20 reasons the economy is dying

[GHook93]

(13) - FIX Healthcare:
Not this crazy bill that is being passed through Congress. Here are the issues:
- Employer based system:
This disadvantages our employers in the global market, because they take on a large burden of the cost that their foreign competitors don't take on.
- The Self-employed, Retired under 65 and the underemployed are a a serious disadvantage.
- Employers pick plans that are best for them, not what is best for the individual. Most employees would prefer to gear their plan to work for them
- Allow selling insurance over State lines!
- Do tort reform
- Do something with pre-existing conditions policy
- Find a way to make medical school less expensive for the STUDENT! Why do doctors cost so much, because they have $200K in student loans.

Obamacare is an abomination, but status quo is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable!

(14) Take Cap and Trade and Shove if up Barney Frank's ASS!
Heck he would enjoy it.

(15) End the war on DRUGS:
Take the resources fighting that war and use it for treatment, combating illegal immigration, into education and fighting the War on Terror!

(16) Combat the coming Student Loan Crisis:
In Clinton's brillancy he decided to make Student Loan Non-dischargable via BK. Bush extended that to cover even private student loans (I know I know, Congress did this, but you get the point. What did this do? Allowed Colleges to increase tuition levels to insane levels! College tuition now outpaces inflation 10 fold. This rapid increase started in the 90s! Coincidence? I think not. HOWEVER, nondischargability didn't safe the student loan industry. There are NO private student loan companies anymore. NONE. Not even Citi, Bank of America or Chase do private student loans. In fact the only student loans one can get is Federally back loans. HOWEVER, they are seeing the crunch as new graduates can't pay these loans and you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

Government meddling and the fact that one can't get a good job without higher education has made college the gift the fucks you for yeats to come.

 

[beowolfe]

Tried to read the article, but the grammar was so bad I had to stop.

 

[GHook93]

1 obama
2 Obama
3 Obama
4 Obama
5 Obama
6 Obama
7 Obama
8 Obama
9 Obama
10 Obama
11Obama
12 Obama
13 Obama
14 Obama
15 Obama
16 Obama
17 Obama
18 Obama
19 Obama
20 Obama
need anymore reasons?

That is just ignorant.

Many factors are involved. Such as, Carter starting the Community Reinvestment Act. Reagan escalating the War on Drugs. Clinton putting into overdrive the Community Reinvestment Act, allowing the mortgage mess we all know and loath today, Bush doing nothing when faced with the prospect of the mortgage mess boiling over. We started to hit foreclosure rapid increases by the turn of the century. None of the fore mentioned Presidents fixing healthcare or getting us off foreign oil.

But Obama is helping and in 4 years, I think it will be clear that he in fact HURT us!

 

[The Rabbi]

I read your link Rabbi, and I hope you have something more current. 90s data not helping us today.

If you have something showing NAFTA has cost the U.S. jobs please post it. I've provided my proof.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

NAFTA's Economic Impact - Council on Foreign Relations

Hey Rabbi, thanks. Here's a good reference, but not that much detail. More of a summary of the impact of NAFTA:

How has NAFTA affected the U.S. labor market?

Measuring the impact of a specific trade deal on a country's labor market is not a straightforward exercise, and analysts disagree on how to gauge NAFTA's effects. The USTR claims a broadly positive influence, citing figures that show an increase in overall U.S. employment of 24 percent since NAFTA's inception, as well as declining unemployment rates over the same period. In addition, the USTR cites data showing that inflation-adjusted U.S. wages rose 19.3 percent between 1993 and 2007, as compared to only 11 percent in the fourteen years prior.

Many economists agree that NAFTA has had some positive impact on overall U.S. employment. But most also agree that gains have been accompanied by some painful side effects. Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, notes that wages haven't kept pace with labor productivity and that income inequality has risen in recent years, in part due to pressures on the U.S. manufacturing base. To some extent, he says, trade deals have hastened the pace of these changes in that they have "reinforced the globalization of the American economy."

Opponents of NAFTA take a starker position. Thea M. Lee is policy director for the AFL-CIO, which opposes NAFTA and lobbies against other free trade agreements as unfair to U.S. workers and corporations unless they include provisions that require signatory countries to raise labor and environmental standards. Lee argues one of the main upshots of the deal has been to "force workers into more direct competition with each other, while assuring them fewer rights and protections." The Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning research organization, says in a policy paper on NAFTA that the deal's trade agenda has served to widen U.S. trade deficits and has indirectly pushed some U.S. workers into lower-paying jobs.

But most economists say it's a stretch to blame these shifts on NAFTA. "The problems in Youngstown, Ohio, and other places like that go back decades before NAFTA," says Daniel T. Griswold, the director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. Griswold says job losses are "part of a structural shift of the U.S. economy" away from a focus on heavy manufacturing and toward a focus on light manufacturing and high-end services. "It's a cruel illusion to say if we just go in and tinker with NAFTA there will be some kind of industrial renaissance," he says. Alden echoes this idea and says that broader economic trends affecting U.S. employment--the rise of China and skyrocketing energy prices, for instance--wouldn't be substantially altered by U.S. policy shifts toward NAFTA.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Here's another one that disputes NAFTA's proponents:

Revisiting NAFTA: Still not working for North America’s workers

Actually, this link has much more detail. Good reading.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thanks.
You've posted evidence that corroborates what I've said. In any shift like that there will be winners and losers. During the great industrialization from 1880s or so to the 1940s the number of farmers declined precipitously. But overall employment went up. Similarly, factory jobs have declined but overall employment went up (at least until this recession). The AFL-CIO has probably been the biggest loser. So no wonder they whine the most about it. Frankly that's a good thing.

 

[Toronado3800]

How about this!

(1) 0% taxation on corporations in American!:
Look at the wonders the 0 Corporate tax has done for Dubai (before it took a housing dip)and look at the wonders the lowest corp law in Europe has done for Ireland! A 0% corporate tax would have business flooding to America.

(2) Eliminate the income and payroll tax:
This would make our small businesses very very competitive. Especially against the folks South of the border!
BOTH CAN ONLY BE ACCOMPLISHED ONLY VIA THE FAIR TAX!

Ug. What's our plan to pay for the military then? I think its pretty important to have.

(5) State and Federal Pension Funds:
They should be made illegal. Back in the 50s and 60s 90%+ of business had a worker's pension plan. Less than 1% of private businesses have them now, simply because they are unsustainable. The 10,000 pound elephant in the room during the GM BK was the gianormous pension plan obligations. Private businesses had to end it because it was simply unsustainable. But the Fed and State goverments are still using them. They are funding them off the backs of the tax payor! This is robber. These unsustainable plans put way too much burden on state budgets. Look at any state and you will see that the pensions plans make up more than half of most budgets.

Pension funds unsustainable.......
No doubt funds must be created in viable ways. Surely too much can be paid out or they can be poorly invested. Imagine you just bought $50,000 in bonds one day with funds then paid out on maturity. Next day invest in boring insured CDs. The next play the market. No harm there, right? Are we talking about the same thing?

 

[GHook93]

I read your link Rabbi, and I hope you have something more current. 90s data not helping us today.

If you have something showing NAFTA has cost the U.S. jobs please post it. I've provided my proof.

Your saying other than common sense!

How fact that we have a massive trade deficit with every Mexico (Canada is understandable, since they are are numero Uno oil importer)? The trade deficit with the CAFTA nations will also more proof of this!

 

[GHook93]

Ug. What's our plan to pay for the military then? I think its pretty important to have.

First, I think you under-estimate the Fair Taxes ability to provide revenue for the government.
Second, going along with radical tax reform goes with spending cuts.
Third, the government needs to be run like a company. A budget is set and allocates funds to: (1) Marketing, (2) Sales, (3) R & D, (4) Supplies, (5) Personnel, (6) Property etc. When revenue decreases, SO DOES THE BUDGET! Same principals apply. The budget for the military should be high, but it should increase and decrease based on revenue.

Defense is VERY important don't get me wrong. HOWEVER, marketing is very important to my company. Right now, while we are in a funk, marketing is getting a reduced budget. When things get better marketing dollars allocation will also.

Pension funds unsustainable.......
No doubt funds must be created in viable ways. Surely too much can be paid out or they can be poorly invested. Imagine you just bought $50,000 in bonds one day with funds then paid out on maturity. Next day invest in boring insured CDs. The next play the market. No harm there, right? Are we talking about the same thing?

Pretty much every business in America has gone the 401(k) way. Its personal investment accounts where lose is on the employee. They are transferable (roll-over) and the company is not burdened by retirees.
IT ONLY MAKES SENSE THAT THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS DO THE SAME THING. If the Fed and State wants to create incentives to attract employees, provide incentive such as larger employer matches to the employees account. Heck any match nowadays is better than what most employers are offering!