[ETWolverine]

Then that begs the question why are we being deceived about it?

I don't think that it's a deception. The original graph is a legitimate way of looking at things... it just over-dramatizes the changes from a single year to the next. By looking at changes in percentage change (if that makes any sense) you get these huge shifts that look really sexy on paper and sell copies of newspapers and ad space on TV. It is still FACTUALLY correct. "If it bleeds, it leads" and all that. (I wonder if this is the OMB's graph, or just the AP's graph of the OMB data they were given. The answer to that might explain why the data is presented as it is.)

I think my graph, though, is less "over-dramatic" but still make the point in a clear manner. And the point itself is still valid.

Elliot

[excon]

Hello again:

I can't see your graph, Elliot, but in any case, I don't see the point... We've entered into one of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. One would expect the results that Steve's chart shows, and apparently yours too.

Are you trying to affix blame? Are you trying to say that tax cuts work? Like I said, I ain't smart enough to figure it out.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again:

I can't see your graph, Elliot, but in any case, I don't see the point... We've entered into one of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. One would expect the results that Steve's chart shows, and apparently yours too.

Are you trying to affix blame? Are you trying to say that tax cuts work?? Like I said, I ain't smart enough to figure it out.

excon

I'm just saying we ain't got the money to pay for Obamacare and that's why he delayed releasing the July numbers.

[excon]

I'm just saying we ain't got the money to pay for Obamacare and that's why he delayed releasing the July numbers.

Hello again, Steve:

Dude! Not having money has never stopped 'em from spending it before! Did it stop us from going to war?? Nooooo, it didn't.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again:

I can't see your graph, Elliot, but in any case, I don't see the point... We've entered into one of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. One would expect the results that Steve's chart shows, and apparently yours too.

Are you trying to affix blame? Are you trying to say that tax cuts work?? Like I said, I ain't smart enough to figure it out.

excon

The graph is embedded as an attachment.

As for what I'm saying... in 2009, not only have we seen government spending increase by a huge amount due to the stimulus bill, the omnibus bill, the bailouts and TARP 2, and increases in welfare spending, we are also seeing a DECREASE in revenue of 15% across the board.

What I am saying is that increasing spending at the same time that we're seeing a decrease in income is catastrophic.

What I'm saying is that the decrease in income is happening despite the fact that Obama said that his stimulus bill would bootstrap the economy and get things going. Which is a major indicator that his stimulus bill has FAILED. (You, of course, will define it as a success.)

What the graph clearly shows is that after taxes are cut, there are jumps in revenue to the government. When taxes are raised or when the government artificially adds costs to the price of goods or services (as government regulation usually does), revenues go down.

The graph also shows that when properly managed, recessions can be shallow and can turn around easily, and when mismanaged they become deep and much harder to recover from.

I don't need to assign blame, excon. I'm just presenting the data. It's all right there to look at. You can assign your own blame.

Elliot

[excon]

Which is a major indicator that his stimulus bill has FAILED. (You, of course, will define it as a success.)

Hello again, El:

Actually, I don't define it that way at all... Haven't you seen my screed "buy gold"?? I've said it countless times here... Why would you think I recommend that, if I thought the economy is going to recover?? I wouldn't...

What I HAVE said, is that the only way it COULD recover is with massive stimulus. I DIDN'T say, however, that they should stimulate via the printing press, and that's what they did...

So, in the SHORT term (longer than six months), it's going to have a REBOUNDING effect. It can't help BUT have that effect... Plus, they haven't even spent MOST of it YET. So, you got to give it a little more time. As a banker, you should know that it's going to take a while.

However, in the longer term, we're going have to deal with some serious inflation. They SAY they'll fight that fight down the road. I don't believe 'em.

Buy gold.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Dude! Not having money has never stopped 'em from spending it before! Did it stop us from going to war??? Nooooo, it didn't.

excon

Nope, it didn't. And we're being sold a bill of goods when Obama says he won't cut Medicare benefits but will cut Medicare spending, and won't raise our taxes but health care will be paid for. He can't have it both ways.

[excon]

Nope, it didn't. And we're being sold a bill of goods when Obama says he won't cut Medicare benefits but will cut Medicare spending, and won't raise our taxes but health care will be paid for. He can't have it both ways.

Hello again, Steve:

Exactamundo... That's why we need to stop all this pussyfooting around, and go directly to single payer... It'll pay for itself AND cover all the uninsured...

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Exactamundo..... That's why we need to stop all this pussyfooting around, and go directly to single payer... It'll pay for itself AND cover all the uninsured...

How so? Single payer just means the government will be the sole insurer, it will be the only entity to pay providers. Where is that money coming from?

[zippit]

Economic stimulas vs.tax cut 101
I'm reading and refraing this time

[excon]

Where is that money coming from?

Hello again, Steve:

Primarily from the health insurance industry profits that will no longer be going to them. It's billions and billions.. Secondarily from the savings that COULD occur within the health care industry itself.

In my view, when the government is the insurer of last resort, many of the CYA type medical procedures, which add billions of unnecessary expenses will be eliminated.

Frankly, I don't know HOW they'll do it in the micro sense... What I know is this: We spend twice what any other nation does and we get less. It seems to me that with good management we CAN get a good bang for our buck.

If you can show me a plan that does NOT include the government, but that GIVES us that missing bang, I'm all for it.. Frankly, I DO believe one is possible... But, the way things are, the Republicans as a whole are just paid shills for the health care industry... ANY plan that puts the kybosh on corporate profits is nixed..

Let me also add the BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS to the list of sell outs..

excon

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

I say the above, not because I'm an anti-profit kind of guy. I'm actually very PRO profit...

But, when corporate profits begin to erode our quality of life instead of adding to it, those profits become obscene.

It's just like the oil industry.. There IS going to be a time in the future when we WILL take that business away from those executives too, AND for the same reasons. But, we'll have that discussion then.

excon

[ETWolverine]

Hello again, Steve:

Primarily from the health insurance industry profits that will no longer be going to them. It's billions and billions..

As I have mentioned in the past, that "billions and billions" in profits is such a small portion of the actual cost of health care that even if all those profits were eliminated and plugged back into the system, it wouldn't change anything. The profits are less than 1/10th of 1% of expenses. Which means that the cost of insuring 46 million more people will NOT be covered from these profits. It won't even make a dent in the financial picture.

Secondarily from the savings that COULD occur within the health care industry itself.

That would require efficiencies that this government has never evidenced. What makes you so sure that they can do for health care what they have never been able to do for any other program... including Medicare and Medicaid and the VA system?

In my view, when the government is the insurer of last resort, many of the CYA type medical procedures, which add billions of unnecessary expenses will be eliminated.

And it will also result in the elimination of such preventive care tests as colonoscopies for those over 50, pap smears, breast cancer screening, etc.

Frankly, I don't know HOW they'll do it in the micro sense...

That's OK. Neither do they. That's the point.

What I know is this: We spend twice what any other nation does and we get less.

Can you tell me your source for this? We do indeed spend more per person than any other country. But we also get more... much more... than any other country. Better quality, quicker access, and front line treatments that aren't available anywhere else in the world.

It seems to me that with good management we CAN get a good bang for our buck.

And again, you're assuming "good management". What part of our government's history leads you to believe that this "good management" is even possible?

If you can show me a plan that does NOT include the government, but that GIVES us that missing bang, I'm all for it.. Frankly, I DO believe one is possible... But, the way things are, the Republicans as a whole are just paid shills for the health care industry... ANY plan that puts the kybosh on corporate profits is nixed..

That's because the only way to effectively generate efficiencies that lead to cost savings is to allow companies to make a profit. No profit, no incentive. No incentive, no efficiencies. Again, just look at any program the government runs and you can see what I mean.

Profits lead to efficiencies. Competition leads to efficiencies. Competition leads to lower prices. Government interference eliminates both competition and profitability. Solution: eliminate the government not only from running health care, but from regulating it as well. Allow free market competition to take place. Open up the door to interstate competition within medical insurance. THAT is what creates efficiencies and cost cutting and savings.

Let me also add the BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS to the list of sell outs..

Excon

I agree.

[speechlesstx]

This WSJ column pretty well explains my point...