts, there are several things to consider that affected economic growth and tax receipts. Inflation was very high in 1980. Reagan passed his huge tax cut (mostly for the rich, as you note) while at the same time the Fed under Volcker tightened money supply in order to draw down inflation. This combination had a severe negative effect on the economy, causing the largest recession since the Great Depression, up to that time. Not a year later, Reagan enacted the largest tax increases since World War II, and then a year later the economy began to rebound with inflation slowing down. With inflation down, taxes a mixed bag of ups and downs, the economy grew and grew at a very healthy rate. A large part of that was government spending (increasing the size of the government and of the Pentagon) under Reagan. At the end of his term, Reagan had tripled our national debt. It worked for stimulating the economy, and his vice president, now president George H W Bush pushed for doing exactly what he was supposed to do in good times: increase taxes and pay down debt. He was punished for doing the right thing by right-wing ideologues who cared not one whit about the deficit. These very same people who went for Ross Perot are the very same people like Will, who have jumped on the silly Tea Party wagon today. They don’t actually care about deficits, Aaron. They care about sticking it to the Democrats. That’s their overriding goal. And if you don’t believe me, believe the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell:
Think about that. The single most important thing “we”—I’m guessing he’s referring to the Republican party—want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president. Exactly what will that entail, one wonders? Could McConnell play politics with our two wars? Nah, he wouldn’t be that treasonous….oh wait…Here is McConnell according to George W Bush:
This was the same month in which McConnell went on the teletubes to excoriate any Democrat that desired exactly what he desired privately from Bush: bring the troops home. This is what drives Republicans, Aaron. Stick it to the Democrats. Even if it means you play politics with wars, the economy, the unemployed, the sick and afflicted, the immigrants.
I got my numbers from usgovernmentrevenue.com. It allows you to graph federal and state revenue in total and from specific sources, deficits, GDP, etc… as far back as 1950 – it’s worth checking out. Other than the two above mentioned recessions, no matter how you spin the numbers revenue continued to climb despite any tax cuts or hikes up until the 21st century. If I’m missing something with the graphs, feel free to let me know.
I get what you’re saying about the Republican agenda. It’s one of the reasons that I do not identify myself as a republican. It drives me crazy just like it seems to do for you. IMO, both sides need to grow up and quit the partisan bickering and power grabs.
Dan, if only you would watch Foxnews, I think you would finally see the light… only kidding 😉 Thanks for the discussion.
My argument is that both sides are wrong. People can argue for Republicans or Democrats, but the reality is that the American public is a bunch of gluttons. Our society is structured such that we can win big, but we can lose big.
Sure, Clinton was in charge over “years of plenty” but in reality, it had nothing to do with him. The internet boom was taking off, stocks were rising, people were making money hand over fist. It’s easy to balance the budget and look good.
And this recent crisis that started on Bush’s watch and has continued into “Obama’s” bailouts, etc. It’s more gluttony. Our national savings rate was negative for over a decade. We pulled more and more money out of our houses. As long as the tide was rising, people made money. We can blame various politicians and fund managers and everyone we want to, but they are just the drug dealers. We are all the users. We create the demand for programs and handouts and cheap money. We liked the “high”.
But then came the crash. The overly inflated housing market HAD to crash. It was non- sustainable. People lost equity. They stopped buying cars so Detroit crashed. They stopped buying stuff, so businesses slowed down.
All of the programs that have been talked about came as a result of unbridled excess. Banks took advantage in the Great Depression, so the FDIC was born. When the WWII generation, who got their insurance from their employers, retired, Medicare was born. When businesses didn’t take care of their workers at the end of life, Social Security was born.
For all it’s faults, this healthcare bill is born from BAD practices by the medical industry. There are millions of people who WANT insurance and are willing to pay, but who can’t find insurance because the companies don’t want the risk. There are insurance companies who will “rescind” insurance and leave a woman with breast cancer with a $150,000 tab because she forgot to mention that she took acne medicine as a teenager on her application 5 years prior. There are companies who will fill themselves with temp or part-time workers so they don’t have to pay benefits. There are children who are sick because they don’t get preventative care. The cost of the healthcare bill is estimated to be $100 BILLION / year. The cost of obesity in this country is $150 BILLION a year. We could pay for all of these benefits if we weren’t so fat.
So, point fingers all you want – on both sides. The problem is us. We want it all.
NOTE: This includes the talk show hosts who stir this all up. Check out the latest Newsweek. Rush Limbaugh made $59 million last year. Glen Beck $33 million. Sean Hannity $22 million. Bill O’Reilly $20 million. Jon Steward $15 million. Sarah Palin $14 million. And so on. They are the ones getting rich of all us suckers.
Aaron,
heh, I think you misunderstood. I was asking if you could show the actual numbers from the year Reagan cut taxes in 1981 through until government revenue finally matched the level it was before the tax cut. I think you’ll find that it took to nearly the end of Reagan’s presidency for revenue to match the revenue the government had before Reagan’s original tax cut, and that, of course, is clouded by the fact that Reagan increased taxes not a year later. So what increased government revenue? Was it Reagan’s tax cut or Reagan’s tax hike? 😉
Anyways, thanks for the more enlightening debate on this silly post.
Mike S.,
Our economic growth over the past thirty years had nothing to do with Reagan either. So there! 😛
Dan:
I agree that Reagan had nothing to do with it. We have had periods of growth during times of high taxes. We have had periods of growth during times of low taxes. It all is somewhat independent of whatever president happens to be sitting in the White House. There are cycles of speculation and expansion, and cycles of reality and contraction.
As one of my Graduate school professors said about an econometrics textbook a previous professor had used: “There are a great number of untruths in that book.”
Numbers 1, 3 and 4 on your list are much more associated with conservative politics in the U.S. than liberal ones.
Also the major reason GM became a “healthcare and retirement” company was due primarily to market oriented capitalism. Each new generation of GM management was pushed by Wall Street to produce more impressive *SHORT TERM* returns. The only way to do that is to reduce the emphasis on long term development. Negotiating reasonable long-term contracts reduces short term gains, designing good cars reduces short term profit margins — as a result eventually both quit happening.
The good news is that despite what the OP poster wrote and thinks, the U.S. taxpayer will likely *make* money on the GM bail out (GM has already paid back the U.S. taxpayer in full for the loans it received, and if the IPO is handled correctly — i.e., not the way the Republicans in Congress want it handled — the U.S. taxpayer should make enough profit to cover the Bush era grants as well!
The OP needs to use the critical thought process more “liberally” in constructing his arguments.
John,
“3 and 4 on your list are much more associated with conservative politics in the U.S. than liberal ones.”
Post for another day.
“Also the major reason….. designing good cars reduces short term profit margins — as a result eventually both quit happening”
Hogwash. Your logic is completely faulty. GM’s problem was not revenue, but its cost structure. Moreover, it was not due to lack of sales or quality cars. After all, GM sold more cars than other auto maker in the world until Toyota passed them up a few years ago. And, it’s not like GM cars were selling for less than their counter-parts. They were equal to or more than their counter-parts in most categories. So, let’s use reasoning from here. 1) It had the most revenue of any car (any company until 2001) company in the world. 2) The sales price on their vehicles was substantially in line with their competition.
Reason would dictate the reason they were losing $40,000,000,000 per year was due to their cost structure. It is plain and simple. You can only loose $40 Billion (higher than the GDP of the bottom 104 countries) per year for so long before you finally collapse.
As for the Taxpayer making money, this is yet to be seen but completely misses the point of the OP. It also does not account for opportunity costs for the use of this money. The question is what brought the company down. Also, if I had 100 Billion, I could make some headway as well. Heck, if I earned 3% on passive income, that would be 3 Billion.
The other argument that could just as easily be made is that Conservatives, playing to their base of big business, created the environment of outsourced jobs in high tech and the financial train wreak which also eliminated jobs. Eliminated jobs means that people do not pay taxes and eventually end up a negative drain on the economy therefore, it is the Republican’s fault for California’s problems due to a severely eroded tax base, not spending.
Mike S, a thoughtful post. There absolutely are decades-old structural currents leading up to our present mess, and trying to place the blame on partisan targets like “high taxes” or “deregulation” will keep us from talking seriously about what really needs to be done to fix things.
One quibble, though:
Which raises the question: Why don’t they want the risk? A profit-maximizing insurance company will enlarge its pool of insureds right up to the point where the expected costs of benefits paid to the marginal insured equal the expected amount of premiums and returns on them.
If an insurance company won’t insure someone who wants to pay premiums, it’s because they’ve calculated that this person (and people like him) will cost more in benefits paid out than he will pay premiums in over the insurance term.
Now, you could argue that the insurance company should insure this person anyway, and take the loss. But then it woudn’t be in the insurance business.
True, there are some people whose medical conditions mean that it will inevitably cost more to treat them than they (or anyone) could possibly afford to pay in benefits. That’s where the government can assist, with high-risk insurance pools. So expand those pools. Problem solved, without rejiggering the whole healthcare landscape.
More accurately, there is one anecdote of something like that happening…and the anecdote changes the story quite a bit:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/29/politics/main5348973.shtml
Plural of anecdote not data; etc. Yes, insurance companies will engage in sharp practice; that’s what bad-faith lawsuits are for. My experience with insurance companies (at least with respect to CGL policies) is that they tend to pay more than the strict interpretation of the policy would require. Doing so is basically insurance to the insurance company against getting dragged in front of a jury that hates insurance companies and is just itching to hand out a multi-million dollar bad faith judgment.
The profit margin of the health insurance industry is less than 5%, last time I checked. You can’t just chalk it all up to “greed”; that’s a pretty puny margin, as margins go.
“The other argument that could just as easily be made is that Conservatives, playing to their base of big business, created the environment of outsourced jobs in high tech and the financial train wreak which also eliminated jobs.”
First, conservatives aren’t for “big business.” They are for limited government. While that can benefit big (and small) business in many ways, so can Big Government. Big business has absolutely no philosophical attachment to conservative principles; if they can grab a buck using Big Government — by a subsidy, a bailout, a tariff, or by supporting regulations that will strangle its smaller competitors — that’s exactly what it will do.
The idea that conservative principles drive “outsourcing” is just silly. There is an inexcusably dishonest meme floating around liberal circles right now, to the effect that the U.S. has a tax subsidy for outsourcing. Wrong. The U.S., like all devoped nations, has a Foreign Tax Credit that prevents foreign subsidiaries of domestic corporations from being double-taxed, paying domestic as well as foreign income taxes.
Outsourcing is driven by the simple fact that it’s cheaper in many cases to do business outside the U.S. than inside. Why is that? Labor costs are only part of the problem (since labor is often a relatively small percentage of the cost of production). It’s not just that you have to pay your California employee an $8/hour minimum wage — it’s that you have to pay exorbitant, fraud-driven workers compensation insurance premiums, navigate a thick regulatory landscape, dodge 90% of the world’s lawyers, and so forth and so on.
How are you going to stop that? The Democratic talking point to the contrary, monkeying at the margins of tax policy will accomplish frick all. You’d have to either dramatically reform the regulatory and legal landscape, or throw up tariff barriers. But economists are almost unanimous in concluding that whatever benefit tariffs give to the protected industries, are far outweighed by the costs imposed on everyone else.
I wish there were an easy answer to this, but there’s not. In any event, California’s recent job losses were due far less to “outsourcing” (which is far less of a bogeyman overall than it’s made out to be) than the fact that we went on a real estate crack binge, with subsequent devastation among the crack dealers…I mean, “real estate community.” No offense to those affected, but you’re the same idiot thieves who priced me out homeownership, so good frickin’ riddance to you.
“First, conservatives aren’t for “big business.”’
HA HA HA……..
Ha, ha, yourself.
Conservatives are “for” Big Business, the same way liberals are “for” criminals and terrorists. That is, because they believe that certain principles have inherent value — even if applying them may benefit unsavory people — then they ought to be upheld.
An inevitable side-effect of freedom, is that when people are left to their own devices, the strong and the fortunate (and sometimes, the ruthless) will be able to make the most of their advantages. I think that on balance, this does more good than harm.
Think about it. What personal incentive do I have to side with “big business”? If anything, my personal incentive is for business to be entangled in as many lawyer-intensive regulations, and exposed to the most employee-lenient principles of employment law, as possible. All the more work for me.
Thomas:
I work in the medical field. I personally know patients who have had insurance rescinded. I personally know families who are uninsurable because a child has diabetes, at literally any cost. I know people who have been denied expensive medical drugs the first and second time they applied. On the third appeal, they asked what else they needed to do and were told: “Nothing, we just automatically deny the first two times. People who persist the third time get approved.”
Granted, insurance companies are there to make a profit. But relying on them to take care of the health of our country has been shown to be wrong – in many cases. When the healthcare bill forces them to have a medical loss ratio of at least 80%, that means that they need to spend 80 cents on each dollar in premiums on actual healthcare. The other 20 cents gets sucked out. And if they are forcing them to “raise” it to 80%, that means it’s lower than that now. The current CEO of United Healthcare made over $100 MILLION last year. And that pales in comparison to the $1 BILLION+ that their CEO made a few years before that.
This is wrong. Call it free enterprise. Call it what you will. But when CEOs are making hundreds of millions by figuring out more and more clever ways of denying people care, it is a broken system. It is a system that begs to be regulated.
“…it is a broken system. It is a system that begs to be regulated.”
The assumption is that regulation will fix the broken system, rather than just breaking it in creative new ways.
Government is not famous for keeping its overhead costs low. The oft-cited comparison between Medicare’s and private insurance’s benefits/overhead ratios overlooks the fact that Medicare’s patient base, being a bunch of rickety old geezers, consumes a lot more care. The actual per-member, per-month dollar amount Medicare spends on administration and overhead is, in fact, higher than in private insurance.
And that’s leaving completely aside the fact that Medicare may lose up to a tenth of its budget to outright fraud, which is absurdly easy to get away with.
The obscene CEO payouts are a function of American corporate governance generally, not of the health insurance industry in particular. Why the shareholders don’t mind those payouts is beyond me. Part of it is because the truly obscene payouts are, more often than not, functions of fluctuations in stock prices temporarily shooting the value of stock options to the moon; it’s not as if the giant paydays come from the operating budget (or, typically, were ever intended by the shareholders, who didn’t expect the Federal Reserve-driven stock fluctuations that have become routine in the aftermath of the abandonment of rational currency in the 1970s).
I’ve got no love for insurance companies. I’m paying an appalling amount to insure my family, and got reamed over for painful dollar amounts when I forgot, a couple of times, to get various of my 325 or so children enrolled within the 30-day window. I would think that there’d be a market for an insurance company that could credibly advertise a business plan based on Not Taking Gleeful Advantage Of Insubstantial Technicalities. But because people generally get their insurance from their employers, there is less real opportunity to shop for providers, and so less competitive discipline. The industry is definitely “broken” (along with most other sectors where there’s too much separation between the provider, the consumer, and the payer), but it’s not entirely clear to me that government involvement in the industry is more a solution than it’s already proven to be a problem.
As for the kids with diabetes, hook ’em up with subsidized high-risk pools, stat. That’s the easiest side of the equation.
“Conservatives are “for” Big Business, the same way liberals are “for” criminals and terrorists.
See, there you go again. making the other side evil.
You just can’t help yourself, eh?
Jeff, I know you’re too smart not to get the point I was making, but somehow you’ve gotten it 180 degrees backwards.
The point is that for you to smear conservatives as being mere lackeys for Big Business, is just as lame as it is when nincompoop right-wingers smear the ACLU as the American Criminal Lovers Union, or whatever.
The point being that you are not a bad person, if it happens that the principles you hold have the side effect of making life easier for the occasional bad guy. Civil-liberties advocates, generally, don’t favor things like the exclusionary rule because they want criminals to get off on petty technicalities — they believe that letting the occasional criminal escape justice, is a necessary price to pay for preventing police abuses.
I get the sense that many Mormon non-conservatives, are so exasperated by what they see as the simplemindedness and thoughtlessness of many Mormon conservatives, that they stereotype all conservatives in the mold of the worst of the lot — and as a result, when somebody makes an exquisitely reasoned subtle intelligent argument, it flies right over their heads, and all they see is “see, there’s another conservative calling me evil!”
Take a deep breath, and read the post again.
Big business, small business, any business that Employs people and does not require a big government bailout I’m for
It must be nice being a Prophet. Make a bald assertion on why Rome fail, as an intended critique on what I personally see wrong with modern societies. Forget trying to make a case. “Rome fell because they weren’t holding family home evening, thereby undermining the dignity and sanctity of the home…and it really is obvious when you look at it”. For most of these points there isn’t a rational way to reject most of Benson’s points because they are so far into left field that there’s not much to say about the issues one way or another.
Cowboy:
I think that in Benson’s case, you perhaps better say they are so far into RIGHT field…
Being a prophet means you can also be a cafeteria historian, and omit inconvenient details. In addition to the causes President Benson, cited, he listed the rise of Christianity as a contributor to Rome’s decline:
My own thinking is that Rome fell because (1) the Roman government ceased to be able to provide, not only the dole it had accustomed the public to receiving, the basic services expected of government, (2) aggravated by Rome’s failure to cope with waves of immigration, as the end of the Roman Warming (that the global-warming alarmists try very hard not to pay any attention to) sent waves of Germanic tribes wandering around Europe and across the Empire’s frontiers.
Anyway, Gibbon’s not quite at the cutting edge of historiography these days. Take him, and his quoters, with a grain of salus.
*sal*, not “salus.” “With a grain of health” doesn’t quite have the same ring. 😦
Thomas/Cowboy:
I understand there are some inaccuracies in the talk given by Benson (e.g. he, or one of his researchers, misquoted the author). This, along with your point about Gibbon’s historical credentials begs the question. Does it really matter? I say no. Benson is not looking to these people to validate his point; he is quoting them to give them credit. He sees something he agrees with and uses it as material for his talk. All the quotes and references, as a whole, make his point and become his talk. Just as the OP is my opinion. Sure, I use quotes from Benson’s talk; but, when all is said they are my thoughts and opinions.
Mike S – Thanks for the clarification, yes I should have acknowledged that Benson played right field for the Birch team.
Thomas – Said it better than I did, “cafeteria historian”.
Will – That is fine, I suppose, except Benson, like most GA’s, rests his case on his own authority. Stepping into scholarly domain of political antiquity and pontificating is very disingenuos way to approach religious rhetoric. Benson’s point was to show how the U.S. and other nations were approaching the same pre-conditions as those which led to the downfall of the Roman Empire. He just fails to prove his case – but when your a Prophet (or Apostle) that doesn’t really matter, and that’s my point. He can just say what he wants because he has knowledge from God, so Benson is just entitled to supreme historical analyst whose arguments need no proof. It’s just a convenient position to be in.
We’re a group of volunteers and opening a brand new scheme in our community. Your web site provided us with helpful information to paintings on. You have done an impressive activity and our whole neighborhood will likely be thankful to you.