Ferguson: "Remarkably the president polls relatively strongly on national security. ...[The drone war] symbolizes the administration’s decision to abandon counterinsurgency in favor of a narrow counterterrorism. What that means in practice is the abandonment not only of Iraq but soon of Afghanistan too. Understandably, the men and women who have served there wonder what exactly their sacrifice was for, if any notion that we are nation building has been quietly dumped. Only when both countries sink back into civil war will we realize the real price of Obama’s foreign policy."

Osama bin Laden dead.  Gaddaffy dead.  Iraq war over.  No debacles.  Good enough reason for solid ratings whatever else you might think of Obama.

As for the troops wondering about nation-building -- they can ask the Bush Administration that allowed overthrowing the Talliban and the fruitless WMD escapade to undergo gigantic mission creep.  Romney hasn't been criticial on this element of Obama's foreign policy because (a) it's generally what people want, (b) it's what Obama said he'd do, (c) they don't want any more mission creep in Afghanistan.  If anything, Obama had a chance to get out of Afghanistan after Osama was killed and (inexplicably in my opinion) has kept US troops there.  But I don't see this as in any way "remarkable".  Maybe it is unwise, maybe we should be in a nation-building campaign, or a new "empire-building" as Ferguson has called for, but foreign interventions are not what the US public is interested in right now.  Hence the good ratings.

I don't really want to get caught up in this, but for what it's worth, Ferguson has posted a reply:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/21/niall-ferguson-defends-newsweek-cover-correct-this-bloggers.html

Also, I don't like any budget trickery, coming from politicians of any party.  I'll exit the stage now, carry on.

Regards,

- Erik

Originally Posted By Erik Rutins (22 AUG 2012 8:31pm)

I don't really want to get caught up in this, but for what it's worth, Ferguson has posted a reply:

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/21/niall-ferguson-defends-newsweek-cover-correct-this-bloggers.html

 

Also, I don't like any budget trickery, coming from politicians of any party.  I'll exit the stage now, carry on.

 

Regards,

 

- Erik

 

yes, that is the response I quoted when I indicated that Ferguson essentially acknowledged he misled everyone but seemed to feel he was being clever by "deliberately" referring to only the spending provisions and not the revenues and spending cuts.

Originally Posted By ActionJack (22 AUG 2012 7:34pm)

Originally Posted By medck (22 AUG 2012 6:45pm)

Originally Posted By Erik Rutins (22 AUG 2012 12:09pm)

 The basic structure of the ACA for that first ten year window where ten years of revenues pay for six years of expenses is simply something that cannot be ignored and it was deliberately structured that way to arrive at a particular result with the CBO.  

 

So, your criticism is that the govt is starting saving money prior to bigger future costs?  So, in this view, Obama is going for cutting spending now (and some tax increases, butmsot of them come later), to pay for future spending.  This, of course, differs from things like the Bush tax cuts were the politician claims the political benefit of cutting taxes now and then never seems to pay the price in the future of reduced spending.  Or of more recent relevance -- Romney claiming he'll restore $700+ billion in overpayments on Medicare Advantage, cut taxes and pay for it by reducing benefits to future seniors in 10+ years time?  I seriously doubt that politicians who won't take on the political power of the current over-55 in 2012 will take on the power of the even more over-55's in ten years time.  It's more likely they'll bail on the future cuts to spending.  Especially given the political price Obama paid in 2010 for trying to go after Medicare spending.

 

Not quite; before the economy tanked Bush was on track for a deficit of $160 billion all due to those enormous record-setting revenues from 2005-2007.  

We've been down this path before; are you going to again demonstrate  you don't know the difference between nominal and constant dollars?  Even in nominal terms, income tax revenue in 2005 was lower than 2000.  In real  dollars, income tax revenue had its record year in 2000 and was never higher.  You also have GDP growth.  Now, you compare this with, say 1994-2000, you see a lot of nominal and real income tax revenue revenue growth and that came after a tax increase.

If you said "I made more money in 2007 than I did in 2000 because I made $101,000 in 2007 and $100,000 in 2000", you would be wrong. Yes, the nominal number is higher, but it buys less due to inflation -- indeed, in nominal terms it is *hard* for incomes and budgets to actually go down, yet federal tax revenues did go down even nominally from 2000-2005.  It's easy to have "record" revenue.  In fact, we had "record Social Security revenue in that period and the tax rate was unchanged.

You assume public health care is a failure because the pundits

you like to read state that over and over again.  As I said they

do not know what they are talking about.  I am getting used to this

stuff.  All 30 some million of Canadians and who knows how many

in the rest of the world are brain washed by a conspiracy to believe

something that is not working is working. Yup.  You say you think about things

and then parrot back the most hardline statements made by the mouthpieces

of the conservative right.  Usually without any interpretation at all.

Well I know one reason why I like to live here and bless my delusion.

Originally Posted By danlongman (22 AUG 2012 9:36pm)

You assume public health care is a failure because the pundits

you like to read state that over and over again.  As I said they

do not know what they are talking about.  I am getting used to this

stuff.  All 30 some million of Canadians and who knows how many

in the rest of the world are brain washed by a conspiracy to believe

something that is not working is working. Yup.  You say you think about things

and then parrot back the most hardline statements made by the mouthpieces

of the conservative right.  Usually without any interpretation at all.

Well I know one reason why I like to live here and bless my delusion.

You probably don't even know who Sally Pipes is and you condemn me for listening to pundits.  What's that say about your opinion?  Something to weigh with importance?  Check out any of her books on the subject and rather than take what she says as gospel look at her bibliography and judge for yourself.  Or you can just go on like you are; I leave it to you.

Originally Posted By medck (22 AUG 2012 8:44pm)

Originally Posted By ActionJack (22 AUG 2012 7:34pm)

Originally Posted By medck (22 AUG 2012 6:45pm)

Originally Posted By Erik Rutins (22 AUG 2012 12:09pm)

 The basic structure of the ACA for that first ten year window where ten years of revenues pay for six years of expenses is simply something that cannot be ignored and it was deliberately structured that way to arrive at a particular result with the CBO.  

 

So, your criticism is that the govt is starting saving money prior to bigger future costs?  So, in this view, Obama is going for cutting spending now (and some tax increases, butmsot of them come later), to pay for future spending.  This, of course, differs from things like the Bush tax cuts were the politician claims the political benefit of cutting taxes now and then never seems to pay the price in the future of reduced spending.  Or of more recent relevance -- Romney claiming he'll restore $700+ billion in overpayments on Medicare Advantage, cut taxes and pay for it by reducing benefits to future seniors in 10+ years time?  I seriously doubt that politicians who won't take on the political power of the current over-55 in 2012 will take on the power of the even more over-55's in ten years time.  It's more likely they'll bail on the future cuts to spending.  Especially given the political price Obama paid in 2010 for trying to go after Medicare spending.

 

Not quite; before the economy tanked Bush was on track for a deficit of $160 billion all due to those enormous record-setting revenues from 2005-2007.  

 

We've been down this path before; are you going to again demonstrate  you don't know the difference between nominal and constant dollars?  Even in nominal terms, income tax revenue in 2005 was lower than 2000.  In real  dollars, income tax revenue had its record year in 2000 and was never higher.  You also have GDP growth.  Now, you compare this with, say 1994-2000, you see a lot of nominal and real income tax revenue revenue growth and that came after a tax increase.

 

If you said "I made more money in 2007 than I did in 2000 because I made $101,000 in 2007 and $100,000 in 2000", you would be wrong. Yes, the nominal number is higher, but it buys less due to inflation -- indeed, in nominal terms it is *hard* for incomes and budgets to actually go down, yet federal tax revenues did go down even nominally from 2000-2005.  It's easy to have "record" revenue.  In fact, we had "record Social Security revenue in that period and the tax rate was unchanged.

Anyway you want to square it, record revenues and with tax cuts; it's all in the Whitehouse tax tables.  How does your present champion compare?  He can't even take credit for more jobs compared to Reagan and our population is nearly 20 percent bigger now.  You really ready to go down with him and his ship of fools?  I can't even believe that!

Sally Pipes is a spokesperson for PRI a republican free market think tank

and i read some of her stuff, finding some interesting articles of what

a FUBAR the US health care system is.  I couldn't find anything in a quick

look which explained the "failure" of public health systems in this country

or any other.  There were some articles about poorly implemented policies,

at least according to her, in the US.  Didn't tell me where the endlessly repeated

failure is happening here.

Originally Posted By ActionJack (22 AUG 2012 10:38pm)

 

Anyway you want to square it, record revenues and with tax cuts; it's all in the Whitehouse tax tables.  How does your present champion compare?  He can't even take credit for more jobs compared to Reagan and our population is nearly 20 percent bigger now.  You really ready to go down with him and his ship of fools?  I can't even believe that!

 

If you "cut it" by constant dollars, the amount of INCOME TAX was lower while the amount of SOCIAL SECURITY TAX (FICA) was higher.  In the AJ world, Obama is the record spender on defense: $688b this year, a record.  In the AJ world, Obama spent more on defense than we did in 1945 ($83 billion).  Indeed, in AJ's world, Obama spent more on defense in one year than we did from 1941-45 when we spent a mere $261 billion.  In AJ's world ANY nominal increase is a "record", that's the ship of fools.

Also, the point of comparison is "how much tax revenue would you have in 2005-7 under the Clinton-era rates vs. how much tax would you get under the Bush rates".  The answer is "more under the Clinton rates".  Even with the tax reductions Clinton proposed in his 2001 budget, the CBO projected revenues of $2.68 trillion in 2007, about $110 billion above the revenues actually received.  If you discount the Clinton tax cut proposals, the gap is over $160 billion.  Oh, and a $520 billion surplus due to PAY-GO spending controls as opposed to a $160 billion deficit.  That's a $680 billion hole of excess spending under Bush.  So, yes, Bush tried to cash in the benefits early and never got around to paying the costs.  Obama is paying costs upfront.  The whole ACA is about setting priorities in spending -- now there can be a lot of legitimate disagreement about those priorities, but it is a clear choice that is being made now.  When you don't have PAY-GO you don't have to weigh priorities since the so-called benefits can always be at some point in the future that never seems to arrive.

As for jobs, Obama has done better on the jobs front (-316K from Jan09-present) than Bush II did thus far in his first term (-695K from Jan01-Jul04).  Obama has done this even though he has *cut* federal jobs (-648K) rather than added them like Bush did (+973K by this point in his first term).  State governments have also cut back under Obama while expanding under Bush.  What does this come out to?  Well, from 2009-now, the PRIVATE SECTOR has added jobs under Obama while it lost over 1.5 million in Bush's first term.

Originally Posted By medck (22 AUG 2012 6:57pm)

Niall Ferguson: "And then there was health care. No one seriously doubts that the U.S. system needed to be reformed. But the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 did nothing to address the core defects of the system: the long-run explosion of Medicare costs as the baby boomers retire, the “fee for service” model that drives health-care inflation, the link from employment to insurance that explains why so many Americans lack coverage, and the excessive costs of the liability insurance that our doctors need to protect them from our lawyers."

This is actually very interesting as the only conclusion that I can reach from this is that Niall Ferguson favors a British-style government-run, socialist National Health Service if he thinks the ACA doesn't do it.

A centralized, state-run system can control costs through the govt budget,

It is free at the point of service

There is no link between work and insurance

If you want you can put a liability cap on -- especially as it would control govt costs of liability

You certainly can't have a free market model since you'd still have fee for service, you'd probably link employment to insurance still, you'd have a lot of uninsured and have individual malpractice liability

You can't have tax benefits for insurance since you'd need to break the employment to insurance link and you'd still have a lot of uninsured

You can't have Medicare since you'd still have the exploding costs of an aging population under a defined benefit program

The only real alternative is National RomneyCare (the ACA) with tort reform, but Ferguson says National RomneyCare (ACA) is "doing nothing".

Part of the problem as I see it is a certain hubris.

The USA has traditionally had problems reversing entrenched practices

and imitating successful programs practiced by other countries.

Why would you change the "best" since it is ours it is by definition the "best".

Socialism is not necessarily a bad word just as liberal and conservative are not

bad words (outside of the US).  My personal experience in Canada and France

has shown me socialised health care works.  It is not without problems and

to claim that it couldn't be improved would be stupid.  The health insurance

industry bitterly opposed it here but could not stop it.  In the US they are bigger

and much more powerful and have hordes of their paid shills telling The Big Lie

that it is a "failure" in other countries.  Well I am here and I percieve shortcomings

similar to those I experienced in the US but no "failure".  In what way does it fail?

Overall health here is better than in the US and life expectancy is higher.... same in

very many countries with similar public health care.  You have been told it is wrong

and a failure so it becomes an accepted fact.  The electorate.... to be generous, is poorly

informed and since its education is a political commodity it is selectively educated as well.

People love to read stuff which confirms their personal bias and rarely seek to educate

themselves.  They much prefer to be educated by their masters as illustrated by the

megatons of crap delivered regularly to this forum.

OK, I have found what Niall Ferguson thinks should be our national health plan.  It is (a) one with an individual mandante, (b) massive insurance subsidies, (c) incredible federal intrusiveness into personal medical details, and (d) *NO* liability reform.  And as far as I can tell, it has no ban on discrimination based on pre-existing conditions -- it appears to deal with that by bureaucratically deciding how much  more money for insurance vouchers to give to the ill.  Talk about potential death panels....   I think anyone who hates National RomneyCare would find this an abomination:

http://www.esplanner.com/press/new-new-deal

Our third and final reform deals not just with our public health care programs, Medicare, and Medicaid, but with the private health insurance system as well. That system notoriously leaves some 45 million Americans uninsured. Our reform would abolish the existing fee-for-service Medicare and Medicaid programs and enroll all Americans in a universal health insurance system called the Medical Security System (MSS). Every October, the MSS would provide each American with an individualized voucher to be used to purchase health insurance for the following calendar year. The size of the voucher would depend on the recipients' expected health expenditures over the calendar year. Thus, a 75-year-old with colon cancer would receive a very large voucher, say $150,000, while a healthy 30-year-old might receive a $3,500 voucher. The MSS would have access to all medical records concerning each American and set the voucher level each year based on that information.

Some are sure to feel uneasy about this proposal, since it seems to imply an invasion of privacy. Yet the government already knows about millions of Medicare and Medicaid participants' health conditions, because it is paying their medical bills. This information has never, to our knowledge, been inappropriately disclosed.

How much do you think a health care voucher program FOR EVERY AMERICAN would cost?  Now, to pay for it, you could well have a variety of taxes and cuts/elimination of Medicaid/Medicare, etc, but by Ferguson's own assessment of Obama's program, would you like to hazard a guess at how much the voucher component of this one would run?  At least $1.5 trillion PER YEAR if it only covered 60% of current health care spending.  Not to mention the army of bureaucrats who have to monitor every citizen's health records on an annual basis.

Originally Posted By medck (22 AUG 2012 7:48pm)

Osama bin Laden dead.  Gaddaffy dead.  Iraq war over.  No debacles.  Good enough reason for solid ratings whatever else you might think of Obama.

 

As for the troops wondering about nation-building -- they can ask the Bush Administration that allowed overthrowing the Talliban and the fruitless WMD escapade to undergo gigantic mission creep.  Romney hasn't been criticial on this element of Obama's foreign policy because (a) it's generally what people want, (b) it's what Obama said he'd do, (c) they don't want any more mission creep in Afghanistan.  If anything, Obama had a chance to get out of Afghanistan after Osama was killed and (inexplicably in my opinion) has kept US troops there.  But I don't see this as in any way "remarkable".  Maybe it is unwise, maybe we should be in a nation-building campaign, or a new "empire-building" as Ferguson has called for, but foreign interventions are not what the US public is interested in right now.  Hence the good ratings.

I am not a fan of Obama's foriegn policy, but probably for different reasons than most. Obama seems to be the master of the moderate approach to problem solving, at least in the FP realm. I think this could easily be interpreted as indecisive and costing lives in the case of Afghanistan. It is clear his inclination from the beginning was to simply withdrawl. A sound policy considering the situation in that country when he took office. Yet, he decided on a policy of escalation to stabilize the country. Now, this policy could have worked, but Obama never had the heart for it and never pushed it hard enough to make it work.

In war, you don't push a policy that your not really behind in the first place. Its a waste of time and a waste of lives. When we start pulling out in earnest next year, all the lives given to the cause since Obama's surge are wasted. You don't order an escalation without the intent to see it through to its logical conclusion. You don't order an escalation with a withdrawl date at the same time. To me, this is almost unforgivable. It shows we have truly learned nothing from Vietnam and the gigantic waste of lives that was.

He is lucky this half-in approach didn't bite him in Libya too. Obama is not the C-in-C you want in a time of war, plain and simple. His indecisive decision making lead to the surge and then withdrawl policy that has wasted the lives of our young soldiers since.

Swatter, I think that is quite a good argument to make.  Not to say I agree with it entirely, but I think there is a logic and consistency to it.  What I have objected to-- and which a broad, diverse range of critics have skewered--is Niall Ferguson's blatant deception.  One he pretty much cops to and tries to brazen out.  I added the recent bit on FP as it seems his criticisms of Obama are entirely counter to some of the historical arguments he has made.  It does, however, fit with the entirety of his piece, which is not about the honest presentation of facts or arguments, but just a hit piece.

I could easily write up a conservative piece on why not to re-elect Obama that is much more honest than that.  Maybe he got lazy.  I don't know, but the problem isn't that he doesn't like Obama, it's the extraordinary and repeated dishonesty of the evidence.  As I said, there's a big difference between saying "the ACA is a horrid new large govt program and we don't need the spending and taxes that go along with it" and "Obama says the ACA won't increase the deficit, but guess what, he's lying because the CBO says the insurance provisions cost over $1 trillion."  The same with much of his piece.

Originally Posted By danlongman (22 AUG 2012 11:28pm)

Sally Pipes is a spokesperson for PRI a republican free market think tank

and i read some of her stuff, finding some interesting articles of what

a FUBAR the US health care system is.  I couldn't find anything in a quick

look which explained the "failure" of public health systems in this country

or any other.  There were some articles about poorly implemented policies,

at least according to her, in the US.  Didn't tell me where the endlessly repeated

failure is happening here.

It's so easy to shoot the messenger and not have to address the message.  Head in the sand thinking I'd call it.