methos

Good point. As far a Health Care reform it's hard to say. I hope the public option survives in some workable fashion. On the other hand, I have concerns about it as well. We pay the most money for our care and have the worst outcomes, something needs to be done. I have little faith in Congress to pass meaningful well written legislation, hopefully, I will be surprised; but I doubt it! As far as tort reform, I do think that needs to happen, but not stripped. There are many good MD's, but there are some real bad one's as well. There needs to be some form of the "Sword of Damocles" hanging over their heads to keep them in line

It takes a long time to become a MD, twelve to fifteen years for a specialist of school and training. It's not only expensive but it's very demanding. Sure, the specialist may have only been in the room for five minutes, but he/she spends more time going over the charting, lab work, and likely radiological studies. Other words, much more than five minutes, and then takes all that expertise and develops or suggests a treatment regimen if needed. One that may save a life, and at times one that may have to be defended in court. A lot more goes on behind the scenes to where that six-hundred isn't exorbitant. Of course they know someone will pay. Do you go into work and do it for free? Of course not. I am not trying to be facetious, but no one works for free. You get compensation commensurate with your skills and the demand for them.

I am not sure what the demographics was back in the day, but with advances in medicine and increasing lifespans, without Medicare the elderly would not be taken care of, period. It's too expensive for the vast majority to foot the bill themselves and there is already to great a burden placed on hospitals servicing the poor let alone attempt free care for the elderly. It's not even feasible to discuss dropping Medicare. What are the options? Let the private sector flip the bill? It's not even a possibility, for even the big three along with countless other corporations rely on Medicare to pay most of retiree medical expenses. Senior citizens have a hard enough time finding supplemental insurance, and getting some form of catastrophic insurance on their own would be cost prohibitive for the vast majority. You could some how limit care, but is that what you would want when you are in their shoes? Medicare is quite effective and has led the industry in cost containment via DRG's. Other words, the private sector follows in their footsteps in best practice guidelines for care in treating various disorders. Medicare in many ways has been quite a success story. It's why even Republican's or other conservatives don't like comparing Medicare to any proposed public option in the current health care debate. It's just my two-cents, take it for what it's worth. Some one could argue that there is a lot of waste, but isn't there always waste in any large effort such as this? There is always room for improvements. Hopefully this administration will be more proactive; time will tell.

I don't know about "save" but here is my last two-cents. The level of ignorance in this forum is taxing to say the least. This "arena" is composed of of about a dozen people, lol. With the majority being half-wits mostly foaming about some sort of conspiracy. FYI, if you want to talk about conspiracies, they have broader forums for just that. If you want to talk about the environment, again, they have forums where one can go to have a serious discussion. One based on facts and serious inquiry. Then again, maybe this is the perfect place for some of you. It's probably the only place you feel smart, and that's important for everyone, well goober, and grbeck, you've found a home. You really are smart here, lol.

First, I would have to look at the entirety of the emails so as I could get some context of what was said. I don't like making opinions based on bits and pieces of conversations dating back thirteen years. Second, the one thing about science is no one takes any ones word, it has to be replicated, and often times it's done by multiple parties. Like I said, there are a great many involved in the research directly and many more indirectly. This isn't a small club, some 26 countries and like ours many different organizations and individuals involved within each. As for me, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, especially in an auto forum, lol. I was merely trying to point out the larger picture. As the previous poster suggested I need to get a grip. I agree. My time as I am sure your time is to valuable to waste quibbling

It's unfortunate in how some are swayed so easily. The issues dealing with climate change are complicated, to say the least. I really don't know all the details with Hadley, but I do know this, even if they did manipulate the data, does it make the work of countless others meaningless? Of course not. It is a matter of credibility and incidents like this does no one any good; however, that said, to dismiss thousands of others countless work on this or I'm sure other incidents like this that will surely follow is sheer ignorance. As aforementioned, climate change is an incredibly complex issue with many different fields of research involved. From what I've seen, the research and empirical evidence is something that can't be dismissed by a reasoned mind. In fact, the bulk of the data suggest events are occurring faster than even the climate models have predicted. Nations are coming together with proposals likely costing trillions that are disruptive economically, at least in the short-run. If there wasn't strong empirical evidence, this wouldn't even be discussed. It's political suicide and likely there will be no meaningful consensus, but it does reveal the gravity of the situation. There are strong interest groups on both sides of the argument with a lot of hype. There is a great deal of information to sort through. It ought not be decided on one piece of a puzzle with an infinitesimal amount of pieces.

Perhaps you're right; I might not possess the required educational level for this conversation. I think in this case I am going to need to dumb it down a bit. I would love to hear how the Third Intermediate Period correlates to our discussion on supply-side economics (SSE)? As far as our discussion on SSE, I did come up with some peer-reviewed publications, but I won't have access to more recent ones until next week. This one is from one of the more conservative economists, and is one of the few of the time to consider himself a supply-sider and Reagan's chief economist. He really goes over the pros and cons of Reagan's initiative. I won't post it due to the restrictions, but since it is so old, it shouldn't be too hard to find. Martin Feldstein - Supply Side Economics; what remains? Another interesting piece is from another economist that goes over some of the earlier promises of the dawn of the proposals and how they were pitched and how later the authors fought and still fight for redemption. it's called Revisionism in the history of supply side economics. This isn't a complete link, but again, it's an old piece, it can be had.

Trade didn't have anything to do with the Depression. The resulting decline in trade was one of the effects, but the resulting Tariff that was imposed early on was a campaign promise of Hoover's. It's just that when it was passed more interest groups sought protection and it became much larger sparking a trade war. It's something countries are trying to avoid now. Trade is good, but it's far better having a surplus vs. a deficit, at least in my humble opinion. There is a strong correlation between savings rate and whether a country runs a surplus or deficit. In our case we have a weak saving's rate and a high deficit in our current account balance. I really don't think that there are many economists that suggest this is good. I know there is some that state it's not that bad considering the money is reinvested back into our country. I tend to go along with Buffet in that it's not a good idea when they own several trillion dollars more of us than we do of them. Moreover, our overconsumption means that in bad times, for instance now, it's much harder for us to spend our way out of it; since we don't have the reserves to draw upon. In addition, what happens when we're no longer the draw we once were? For the last six years or so several prominent countries that have heavily invested their reserves in dollars have pulled back divesting their interests. I really believe free trade is good. Everyone benefits, but the way we have created these trade pacts have really been a drag on our growth. It lowers inflation, but only at the cost of shipping jobs overseas/across borders.

Really? My point was the sources he cited had little if any bearing on the subject at hand. They were anecdotal at best. This coming from the ignoramus that used Ancient Egypt as an example of the success of supply-side economics. It's not about throwing out names or sources' at least to me. Like I said, when I have access next week I'll post them. There are a ton of so-called papers and websites, but I prefer more scholarly sources. Don't let your panties get in a bunch. Really, I thought it not even necessary. Like I said, I thought most folks did realize its failure. I already posted sources as to its failure, but it required some basic inductive reasoning. I see you lack that, after all, you cite ancient Egypt as a shining example, LMAO. What a tool. Inductive reasoning would be if they are developing new models to test the theory regarding long-term implementation then it might make you wonder. Let me help you, they already implemented this under Reagan, right? Well it failed, so the argument then became it takes longer and had it been in place more long-term then it would have succeeded. They used conventional static models to test it long-term, and it failed. So, they then developed a "dynamic" model to test it. Yet again, it failed. Hence the reason prominent supporters such as the WSJ and others finally threw in the towel - sort of speak. So, with Bush, they no longer called it supply-side. It was the same type of focus, but they used the second school of thought. Reagan’s was based in which the evolution of output depends on the accumulation of labor, capital, and know-how, and Bush’s was based on the newer approach of the smaller percentage oft a bigger pie. Even though economic models, including the newer “dynamic” model showed it an abysmal failure.

Wow, that's incredible, you start off by stating you have no idea of what I am referring to regarding what is actually the "supply" of supply-side economics and end up educating me at the end with what you think it is, go figure? In the end, none of what you said has ANY bearing on the argument at hand. All the while you're quibbling about my grammar and the lack of cogency in my argument, again go figure? You like facts? That's great, I do as well. But what I really like is facts that are pertinent to the discussion at hand. I have not posted any facts because I have none to post, now. I don't have access to my school library until next week. I could post endless articles and some descriptive papers but it means nothing unless I can post real numbers. What I did try to do was post relevant material until I get such access. Such as the CBO budget proposal and the fact that they tried creating a more dynamic model to measure the curve better, which it failed. I will post all the data by Thursday of next week – sooner if I get the chance.

First you make a good point. but I didn't use Binder for his views or opinions. I used him as a reference for what he based those views on. There is a distinction. They did a lot of research during and after Reagan implemented his tax-cuts. The whole point was the money lost in revenue would eventually be replaced - like I said in my earlier post - a smaller percentage but a bigger pie. It didn't work, supply actually decreased by 0.9%. I would post the paper supporting that but I don't have access off-campus. If the need persists, I will post it in two weeks when I get back to school. It's the reason they no longer use that term - it failed. Now, the proponents thought that there were many reasons why it failed and it deserved another chance, even though the vast majority of economists thought the theory "a free lunch". Proponents derided the static model used in testing the theory long-term, so they came up with the "dynamic model" to test it. The CBO along with other research groups published the outcome using that model; by the way, they were handpicked supply-side proponents in charge of the testing. The results, well, they were a dismal failure. Why? Because there is no free lunch - HELLO!! Even the Wall Street Journal in 2003 declared it dead. Why do people persist in its use? The reasoning, and the ONLY reasoning is to starve the beast, sort of speak. Even Milton Freidman suggested it's the only purpose. They're to gutless to get rid of social security and other "New Deal" programs, so they'll do it anyway possible. They have the right and should be encouraged to vote any way they see fit, I just can't stand the back-door nature of these tactics. I hate taxes, who doesn't? If I thought for one minute that paying less would result in more for everyone then why wouldn't I support that? I would love to see ANY numbers that support this theory - I really would. Hell, I am far from any expert, and it's been some time since I took some classes on it. We went over the numbers and the research in detail, perhaps we missed something. But please, don't show me editorials or opinions, show me numbers. This theory was put in practice - twice. Show how for every dollar cut, a dollar is made up in revenue. It's not there, it does not occur. If you want less taxes, hey who don't, but whose going to pay for this massive deficit? The vast majority of which was derived under the two presidents that implemented this nonsense. EDIT: Krugman put out a book titled "Pedaling Prosperity". I have yet to read it, but will Wednesday. It goes over this nonsense in detail. Sure, Krugman is a liberal, but a NL. He went against Clinton when asked if health care would explode the deficit. It's the reason he wasn't appointed for a high ranking position. He derided Bush, as he is critical of Obama. If anything, regardless of his views, he tells it like it is. Conservatives use this nonsense to get votes. That is its primary purpose. It won't shave the deficit, but it will and did get them elected.

Critic is correct in that it was thirty-two hundred years ago that the Israelites fled Egypt. After Ramses, his successors led Egypt's decline. If you're using this as an example, well, go figure? The only possible example of a capitalist system in that period is Ancient Athens, but, it’s not one you would want to use, particularly in that time period. Like I said, it’s the quintessential example of what not to do.

Ok, I know I am going to regret this - the time wasted - but you're arrogance annoys me so let have at it. Feel free to enlighten me as in how a decades old theory such as supply side economics proved correct in ancient times. Hopefully you're not so dim-witted as to use Greece as an example. Please, save yourself the embarrassment. It's the quintessential example of what can go wrong.

First, you must have allot of time on your hands? Secondly, I only wished you could have stayed on topic. You cite the stock market and Cato as evidence substantiating your claims, but pray tell, what does the S&P 500 have anything at all to do with this argument? Supply theory is based on the premise that if you cut taxes then the money saved will be re-invested creating more wealth and ultimately the money lost on taxes will be recouped via more growth. A smaller percentage but a bigger pie - sort of speak. Next, Cato is filled with former Reagan officials, if I am not mistaken; a key Reagan official was the director of Cato for this publication. Regardless, it's a libertarian organization, hardly a reference for nonbiased research. You're critical of my lack of facts in my argument, ok; I'll go along with that, at least facts not presented. Alan Binder was the economists I was referring too, his work and many others have shown that the premise failed. A meta-analysis was done and it came out to a 0.9% decline. I would post it but I don't have access to my school's library for another two weeks. Like yourself, I could post a boatload of descriptive papers, but that's only an opinion. I am not going to waste my time finding facts, for who needs them? The bottom line is Reagan took the country from a seven hundred million deficit towards three trillion. He had to borrow money at home and abroad to pay for the cuts and his expansionary policies. Under his watch we went from the largest lending nation to the largest debtor nation. How much more proof is required? It was one of Reagan’s great flaws. He had a keen mind, but he tended to discard anything that didn’t fit his philosophical views. He later admitted the debt was his biggest regret of his presidency. He knew it was a failure, as did everyone else. It’s the reason why he started raising taxes toward the end. It's why I rarely post anymore, most people have closed minds on broader issues. They're even suggesting it's genetics now. Regardless of the reasons why people are unable to see the forest and not just some trees is a mystery to me.

Facts' I didn't think I needed to offer any. I thought everyone knew it. Like I said it's in every macroeconomics textbook. As far as the warning - bite me bitch.