Permanent War Economy
In 1964 at the height of the Cold War, the philosopher Herbert Marcuse in his book One Dimensional Man
Free institutions (the media) compete with authoritarian ones in making the Enemy a deadly force within the system. And this deadly force stimulates growth and initiative, not by virtue of the magnitude and economic impact of the Defense “sector”, but by virtue of the fact that the society as a whole becomes a Defense society. For the Enemy is permanent. He is not in the emergency situation but in the normal state of affairs. He threatens in peace as much as in war (and perhaps more than in war); he is thus being built into the system as a cohesive power.
I think this is as relevant an analysis today of the ”Global War On Terror” (GWOT) as it was in 1964 of the Global War on Communism. It is not easy sustaining the emotional hysteria needed to justify a permanent war economy. One need only look at the total U.S. Defense budget for the year 1950 of $13 Billion to understand that it had been our practice as a nation to have high defense budgets only in times of war. But both the Cold War and the GWOT were presented as open ended wars without end. To justify our current base Defense budget of $700 billion, we not only need to inflate the potential of Al Qaeda, Iran and North Korea, we also need to create the possibility that the Chinese Army might one day become our mortal enemy in a Third World War.
Let us try to assume that the Chinese leaders are rational people. Their largest trade market is the United States. As you can see from the chart on the left their central bank current holds about 25% of all outstanding U.S. government debt. In what kind of insane strategy would the Chinese launch a war on the country with which they are so economically intertwined? But in the mind of the neoconservatives like John Bolton, we should continue to provoke China. After the March Presidential election in Taiwan, Bolton suggested that we should immediately recognize Taiwan, a step that 7 U.S. Presidents have refused to take.
China will not like this turn of events, but inevitably it will have little choice but to accept dual recognition. Now more than ever, the US — and Europe and Japan — must be assertive in supporting a strengthening democracy in Taiwan.
Of course Bolton’s suggestion is the classic neoconservative “self-fulfilling prophecy” , destined if it was U.S. policy to provoke China.
For a productive society, the costs of maintaining a permanent war economy are prohibitive. Like a slow growing cancer the basic principles of the military economy are spreading into our other industrial enterprises. As the great industrial economist Seymour Melman pointed out,
From the economic standpoint the main characteristic of war economy is that its products do not yield ordinary economic use-value: usefulness for the level of living (consumer goods and services); or usefulness for further production (as in machinery or tools being used to make other articles).
More importantly the whole economic basis of the military contracting system is based around maximization of costs and of government subsidies. Lockheed Martin and Halliburton have only prospered by going way over budget while being monopoly contractor on any given project. When the Air Force published its manual for Cost Estimating Procedures it made clear that “estimating methods are based on projections from historical data” and that estimators were prohibited from using the classical industrial engineering approach of productivity improvement cost estimating. In other words, if the last model of tank cost X, then it is assumed that the next model will cost X + 15%. The New Joint Strike Fighter is a classic example.
The cost of Lockheed Martin’s Joint Strike Fighter, already the most expensive weapons program ever, is projected to increase as much as $38 billion, congressional auditors said yesterday. That would bring the price of 2,458 F-35s to $337 billion, 45 percent more than estimated when the program began in October 2001.
And in the rare case where there is a competitive bidding situation, firms with inside clout on Capitol Hill or in the Pentagon, can often get the low bid thrown out. A classic example is Boeing’s efforts to win the next generation midair refueling tanker contract worth $35 billion. Boeing had originally won the bid by bribing the Air Force procurement officer in charge of the contract. When this action resulted in conviction of the official on corruption charges, the Air Force awarded the contract to the European Airbus consortium that had already built tankers for Australia and Saudi Arabia. But Boeing was not finished yet trying to rig the game and managed to put enough pressure in Congress to force the Pentagon to reopen the contract.
The decision has widened the gulf between the European and American rivals. In Europe, officials say privately that reopening the tanker deal was a politically motivated decision in an election year.
It must be said that the Military Industrial Complex is in reality the Military Industrial Congressional 
Complex. So what could be done to rein in this behemoth that is absorbing so much of our collective wealth? The first step must be public education and even though the topic is hardly mentioned in the conventional media or the Congress, the public seems to understand that something is wrong. Gallup Polls over the last five years (left) have shown increasing concern that the government is spending too much money on the military. Although it has not yet reached the magic 50% number, one could believe that if the issue begins to get into the public discourse it could easily attract a plurality of voters. At that point the automatic votes that flow out of Congress for every military pork barrel project could be called to account. Last year’s defense budget was $521 billion plus $200 billion in War supplementals. It would seem a goal in the near term would be to have a total military budget for 2011 of $440 billion. as I noted earlier in the year when I put forth a New Federalist budget.
I would start with the $90 billion in new weapons procurement and the $68 Billion in R & D. Take a 15% cut ($25 Billion) just like any corporation facing reality would. Then I would build a more “Fortress America Posture”-far fewer foreign bases, using the carrier fleet and the Marines as the rapid reponse arm. I would remove the permanent bases in Korea and Germany and bring those troops home.
That saving of $300 billion ought to be plowed into alternative energy infrastructure and other projects that would begin to seed a new industrial base for America. One that is not based on cost maximization and monopoly rents, but on the kind of competitive high tech marketplace that Silicon Valley has excelled at. Of course the only way to make this happen circles back to Marcuse’s quote that open’s this piece. The media must stop being complicit in creating the mental state of perpetual fear which is the breeding ground for the Military Industrial mindset. Whether that is possible is of course, another matter.
Change Congress (http://change-congress.org) is worth reading on the fight against corruption in congress. Lawrence Lessig’s video presentations on the topic are great for spreading the word.
Change Congress (http://change-congress.org) is worth reading on the fight against corruption in congress. Lawrence Lessig’s video presentations on the topic are great for spreading the word.
Voters like jobs in their states. They’re easily convinced not to bite the hands that feed them. It’s the paranoia card PLUS the jobs card smoked and mirrored into a straight flush. These congress people and senators ought to be dealt the political equivalent of aces and eights instead… Everyone likes pork, and it’s the tragedy of the commons that results. Plus (and I’ll admit to agreeing even a bit with Morgan on this, probably) in that for every dollar sent to Washington, a state gets back bubkes and inside-the-beltway types get their over-inflated cut like baksheesh at a 3rd World border crossing. I had the extreme wake-up call displeasure to attend a couple of DC cocktail parties a number of years ago where I got to overhear and absorb the bureaucratic Tao… Sorry, but those “inside the Beltway” really do think of the rest of us as yokels in need of their wise leadership… It’s worse even than the coastals of America thinking of the interior as the “fly-over” territory. And we elect those who sustain all that bullshit.
Voters like jobs in their states. They’re easily convinced not to bite the hands that feed them. It’s the paranoia card PLUS the jobs card smoked and mirrored into a straight flush. These congress people and senators ought to be dealt the political equivalent of aces and eights instead… Everyone likes pork, and it’s the tragedy of the commons that results. Plus (and I’ll admit to agreeing even a bit with Morgan on this, probably) in that for every dollar sent to Washington, a state gets back bubkes and inside-the-beltway types get their over-inflated cut like baksheesh at a 3rd World border crossing. I had the extreme wake-up call displeasure to attend a couple of DC cocktail parties a number of years ago where I got to overhear and absorb the bureaucratic Tao… Sorry, but those “inside the Beltway” really do think of the rest of us as yokels in need of their wise leadership… It’s worse even than the coastals of America thinking of the interior as the “fly-over” territory. And we elect those who sustain all that bullshit.
I sure wish they would change the basic way budgets are decided. Instead of voting specific monies for specific projects, they might put aside all question of amounts and simply vote percentages.
Thus, it would be clear that an extra 5% for ‘defense’ would mean taking those 5 percentage points away from other parts of the budget, and it would stand out starkly and easily even for us indifferent Americans to see: guns or butter?
I sure wish they would change the basic way budgets are decided. Instead of voting specific monies for specific projects, they might put aside all question of amounts and simply vote percentages.
Thus, it would be clear that an extra 5% for ‘defense’ would mean taking those 5 percentage points away from other parts of the budget, and it would stand out starkly and easily even for us indifferent Americans to see: guns or butter?
If only it were for “defense”…
If it were, you could cut that budget by about 75% tomorrow.
If only it were for “defense”…
If it were, you could cut that budget by about 75% tomorrow.
Rick,
Not only do we elect those who sustain the bullshit, we also buy their newspapers and watch their television “news” programs. Just a tiny bit of George Stephanopolous and Jake Tapper is enough nowadays to get my blood pressure elevated to dangerous levels. And they never question the basic premises upon which the war economy is built. They are essentially whores for “access.”
Rick,
Not only do we elect those who sustain the bullshit, we also buy their newspapers and watch their television “news” programs. Just a tiny bit of George Stephanopolous and Jake Tapper is enough nowadays to get my blood pressure elevated to dangerous levels. And they never question the basic premises upon which the war economy is built. They are essentially whores for “access.”
So, Jon and all, how do we get this whole manifesto out there to the folks who really need to understand this point of view? Preaching to the choir here is good for warm and fuzzy feelings, but this is our side (yeah, our…) of a tough debate with ruthless people who have a lot of dough on the line with the status quo. They’re the hammers and we’ll be nails to them to smash if we seem to get too obstreperous and threaten their way of life. Calling for the dismantling of the military/industrial/congressional/judicial/executive complex is tantamount to a call to revolution, and it’s going to be hard to get that to play in the anesthetized America of today. Even the economic woes of right now are too easily blamed on “the other”.
So, Jon and all, how do we get this whole manifesto out there to the folks who really need to understand this point of view? Preaching to the choir here is good for warm and fuzzy feelings, but this is our side (yeah, our…) of a tough debate with ruthless people who have a lot of dough on the line with the status quo. They’re the hammers and we’ll be nails to them to smash if we seem to get too obstreperous and threaten their way of life. Calling for the dismantling of the military/industrial/congressional/judicial/executive complex is tantamount to a call to revolution, and it’s going to be hard to get that to play in the anesthetized America of today. Even the economic woes of right now are too easily blamed on “the other”.
Rick- I think change starts with letting key Congressman know that the public is upset with out of control military spending. So that would start by corresponding with two key committees:
http://armed-services.senate.gov/members.htm
and
http://www.house.gov/hasc/list_of_members.shtml
Obviously if one of these members comes from your district, it’s easier to get their attention.
The second thing would be to get an organization like Move-on to adopt this issue. Feel free to let Moveon know about “The Cost of Empire”
Rick- I think change starts with letting key Congressman know that the public is upset with out of control military spending. So that would start by corresponding with two key committees:
http://armed-services.senate.gov/members.htm
and
http://www.house.gov/hasc/list_of_members.shtml
Obviously if one of these members comes from your district, it’s easier to get their attention.
The second thing would be to get an organization like Move-on to adopt this issue. Feel free to let Moveon know about “The Cost of Empire”
You could always make a TV commercial about it (we’d help), and people who agree with the idea could run the ad in their home town.
You could always make a TV commercial about it (we’d help), and people who agree with the idea could run the ad in their home town.
I would not plow the money into alternative energy as you suggest–we are bankrupt as it is–we need to reduce the deficits–not increase them–doug
I would not plow the money into alternative energy as you suggest–we are bankrupt as it is–we need to reduce the deficits–not increase them–doug
How about asking Moveon to sponsor a nationwide townhall discussion night to discuss this one issue. See if our thoughts on the issue really do resonate with the masses or not.
How about asking Moveon to sponsor a nationwide townhall discussion night to discuss this one issue. See if our thoughts on the issue really do resonate with the masses or not.
“Peak Oil”, Doug. We don’t have a choice. Traditional energy + the military economy will break us more surely than anything. We’re in a full scale world economic war…with ourselves as a planetary populace. You could get more political about it and say that the Saudi Wahabbis are fighting a war for Islam against us by sucking our pockets dry as they suck the oil out of the sands, but what we really need to do is to unhook from that system…a system supported, aided, and abetted by our not-so-esteemed president whose family and friends have thought of themselves as partners with those folks. Boy, I’d have loved to see the look on GW’s face when the Saudis turned him down after he went falconing with them…
The way we win the war of energy is by becoming 110% self-sufficient. 15 to 25 years of reasonably concerted effort and much less money than we’re wasting on wars in the Middle East would do it. Hell, the fat cats could even continue to get rich if they’d just change the game they’re playing. Remember when Arco was the biggest producer of solar panels? Any of those companies could come up with a new business plan, open up their eyes, and realize that they’re in the BTU business, not the oil business.
“Peak Oil”, Doug. We don’t have a choice. Traditional energy + the military economy will break us more surely than anything. We’re in a full scale world economic war…with ourselves as a planetary populace. You could get more political about it and say that the Saudi Wahabbis are fighting a war for Islam against us by sucking our pockets dry as they suck the oil out of the sands, but what we really need to do is to unhook from that system…a system supported, aided, and abetted by our not-so-esteemed president whose family and friends have thought of themselves as partners with those folks. Boy, I’d have loved to see the look on GW’s face when the Saudis turned him down after he went falconing with them…
The way we win the war of energy is by becoming 110% self-sufficient. 15 to 25 years of reasonably concerted effort and much less money than we’re wasting on wars in the Middle East would do it. Hell, the fat cats could even continue to get rich if they’d just change the game they’re playing. Remember when Arco was the biggest producer of solar panels? Any of those companies could come up with a new business plan, open up their eyes, and realize that they’re in the BTU business, not the oil business.
Christ! have I joined and donated to a lot of groups, signed a lot of petitions, and written a lot of letters to Congresspeople and Senators in the past seven years! Forgive my cynicism, but I’ve come close to the belief that anything less than a gunslinging revolution is going to do dip to change anything in this nation.
Christ! have I joined and donated to a lot of groups, signed a lot of petitions, and written a lot of letters to Congresspeople and Senators in the past seven years! Forgive my cynicism, but I’ve come close to the belief that anything less than a gunslinging revolution is going to do dip to change anything in this nation.
Doug – Of course the US needs to reduce its budget deficit, but given that it is impossible to do this overnight, and also that this doesn’t immediately solve the total national debt, its also important to keep the economy as a whole strong. If you weaken the economy too much in order to ween nation off debt, the house of cards will collapse. So there needs to be a balance between deficit reduction and economic stimulus. Leaving the environmental issues (global warming) and sustainability issues (peak oil) aside for the moment, a home grown green energy boom could be such an adequate stimulus. Financing it partially through continued deficit (although ideally, with incrementally decreasing amounts of such debt) is good old fashioned Keynesianism. As long as its done with the aim of keeping the economy strong enough to slowly ween it off foreign debt (as opposed to going cold turkey) it’s a sensible solution.
Add the environmental issues, sustainability issues, and security issues (energy independence and all that), and they just happen to dovetail nicely with this economic agenda.
Doug – Of course the US needs to reduce its budget deficit, but given that it is impossible to do this overnight, and also that this doesn’t immediately solve the total national debt, its also important to keep the economy as a whole strong. If you weaken the economy too much in order to ween nation off debt, the house of cards will collapse. So there needs to be a balance between deficit reduction and economic stimulus. Leaving the environmental issues (global warming) and sustainability issues (peak oil) aside for the moment, a home grown green energy boom could be such an adequate stimulus. Financing it partially through continued deficit (although ideally, with incrementally decreasing amounts of such debt) is good old fashioned Keynesianism. As long as its done with the aim of keeping the economy strong enough to slowly ween it off foreign debt (as opposed to going cold turkey) it’s a sensible solution.
Add the environmental issues, sustainability issues, and security issues (energy independence and all that), and they just happen to dovetail nicely with this economic agenda.
Pete, you got it 180 degrees backwards. That is not how it works.
1. The economy runs on interest rates.
2. Inflation fears mean we can’t have more dollars in system.
3. Come Jan 2009, that means either, raise interest rates OR cut deficit.
Guess which one is going to happen?
Hint: Get out your red pen, because a tax hike wont be enough to keep interest rates down.
Pete, you got it 180 degrees backwards. That is not how it works.
1. The economy runs on interest rates.
2. Inflation fears mean we can’t have more dollars in system.
3. Come Jan 2009, that means either, raise interest rates OR cut deficit.
Guess which one is going to happen?
Hint: Get out your red pen, because a tax hike wont be enough to keep interest rates down.
I think Pete is right. As Nixon said “WE are all Keynesians now.” There is no reason we can’t continue to run a deficit if the downturn is as severe as it seems to be. In fact, it would criminal mismangement of the economy if we didn’t run a deficit to spur infrastructure rebuilding.
I think Pete is right. As Nixon said “WE are all Keynesians now.” There is no reason we can’t continue to run a deficit if the downturn is as severe as it seems to be. In fact, it would criminal mismangement of the economy if we didn’t run a deficit to spur infrastructure rebuilding.
It’s gonna kill you to be wrong on this Jon… this is the crux of it. This is why and how Medicare will get cut, because low interest rates trumps social spending no matter who is president.
If I’m wrong, I will gleefully admit it, if you are wrong, you have to really re-think democracy…. deal?
It’s gonna kill you to be wrong on this Jon… this is the crux of it. This is why and how Medicare will get cut, because low interest rates trumps social spending no matter who is president.
If I’m wrong, I will gleefully admit it, if you are wrong, you have to really re-think democracy…. deal?
Medicare (for which I’m signed up) is a drop in the bucket compared to the Iraq war waste. Morgan, wait ’til you’re 65 and see what you think then…
Medicare (for which I’m signed up) is a drop in the bucket compared to the Iraq war waste. Morgan, wait ’til you’re 65 and see what you think then…
Morgan – If the only economic tool you have to steer the economy are interest rate changes then you end up in the kind of economic double-bind both the US and UK are in now. Normally, to fight inflation you want to raise rates and cool off the economy, but if the economy is already in a nose dive all this does is deepen it. Stagflation scares the crap out everyone.
Budget cuts won’t do anything to stimulate the economy on their own per se, unless they transform into tax breaks. However, these cancel out the budget cuts (they are effectively a separate positive measure, though one that has dubious effectiveness at times).
Sorting out your budget is just a matter of getting your house in order. It does two things, frees up resources from less needed areas to be applied to more needed areas, and increases confidence in the economy by demonstrating good financial management.
However, if you’ve hollowed out your economy, and it’s tanking, demonstrating the ability to balance the books can’t generate enough confidence to set the situation right on its own. Similarly, unless you actually use those freed up resources to fund programs to actually stimulate the economy (principally by trying to rebuild some of what was hollowed out), you’re not having any positive effect on the economy on the other front.
We’re not arguing for an INCREASE in deficits. What we’re arguing for is a SENSIBLE and INCREMENTAL DECREASE, primarily so that there can still be something positive done about the economy, which, as I’m trying to point out, cutting for its own sake doesn’t do.
I suppose the last thing I’d say would be: man cannot live by service industries alone. Jon’s grasped this very well, and I think he recognises that real action needs to be taken to rebuild other sectors of the US economy. I wish more people thought this way in the UK, because we’ve got it worse.
Morgan – If the only economic tool you have to steer the economy are interest rate changes then you end up in the kind of economic double-bind both the US and UK are in now. Normally, to fight inflation you want to raise rates and cool off the economy, but if the economy is already in a nose dive all this does is deepen it. Stagflation scares the crap out everyone.
Budget cuts won’t do anything to stimulate the economy on their own per se, unless they transform into tax breaks. However, these cancel out the budget cuts (they are effectively a separate positive measure, though one that has dubious effectiveness at times).
Sorting out your budget is just a matter of getting your house in order. It does two things, frees up resources from less needed areas to be applied to more needed areas, and increases confidence in the economy by demonstrating good financial management.
However, if you’ve hollowed out your economy, and it’s tanking, demonstrating the ability to balance the books can’t generate enough confidence to set the situation right on its own. Similarly, unless you actually use those freed up resources to fund programs to actually stimulate the economy (principally by trying to rebuild some of what was hollowed out), you’re not having any positive effect on the economy on the other front.
We’re not arguing for an INCREASE in deficits. What we’re arguing for is a SENSIBLE and INCREMENTAL DECREASE, primarily so that there can still be something positive done about the economy, which, as I’m trying to point out, cutting for its own sake doesn’t do.
I suppose the last thing I’d say would be: man cannot live by service industries alone. Jon’s grasped this very well, and I think he recognises that real action needs to be taken to rebuild other sectors of the US economy. I wish more people thought this way in the UK, because we’ve got it worse.
[...] the media compete with authoritarian ones in making the Enemy a deadly force within the system.http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/permanent-war-economy/US to deploy missile interceptors at Japan baseThe United States will start deploying missile [...]
[...] the media compete with authoritarian ones in making the Enemy a deadly force within the system.http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/permanent-war-economy/US to deploy missile interceptors at Japan baseThe United States will start deploying missile [...]
[...] Jon Taplin’s Blog Tags: Blog, Deadly Force, Economic Impact, Government Debt, Initiative, Magnitude, Taplin, Virtue, [...]
[...] Jon Taplin’s Blog Tags: Blog, Deadly Force, Economic Impact, Government Debt, Initiative, Magnitude, Taplin, Virtue, [...]
This idea that we could outsource just the manufacturing jobs to Asia was racist crap in the first place. Yeah, America will outsource all the dirty hands manufacturing jobs and become a service and intellectual property economy…sure… The underlying belief here was that the little brown and yellow people don’t have the intellectual capacity to do engineering, and so they would need the great white father to feed the product designs and manufacturing software to them. Not… And that goes for closer to home with NAFTA and the Democrats as well. I caught a whiff of some of that attitude from the Clinton/Gore administration, too. I suspect that other issues have become more important to Gore with regard to overseas outsourcing…the dreadful environmental cost of having the 3rd world make all our crap, for instance, and the increasing cost of transporting products that are mostly near-future toxic landfill, but the fact is that gutting the US manufacturing sector is going to hurt us for a long, long time. Sorry you’ve got a similar situation in the UK there. Do they still make any steel in Sheffield?
This idea that we could outsource just the manufacturing jobs to Asia was racist crap in the first place. Yeah, America will outsource all the dirty hands manufacturing jobs and become a service and intellectual property economy…sure… The underlying belief here was that the little brown and yellow people don’t have the intellectual capacity to do engineering, and so they would need the great white father to feed the product designs and manufacturing software to them. Not… And that goes for closer to home with NAFTA and the Democrats as well. I caught a whiff of some of that attitude from the Clinton/Gore administration, too. I suspect that other issues have become more important to Gore with regard to overseas outsourcing…the dreadful environmental cost of having the 3rd world make all our crap, for instance, and the increasing cost of transporting products that are mostly near-future toxic landfill, but the fact is that gutting the US manufacturing sector is going to hurt us for a long, long time. Sorry you’ve got a similar situation in the UK there. Do they still make any steel in Sheffield?
Pete, we’ve been recently in fixes like this before, and TWICE we made the right choices and grew our way out of it, we never did it your way. Just keeping you honest.
In 1980, we fought off stagflation with increased rates and dramatically lowering taxes. That was the prescription of Mundell, followed by Reagan / Volker (who Obama is spending his time with this week). It worked, because economy grew, as did government receipts. I’m not saying cutting taxes always raises government receipts, I’m saying it did then because taxes were too high and rates were too low.
The other trick up Reagan’s sleeve, was to do what George Bush 2 has done, spend all the money before Dems could create new social programs for the elderly. That meant an arms race, which had the tremendous benefit of bankrupting the Soviet Union.
The second correct choice was a Democrat’s. Confronted with an economy very similar to todays, in 1993 Bill Clinton did the right thing and completely focused on cutting the deficit. We had only a 9 month recession in 1991-92, and again because Clinton focused immediately on deficit reduction (even with a small tax increase)… we had an amazing 18 years of growth.
“Over the period no less than 37 million new jobs were created! The Dow- Jones Average soared from below 750 in the summer of 1982 to over 11,000 by the turn of the century.”
http://www.robertmundell.net/NobelLecture/nobel5.asp
It is interesting that the fall of the Soviets allowed the creation of the Euro. The Euro lead to a more-competitive Europe because they adopted the policies we ourselves adopted in the 80′s and 90′s.
There’s nothing in our recent history, that shows any likely possibility that either McCain or Obama are not prepared to cut spending, perhaps make slight increases in taxes, and attempt to keep interest rates from being raised too much.
So, yes sure we can cut the military a bit, but in REALITY we are going to have to cut Medicare – it would be great if we could all agree that our task here is to find the most socially responsible way to do that. I think it means increasing care for the young, and agreeing on a fixed annual budget for the elderly, that they split amongst themselves. More elderly means less per person.
That series would be very much Jon’s own Shark Week. Site traffic would jump thru the roof.
Pete, we’ve been recently in fixes like this before, and TWICE we made the right choices and grew our way out of it, we never did it your way. Just keeping you honest.
In 1980, we fought off stagflation with increased rates and dramatically lowering taxes. That was the prescription of Mundell, followed by Reagan / Volker (who Obama is spending his time with this week). It worked, because economy grew, as did government receipts. I’m not saying cutting taxes always raises government receipts, I’m saying it did then because taxes were too high and rates were too low.
The other trick up Reagan’s sleeve, was to do what George Bush 2 has done, spend all the money before Dems could create new social programs for the elderly. That meant an arms race, which had the tremendous benefit of bankrupting the Soviet Union.
The second correct choice was a Democrat’s. Confronted with an economy very similar to todays, in 1993 Bill Clinton did the right thing and completely focused on cutting the deficit. We had only a 9 month recession in 1991-92, and again because Clinton focused immediately on deficit reduction (even with a small tax increase)… we had an amazing 18 years of growth.
“Over the period no less than 37 million new jobs were created! The Dow- Jones Average soared from below 750 in the summer of 1982 to over 11,000 by the turn of the century.”
http://www.robertmundell.net/NobelLecture/nobel5.asp
It is interesting that the fall of the Soviets allowed the creation of the Euro. The Euro lead to a more-competitive Europe because they adopted the policies we ourselves adopted in the 80′s and 90′s.
There’s nothing in our recent history, that shows any likely possibility that either McCain or Obama are not prepared to cut spending, perhaps make slight increases in taxes, and attempt to keep interest rates from being raised too much.
So, yes sure we can cut the military a bit, but in REALITY we are going to have to cut Medicare – it would be great if we could all agree that our task here is to find the most socially responsible way to do that. I think it means increasing care for the young, and agreeing on a fixed annual budget for the elderly, that they split amongst themselves. More elderly means less per person.
That series would be very much Jon’s own Shark Week. Site traffic would jump thru the roof.
Morgan- We’re you home schooled in the 80′s? I’m always amused at your selective reading of history. Reagan’s defense budgets were old fashioned Keynesian stimulus, unfortunately just the wrong kind of unproductive military stimulus as the deep recession of 1988-1992 proved. As far as the Berlin Wall coming down because of the American military build-up, I think I already knocked that myth down in The Cost of Empire.
Morgan- We’re you home schooled in the 80′s? I’m always amused at your selective reading of history. Reagan’s defense budgets were old fashioned Keynesian stimulus, unfortunately just the wrong kind of unproductive military stimulus as the deep recession of 1988-1992 proved. As far as the Berlin Wall coming down because of the American military build-up, I think I already knocked that myth down in The Cost of Empire.
Somehow, Morgan, I get the feeling that you’d really prefer fewer elderly. Personally, I’m fine with other ideas you’ve floated…gradually increasing the entitlement age to various of the programs, but I’ll tell you this, a guy like me who will be 65 in a few days and is in pretty damned good health should not have to pay over $900.00 a month to get good health insurance. You’ll probably hate this, but we need single payer national health insurance for everyone in the US. Take it out of the military budget, for all I care. The folks I know in France, England, Canada, and Australia all have better health care than we have here, and folks can talk all they want about waiting for this or that, but we all wait here, too, unless we have big bucks and/or a gold plated health insurance policy.
The US…world ranked 33rd in longevity, tied with…Cuba!
http://www.annoticoreport.com/2007/05/italy-high-in-longevity-us-in-33rd.html
The US…world ranked 33rd for infant mortality, between Taiwan and Croatia!
http://brambledoula.wordpress.com/2007/09/09/world-wide-infant-mortality-ranking/
So, entitlements…well, entitlements seem to lead to longer life and fewer dead infants, Morgan… Is your so-called freedom of choice so worth dying for?
Wow! That’s worse than I thought…
Somehow, Morgan, I get the feeling that you’d really prefer fewer elderly. Personally, I’m fine with other ideas you’ve floated…gradually increasing the entitlement age to various of the programs, but I’ll tell you this, a guy like me who will be 65 in a few days and is in pretty damned good health should not have to pay over $900.00 a month to get good health insurance. You’ll probably hate this, but we need single payer national health insurance for everyone in the US. Take it out of the military budget, for all I care. The folks I know in France, England, Canada, and Australia all have better health care than we have here, and folks can talk all they want about waiting for this or that, but we all wait here, too, unless we have big bucks and/or a gold plated health insurance policy.
The US…world ranked 33rd in longevity, tied with…Cuba!
http://www.annoticoreport.com/2007/05/italy-high-in-longevity-us-in-33rd.html
The US…world ranked 33rd for infant mortality, between Taiwan and Croatia!
http://brambledoula.wordpress.com/2007/09/09/world-wide-infant-mortality-ranking/
So, entitlements…well, entitlements seem to lead to longer life and fewer dead infants, Morgan… Is your so-called freedom of choice so worth dying for?
Wow! That’s worse than I thought…
BTW, the gradual increase in age that I referred to is for Social Security. Get National Health, and you can do away with MediCare and MedicAid, etc…and you could do away with a lot of the incredibly costly emergency room visits for what should be considered routine health care.
I believe that just as fixing our basic infrastructure in the US would save money in the long run…or even medium run, so, too going to a National Health plan would save dollars in the long run. It could even be done with a combination of tax dollars and individual contributions. For instance, charge smokers and the obese a premium for supplemental insurance, and if they choose not to carry it, hit them with a nice deductible before National Health kicks in. Ditto on motorcyclists who choose not to wear helmets…they get to pay for the risk they choose to take. In such a manner, citizens would have some responsibility for their poor choices, but yet, everyone would be covered properly. I think that we as a society are entitled to this. Various versions work in every other civilized country in the world. Why not here? Oh…we’re not really civilized, that’s why…
BTW, the gradual increase in age that I referred to is for Social Security. Get National Health, and you can do away with MediCare and MedicAid, etc…and you could do away with a lot of the incredibly costly emergency room visits for what should be considered routine health care.
I believe that just as fixing our basic infrastructure in the US would save money in the long run…or even medium run, so, too going to a National Health plan would save dollars in the long run. It could even be done with a combination of tax dollars and individual contributions. For instance, charge smokers and the obese a premium for supplemental insurance, and if they choose not to carry it, hit them with a nice deductible before National Health kicks in. Ditto on motorcyclists who choose not to wear helmets…they get to pay for the risk they choose to take. In such a manner, citizens would have some responsibility for their poor choices, but yet, everyone would be covered properly. I think that we as a society are entitled to this. Various versions work in every other civilized country in the world. Why not here? Oh…we’re not really civilized, that’s why…
Rick – I think there’s still a small amount of production in Sheffield, but its had its hayday. We have almost no industry to speak of. Our entire economy rests on London and the F.I.R.E. sector. The sheer amount of stuff (especially food) that we have to import is ridiculous. Thatcher turned us into a service industry economy, and frankly I think it means our economy’s very fragile. Anything happens to London and we’re screwed.
Morgan – I’d agree with Jon on Reagan’s Keynesianism. Although he’s been showing us, its an alternative to proper Keynesian stimulus just as crack cocaine is to caffeine – full of unpleasant side effects and dangerously more addictive.
The other thing to consider with the Reagan era is that the major cause of the economic downturn the Reagan came into was high oil prices. These normalised when Reagan came into office. The economic rebound has a lot more to do with this than many of his policies. Both Reagan and Thatcher get a lot more praise than their actual actions deserve on this front.
As I know you’re aware, there isn’t going to be such a comfortable rebound this time.
With regard to Clinton I can’t explain Robert Rubin’s shortsighted policies quite as well as Jon, so I’ll refer you back to what he’s said about them. Needless to say, ramping up speculative bubbles is not the same as growing the economy in a healthy fashion. Particularly when you’re presiding over the continued hollowing out of the real economy.
As for cutting medicare, I know this is somewhat pointless repetition, but its quite simple. SCRAP the existing US health system. Remove insurance companies entirely, run it off a simple tax like we have in the UK, cut the overheads and negotiate aggressively with pharmaceutical companies for bulk discount. It’ll be both FAIRER and quite substantially CHEAPER.
The UK system is far from perfect (and the government seem to have a bizarre obsession with making it more like the US system), but its a damn site better.
Rick – I think there’s still a small amount of production in Sheffield, but its had its hayday. We have almost no industry to speak of. Our entire economy rests on London and the F.I.R.E. sector. The sheer amount of stuff (especially food) that we have to import is ridiculous. Thatcher turned us into a service industry economy, and frankly I think it means our economy’s very fragile. Anything happens to London and we’re screwed.
Morgan – I’d agree with Jon on Reagan’s Keynesianism. Although he’s been showing us, its an alternative to proper Keynesian stimulus just as crack cocaine is to caffeine – full of unpleasant side effects and dangerously more addictive.
The other thing to consider with the Reagan era is that the major cause of the economic downturn the Reagan came into was high oil prices. These normalised when Reagan came into office. The economic rebound has a lot more to do with this than many of his policies. Both Reagan and Thatcher get a lot more praise than their actual actions deserve on this front.
As I know you’re aware, there isn’t going to be such a comfortable rebound this time.
With regard to Clinton I can’t explain Robert Rubin’s shortsighted policies quite as well as Jon, so I’ll refer you back to what he’s said about them. Needless to say, ramping up speculative bubbles is not the same as growing the economy in a healthy fashion. Particularly when you’re presiding over the continued hollowing out of the real economy.
As for cutting medicare, I know this is somewhat pointless repetition, but its quite simple. SCRAP the existing US health system. Remove insurance companies entirely, run it off a simple tax like we have in the UK, cut the overheads and negotiate aggressively with pharmaceutical companies for bulk discount. It’ll be both FAIRER and quite substantially CHEAPER.
The UK system is far from perfect (and the government seem to have a bizarre obsession with making it more like the US system), but its a damn site better.
Rick, here’s the thing. Caring for people 65 and older does cost about $900 a month in insurance – at the level of care you are buying. We can reduce it, but then we have to reduce the level of care.
Yes, there are efficiencies we can squeeze out of it, but ultimately it comes down to not providing the expensive medical care that keeps the old around to be “really old.”
That’s what we are talking about, in ANY discussion about health spending in general. There’s no way around it.
I find it really funny that you want to tax the young fat, smoking risk takers – who actually USE LESS medical care than others, because they die.
We do need to make gains in infant mortality, pre-natal care is a GREAT use of Medicare dollars – keeping an old guy around for 5 more years, not so much. Especially, if him sticking around means we also don’t get to have a military to protect the young when the old coot is gone.
You old guys need to stop arguing with nature. The state CANNOT make its goal, to keep the old around as long as possible.
And Jon, I think my analysis is pretty well the what’s agreed to, your analysis started with an end in mind… I have no end in mind, other than to explain what happened, and predict what will happen next.
Rick, here’s the thing. Caring for people 65 and older does cost about $900 a month in insurance – at the level of care you are buying. We can reduce it, but then we have to reduce the level of care.
Yes, there are efficiencies we can squeeze out of it, but ultimately it comes down to not providing the expensive medical care that keeps the old around to be “really old.”
That’s what we are talking about, in ANY discussion about health spending in general. There’s no way around it.
I find it really funny that you want to tax the young fat, smoking risk takers – who actually USE LESS medical care than others, because they die.
We do need to make gains in infant mortality, pre-natal care is a GREAT use of Medicare dollars – keeping an old guy around for 5 more years, not so much. Especially, if him sticking around means we also don’t get to have a military to protect the young when the old coot is gone.
You old guys need to stop arguing with nature. The state CANNOT make its goal, to keep the old around as long as possible.
And Jon, I think my analysis is pretty well the what’s agreed to, your analysis started with an end in mind… I have no end in mind, other than to explain what happened, and predict what will happen next.
Morgan-When I’m an old coot, I don’t want to be kept alive by some extraordinary means. I think you are right on that score and it’s just selfish on the part of seniors.
Morgan-When I’m an old coot, I don’t want to be kept alive by some extraordinary means. I think you are right on that score and it’s just selfish on the part of seniors.
Shall we cut off Medicare at 85? I think that’s a nice number. It still benefits those who live healthy lives. It enourages people to not retire, because they know they need to keep socking it away. It is egalitarian.
Are you really ready for expensive prescriptions to stop being filled? It’ll be tough to watch for a while, that’s for sure – are you really ready?
Shall we cut off Medicare at 85? I think that’s a nice number. It still benefits those who live healthy lives. It enourages people to not retire, because they know they need to keep socking it away. It is egalitarian.
Are you really ready for expensive prescriptions to stop being filled? It’ll be tough to watch for a while, that’s for sure – are you really ready?
I know of two wonderful working musicians way past 85…Bill Tapia, an extraordinary uke player and raconteur, and Velzoe Brown, now a piano player who left home when she was 17 to join an all-girl dance band. First she played trombone, then drums, and finally broke in as a piano player…I belive somewhere in the mid 1950s. Both musicians still gig regularly, and I for one am not ready to suggest that they go sit on an ice floe and wait to die.
On the other hand, when it’s my time, I’m ready, having had the classic near death experience which I think everyone should try…if it weren’t so dangerous.
Morgan, health care only has to work as well here as it does in the 32 nations that are ahead of us in the world. Is that too much to ask? Why are we that screwed up? 33rd, Morgan, in longevity and infant mortality. Those are desperate statistics for the nation that wants to think of itself as the world’s leader. Of course if we actually led instead of bullying, it might be a different set of numbers.
And isn’t that what it comes down to with this presidential election? Obama to lead or McCain to bully…that is the question. This really is a struggle for the soul of America.
I know of two wonderful working musicians way past 85…Bill Tapia, an extraordinary uke player and raconteur, and Velzoe Brown, now a piano player who left home when she was 17 to join an all-girl dance band. First she played trombone, then drums, and finally broke in as a piano player…I belive somewhere in the mid 1950s. Both musicians still gig regularly, and I for one am not ready to suggest that they go sit on an ice floe and wait to die.
On the other hand, when it’s my time, I’m ready, having had the classic near death experience which I think everyone should try…if it weren’t so dangerous.
Morgan, health care only has to work as well here as it does in the 32 nations that are ahead of us in the world. Is that too much to ask? Why are we that screwed up? 33rd, Morgan, in longevity and infant mortality. Those are desperate statistics for the nation that wants to think of itself as the world’s leader. Of course if we actually led instead of bullying, it might be a different set of numbers.
And isn’t that what it comes down to with this presidential election? Obama to lead or McCain to bully…that is the question. This really is a struggle for the soul of America.
Oh, Morgan, the whole point of charging the young for insurance is to contribute to the shared risk pool. That’s what insurance is supposed to be…a shared risk pool. So you put in when you’re young and healthy, and if you choose an unhealthy lifestyle, maybe you should put in more, because you’re going to need it and use it someday unless we all get lucky and you simply die without an expensive illness or accident, leaving your contribution there in the pool for the sicker or those disabled in an accident to use.
The problem is that the insurance companies game the system to reduce the risk of having to pay out by eliminating so many potential customers. At one point, I’d fallen out of coverage and simply could not get an individual policy even though I was in excellent health, hadn’t even seen a doc in a couple of years, and had no ailments for which I needed care. No pre-existings, no major history beyond the beyond, etc. So I could have become one of those drags on the emergency room system if anything had happened. My case is not unique. Most self-employed people have a hell of a time finding medical insurance. I guess the answer to that is that it’s stupid to be self-employed, right?
Oh, Morgan, the whole point of charging the young for insurance is to contribute to the shared risk pool. That’s what insurance is supposed to be…a shared risk pool. So you put in when you’re young and healthy, and if you choose an unhealthy lifestyle, maybe you should put in more, because you’re going to need it and use it someday unless we all get lucky and you simply die without an expensive illness or accident, leaving your contribution there in the pool for the sicker or those disabled in an accident to use.
The problem is that the insurance companies game the system to reduce the risk of having to pay out by eliminating so many potential customers. At one point, I’d fallen out of coverage and simply could not get an individual policy even though I was in excellent health, hadn’t even seen a doc in a couple of years, and had no ailments for which I needed care. No pre-existings, no major history beyond the beyond, etc. So I could have become one of those drags on the emergency room system if anything had happened. My case is not unique. Most self-employed people have a hell of a time finding medical insurance. I guess the answer to that is that it’s stupid to be self-employed, right?
Good grief, Morgan. “Caring for people 65 and older does cost about $900 a month in insurance – at the level of care you are buying. We can reduce it, but then we have to reduce the level of care.”
Didn’t you pay any attention to what Pete Wolf said in the post just above yours? “Scrap the existing US health system. Remove insurance companies entirely, run it off a simple tax like we have in the UK, cut the overheads and negotiate aggressively with pharmaceutical companies for bulk discount. It’ll be both fairer and quite substantially cheaper.”
He’s not wrong. The excessive emphasis on privatisation of the US health system results in the most expensive health system in the world, for some of the most inequitable results. The US can *definitely* have a cheaper health system, and yes, cheaper than $900/month per person. A good first step would be by buying prescription medicines in bulk, in a national Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, rather than shovelling yours and Rick’s money down into the pockets of SmithKline et al. I can’t imagine you enjoy paying those fees for so little return, do you?
Good grief, Morgan. “Caring for people 65 and older does cost about $900 a month in insurance – at the level of care you are buying. We can reduce it, but then we have to reduce the level of care.”
Didn’t you pay any attention to what Pete Wolf said in the post just above yours? “Scrap the existing US health system. Remove insurance companies entirely, run it off a simple tax like we have in the UK, cut the overheads and negotiate aggressively with pharmaceutical companies for bulk discount. It’ll be both fairer and quite substantially cheaper.”
He’s not wrong. The excessive emphasis on privatisation of the US health system results in the most expensive health system in the world, for some of the most inequitable results. The US can *definitely* have a cheaper health system, and yes, cheaper than $900/month per person. A good first step would be by buying prescription medicines in bulk, in a national Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, rather than shovelling yours and Rick’s money down into the pockets of SmithKline et al. I can’t imagine you enjoy paying those fees for so little return, do you?
Rachel, it is better to assume that I did read it, and my point subsumed it. I of course meant that REGARDLESS of what kind of shared risk system you establish… that’s what it costs. Medical care is expensive for old people.
Rick, the young people pay now and get something later is tired argument, that subjects smaller sized generations to pay for larger sized ones. It isn’t acceptable to do that. Each generation should generally take care of itself. that is fair.
I did intentionally skip over “longevity” because that’s nothing like infant mortality.
Our citizens have the right and opportunity to be fat and lazy. They have the right to sit on the couch, or ride in the their mobile wheelchairs, and never get any exercises while they eat saturated fats and fast food with abandon.
These rights shall not be abridged, and they lead to living less time. We can’t get up in arms about “longevity,” because it is an opportunity, not a responsibility.
Of course, those that behave this way, DO NOT deserve medical care from the state. Which leads many to the question as to why the healthy shouldn’t just insure amongst themselves, and let the unhealthy make their own choices accordingly.
Rachel, it is better to assume that I did read it, and my point subsumed it. I of course meant that REGARDLESS of what kind of shared risk system you establish… that’s what it costs. Medical care is expensive for old people.
Rick, the young people pay now and get something later is tired argument, that subjects smaller sized generations to pay for larger sized ones. It isn’t acceptable to do that. Each generation should generally take care of itself. that is fair.
I did intentionally skip over “longevity” because that’s nothing like infant mortality.
Our citizens have the right and opportunity to be fat and lazy. They have the right to sit on the couch, or ride in the their mobile wheelchairs, and never get any exercises while they eat saturated fats and fast food with abandon.
These rights shall not be abridged, and they lead to living less time. We can’t get up in arms about “longevity,” because it is an opportunity, not a responsibility.
Of course, those that behave this way, DO NOT deserve medical care from the state. Which leads many to the question as to why the healthy shouldn’t just insure amongst themselves, and let the unhealthy make their own choices accordingly.
Before this discussion goes any farther, I just published some new information from Merrill Lynch that pretty much proves Morgan is totally wrong on interest rates and deficits. Financing the US debt is going to be no problem. In fact the Baby boomers will probably takeover from the Chinese.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/return-to-the-mean/
Before this discussion goes any farther, I just published some new information from Merrill Lynch that pretty much proves Morgan is totally wrong on interest rates and deficits. Financing the US debt is going to be no problem. In fact the Baby boomers will probably takeover from the Chinese.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/return-to-the-mean/
I responded in that thread – you’ll note here as well – I HAVE NEVER mentioned there being a problem financing the debt. Never. Please go find it, I’ll owe you a pound of Langer’s Pastrami. That’s a sandwich you won’t be eating huh?
Do you not read what I write? Or do you just not want to respond to what I say? WHY would you think I said such a thing?
The point is, massive US debt means the debt service gets to high and that inflation fears run rampant. That’s it. But that’s enough to force spending cuts and tax increases.
I responded in that thread – you’ll note here as well – I HAVE NEVER mentioned there being a problem financing the debt. Never. Please go find it, I’ll owe you a pound of Langer’s Pastrami. That’s a sandwich you won’t be eating huh?
Do you not read what I write? Or do you just not want to respond to what I say? WHY would you think I said such a thing?
The point is, massive US debt means the debt service gets to high and that inflation fears run rampant. That’s it. But that’s enough to force spending cuts and tax increases.
Morgan – Quite simply, I don’t think you get that the way in which we treat our elderly reflects upon what kind of society we are. Much in the same way that we treat are children. It is not simply a matter of money.
In your proposed system, only those who have amassed serious wealth (through looking out for number one) will have the OPTION of living a long life, or even of having a comfortable death. Whereas many of those who spend their lives looking after others, such as nurses, who don’t make great deals of money, won’t have these options.
You effectively want to turn round to these people and say: “Tough, should’ve made your money while you had the chance and not wasted your time helping other people for its own sake.”
This is an ethos that I for one cannot stomach, let alone get behind.
Morgan – Quite simply, I don’t think you get that the way in which we treat our elderly reflects upon what kind of society we are. Much in the same way that we treat are children. It is not simply a matter of money.
In your proposed system, only those who have amassed serious wealth (through looking out for number one) will have the OPTION of living a long life, or even of having a comfortable death. Whereas many of those who spend their lives looking after others, such as nurses, who don’t make great deals of money, won’t have these options.
You effectively want to turn round to these people and say: “Tough, should’ve made your money while you had the chance and not wasted your time helping other people for its own sake.”
This is an ethos that I for one cannot stomach, let alone get behind.
Trouble is that Morgan is probably right in terms of who the fallout will actually fall on: which is not to say that they will deserve it. And, yes, Pete, it will reflect on our society for years.
Time to look for VC funding, or, better, a Federal grant for Soylent Green conversion plants. Can’t think of a more appropriate swan song project for the Chaney Regency.
Trouble is that Morgan is probably right in terms of who the fallout will actually fall on: which is not to say that they will deserve it. And, yes, Pete, it will reflect on our society for years.
Time to look for VC funding, or, better, a Federal grant for Soylent Green conversion plants. Can’t think of a more appropriate swan song project for the Chaney Regency.
Pete, that smarmy, nasty side of Libertarianism espoused by Morgan is what has absolutely turned me away from that sick philosophy. There’s absolutely no heart in it.
I think we can blend the ideas of personal responsibility with caring for fellow citizens…of the world. We just have to stop spending so damned much on killing people elsewhere to be able to afford to take care of people here…and there.
How much per death has this war in Iraq cost? I’m just asking for “enemy combatant” deaths, not “collateral damage” or dead allied soldiers or citizens, though that would be interesting, too. How much does it cost to kill someone over there these days? Is it cost effective?
Pete, that smarmy, nasty side of Libertarianism espoused by Morgan is what has absolutely turned me away from that sick philosophy. There’s absolutely no heart in it.
I think we can blend the ideas of personal responsibility with caring for fellow citizens…of the world. We just have to stop spending so damned much on killing people elsewhere to be able to afford to take care of people here…and there.
How much per death has this war in Iraq cost? I’m just asking for “enemy combatant” deaths, not “collateral damage” or dead allied soldiers or citizens, though that would be interesting, too. How much does it cost to kill someone over there these days? Is it cost effective?
OK, I just ran some numbers based on 19,000 “enemy combatant deaths” as reported here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-09-26-insurgents_N.htm
I then used the conservative estimate of the war having cost one trillion bucks so far, though I’ve read considerably higher.
The math says it has cost $5,263,157.89 to kill each one of the dead “enemy combatants” in Iraq. The mob could do the job for a lot less…
So, Morgan, how ya like them apples? Kind of makes entitlements look like a bargain, doesn’t it? I suppose you’ll say a couple of nukes could do the job cheaper, though it might not be so good for being able to steal the oil…
OK, I just ran some numbers based on 19,000 “enemy combatant deaths” as reported here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-09-26-insurgents_N.htm
I then used the conservative estimate of the war having cost one trillion bucks so far, though I’ve read considerably higher.
The math says it has cost $5,263,157.89 to kill each one of the dead “enemy combatants” in Iraq. The mob could do the job for a lot less…
So, Morgan, how ya like them apples? Kind of makes entitlements look like a bargain, doesn’t it? I suppose you’ll say a couple of nukes could do the job cheaper, though it might not be so good for being able to steal the oil…
I’m not necessarily trying to say that Morgan or other libertarians are intentionally nasty.
The simple point I tried to make was that we all gain benefit from the fact that we live in a society where people can afford to be altruistic (and choose career paths like nursing and teaching where they might not be paid so well).
I’m not necessarily trying to say that Morgan or other libertarians are intentionally nasty.
The simple point I tried to make was that we all gain benefit from the fact that we live in a society where people can afford to be altruistic (and choose career paths like nursing and teaching where they might not be paid so well).
I am saying that libertarians are intentionally nasty. They seem not to believe in the interconnected nature of humankind. It’s “I got mine, and fuck you.”
I am saying that libertarians are intentionally nasty. They seem not to believe in the interconnected nature of humankind. It’s “I got mine, and fuck you.”
Libertarians are not intentionally nasty, it is that they see the truth of blunt talk.
Explain to me a way of saying in a nice voice, that we should cut off care for elderly because it is too expensive, and I’ll say it that way.
Look I think you guys missed the benefits I actually listed:
1. It encourages people to keep working well past 65. My idea is they get Medicare until they are 85, and then they have to care from themselves.
2. It encourages people to live healthier lives. Knowing health care will be denied when you are 85, brings back some need to worry about not needing it.
3. The age limit can increase as medical care advancements bring certain treatment costs down.
4. It is incredibly egalitarian. It means a potential Medicare system where the vast majority of people get better care, because they receive more per patient than otherwise.
5. It dramatically re-affirms our continued re-investment in future generations.
Libertarians are not intentionally nasty, it is that they see the truth of blunt talk.
Explain to me a way of saying in a nice voice, that we should cut off care for elderly because it is too expensive, and I’ll say it that way.
Look I think you guys missed the benefits I actually listed:
1. It encourages people to keep working well past 65. My idea is they get Medicare until they are 85, and then they have to care from themselves.
2. It encourages people to live healthier lives. Knowing health care will be denied when you are 85, brings back some need to worry about not needing it.
3. The age limit can increase as medical care advancements bring certain treatment costs down.
4. It is incredibly egalitarian. It means a potential Medicare system where the vast majority of people get better care, because they receive more per patient than otherwise.
5. It dramatically re-affirms our continued re-investment in future generations.
Libertarians are not intentionally nasty, it is that they see the truth of blunt talk.
Explain to me a way of saying in a nice voice, that we should cut off care for elderly because it is too expensive, and I’ll say it that way.
Look I think you guys missed the benefits I actually listed:
1. It encourages people to keep working well past 65. My idea is they get Medicare until they are 85, and then they have to care from themselves.
2. It encourages people to live healthier lives. Knowing health care will be denied when you are 85, brings back some need to worry about not needing it.
3. The age limit can increase as medical care advancements bring certain treatment costs down.
4. It is incredibly egalitarian. It means a potential Medicare system where the vast majority of people get better care, because they receive more per patient than otherwise.
5. It dramatically re-affirms our continued re-investment in future generations.
Ann Ryand’s mutant children; alive without hearts.
Ann Ryand’s mutant children; alive without hearts.
Ann Ryand’s mutant children; alive without hearts.
[...] falling apart, and badly needs help. So … maybe the answer is to wean ourselves off a permanent war economy, stop spending billions to mop up the mess we made in Iraq, and put that money into our own [...]
[...] falling apart, and badly needs help. So … maybe the answer is to wean ourselves off a permanent war economy, stop spending billions to mop up the mess we made in Iraq, and put that money into our own [...]