Outsourcing Jobs

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Considering social security has provided retirement income for Americans for some 60-odd years, I'd say that's pretty decent. Of course, let's blame the idea itself for the rampages of a criminally irresponsible Congress (yes, both parties).

There's nothing remarkable about this...the government has an easy time taking money from one group of people and giving it to another. The question is whether there's a more efficient way...and there is. The current SS system is a nightmare in terms of money put in to money taken out. That kind of inefficiency wastes people's time and money and makes them poorer than they should be, and I have a problem with that.

It's easy to blame the "criminally irresponsible congress", but lets be honest, people have (rightfully) blamed them for these sorts of things for years. To think that somehow they could change is naive at best.

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Multi-level approaches tend to become "this is the rich hospital, that's the poor hospital" approaches. A federally regulated approach ensures that everyone gets screwed a little instead of some people getting screwed a lot.

Sure, it's the European model. Some really like it, some don't. I lived in Germany for 5 years, and while it was nice in some regards, it's not what I'd want long-term. Incredible tax rates, expensive goods, high unemployment...I don't think the trade-offs are worth it. Plus, there were plenty of poor people there, too, so the problem never really goes away. Why take away people's incentive to work hard and plan for the future? Collective anything (farms, factories) fail because no one really has a stake in things...why do people think things like retirement planning are different?
You lost the Federal Powers fight a while back. If you missed it, it was called the "Civil War".

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Economically, the difference between Regan and FDR is that FDR put money into public works while Regan put it into the Military-Industrial Complex. Of course, Regan put the budget into massive deficit, but let's ignore that one.

Are you implying that FDR's was "better" or more meaningful than Reagan's? I'd argue Reagan's actions hastened the demise of the Soviet empire by forcing them to try and keep up with our military production, which their backwards economic systems couldn't keep up with.

Trying to compare the debt/deficit between the two, with 50 years difference, is silly. As a percentage of GDP, it's not so bad, FDR had debt too, just smaller amounts, there have been no negative affects of the debt and the benefits were great (and still continuing).

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Let's also ignore the culture of detante that existed pre-Regan and the way the Soviet threat had dwindled since the 60s. Oh, and for good measure, let's ignore China and Cuba, because they're not Communist at all.

The Soviets certainly seemed strong enough to invade Afghanistan during Reagan's presidency, so obviously they were a threat to someone. Sure, they lost after 10 years of war, but we lost Vietnam...it doesn't mean we were militarily weak, and neither were they.

Was the Soviet Union weaker at the beginning of Reagan's first term than they had been in the 1960s? Probably. Was the Soviet Union destined to collapase eventually? Probably. Did Reagan's efforts and pressure accelerate that process by several years (probably a few decades?). Probably.

I'm not sure what you're implying by throwing Cuba and China out there. I figured freeing Eastern Europe and the Soviet People was a good enough accomplishment for one presidency. JFK screwed up with Cuba, so no one wants to touch that issue. As for China....realistically, it wasn't a major power player in the world at the time, and our influence and ability to pressure them was probably a lot less than with the Soviet Union.

Originally Posted by telkanuru

I like how not being in a large-scale war is the sign of a fantastic President in your mind. Hello, that's what they're supposed to do?

No, the president is supposed to ensure the security needs of the American people are met. That sometimes means war is the appropriate answer. Through careful posturing and pressure, he brought an end to the "Cold War", something so named because it could have become an actual military engagement but was instead peacefully resolved. That's a major accomplishment.

Originally Posted by telkanuru

I will never understand why Republicans have such a hard on for Regan and loathe Clinton so completely. It's in the water I guess.

Actually, economically Clinton wasn't so bad. Realistically, he did nothing (aside from NAFTA) and let the economy go. No problem there. Welfare reform was good, too. The big problems with him were social issues for some, and international ones for others. I mean, Somalia and Kosovo were both disasters (of different magnitudes), and the whole Al Qaeda network built up under his watch without so much as a peep of response (USS Cole, first WTC bombing, embassy attacks, etc).

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Collective anything (farms, factories) fail because no one really has a stake in things...why do people think things like retirement planning are different?

Depends on how big the collective is, and who's in charge.

If the collective becomes too big, and there aren't leaders, THEN no one cares and it fails.

If the collective is small and there aren't leaders, people have to care, because the 3 other people are just about all equally in charge.

The problem is not that things like SS are collective, it's that the collective (the US Public) thinks that the Government is in charge. And..... They haven't fixed it.

If you call Congress a collective, and charge them of not taking care of the country, because they're too big and without effective leadership....


Then I might be forced to agree with you.

[erik_blank]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Actually, economically Clinton wasn't so bad. Realistically, he did nothing (aside from NAFTA) and let the economy go. No problem there. Welfare reform was good, too. The big problems with him were social issues for some, and international ones for others. I mean, Somalia and Kosovo were both disasters (of different magnitudes), and the whole Al Qaeda network built up under his watch without so much as a peep of response (USS Cole, first WTC bombing, embassy attacks, etc).

Errr.... a few notes here:

1. AlQueada was an offshoot of the Taliban movement that was funded in large part by the Reagan administration and continued tohave funding through the Bush administration.
2. Clinto DID attempt to strike a AlQueada, and was critizied for doing so with many in the HR/Senate caliming that he was attempting to change the focus from his infidelity to his wife to the "unimportant" (my interpretation) persuit of some people hiding in caves.
3. The first WTC bombing response was praised by Rudi Guilanni as a testiment to our structure of government through laws, as the perpetrators were caught, tried in a fair and open court and then convicted and imprisoned in a Federal Detention Center.
4. The NAFTA agreement, pushed through by a republican congress has had a general detrimental effect on the working poor and lower middel class, as the generally higher paying factory and mfg jobs have been moved south of the border. Replacement 'service industry' jobs have been few and far between, and have generally not come with a comperable wage. Add on the cost of having to move geographical locations in order to gain such jobs, and the general welfare (sorry naughty word here abouts) of the 'workers' in this country has declined considerably.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Hey, Inq - we may as well give up now - it's going to be "Regan" for the rest of this thread. Don would be mortified.

Meh.

"hey, it saves me typing a letter and everyone knows who is meant, so whats the big deal?"

PS Telk, our problems with the Mideast did not begin with Reagan. Our support of Israel alone was enough to create these; and when was the Iranian Revolution, again?

Nor was NAFTA "pushed through by a Republican Congress". It was one of Clinton's main legislative priorities, and would not have succeeded otherwise.

Apparently living through these events beats reading about them in books...

[telkanuru]

Everything else seems to be sufficiently answered, but I threw Cuba and China in there because it's quite difficult to insist that he Reagan defeated Communisim when there are still communist countries.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Hmm...great economic growth, end of communism, no major wars...yes, I'll have more of that kind of "weird" any day.

The first two actually didn't happen during Reagan's Presidency, and "no major wars" doesn't mean anything seeing that our last major war was over thirty years ago and Reagan invaded Grenada. (I'm not saying Grenada was a major war, I'm just saying that the list of Presidents who started major wars recently is very short).

I mean...I'm not a fan of Reagan, but I understand how some look at history differently to find him to be successful. But you're just wrong here.

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Actually, economically Clinton wasn't so bad. Realistically, he did nothing (aside from NAFTA) and let the economy go. No problem there. Welfare reform was good, too. The big problems with him were social issues for some, and international ones for others. I mean, Somalia and Kosovo were both disasters (of different magnitudes), and the whole Al Qaeda network built up under his watch without so much as a peep of response (USS Cole, first WTC bombing, embassy attacks, etc).

...what? You're mixed up with your facts again. The economy got BETTER while Clinton was President. It actually didn't tank until Bush's policies had taken effect. (Go figure). How was Kosovo a disaster? What part of zero American casualties do you not understand? Reagan achieved the same with Grenada, but I wasn't calling Grenada a disaster either.

If you compare Clinton's counterterrorism record, it's actually pretty good. Indeed, it was actually much more focused and successful than Bush's before 9/11. I think that the concept of blaming Presidents for terrorism is stupid in general, as it's really not that hard to kill large numbers of people if you're willing to die to do it. But I think it's especially ignorant to blame Clinton.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Everything else seems to be sufficiently answered, but I threw Cuba and China in there because it's quite difficult to insist that he Reagan defeated Communisim when there are still communist countries.

Meh...in 1291 there was one single Crusader fortress left in the entire Holy Land. Does that mean that the Kingdom of Jerusalem still existed? That the Franks were still relevant to the Muslims of the region in any way?

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

The economy...didn't tank until Bush's policies had taken effect.

Do you recall when the dot com bubble burst?

The last major recession occurred in early 2001. Bush HAD no policies implemented by then. He'd only been in office a couple of months. His first tax cut legislation was not passed, much less implemented, until June...by which time the recession was almost half over.

Presidents do not control the business cycle. Reagan did not engineer the prosperity of the 1980s, when stagflation was finally eliminated. Clinton did not create the prosperity of the 1990s. And Bush did not "tank" anything...

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Presidents do not control the business cycle. Reagan did not engineer the prosperity of the 1980s, when stagflation was finally eliminated. Clinton did not create the prosperity of the 1990s. And Bush did not "tank" anything...

I didn't (and probably wouldn't) say that Bush tanked the economy, but rather that he was in office when the economy did tank. I disagree with his policies, but I agree with your point that laying today's bad economy on Bush is not fair.

But I was addressing his point that one of the few highlights of Clinton's Presidency was "letting the economy go". I think that's pretty absurd seeing as that the economy improved dramatically during the eight years he was in office.

[Inquartata]

It's why it happened, if you believe in laissez-faire economics...

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

It's why it happened, if you believe in laissez-faire economics...

What's why what happened? Clinton making the economy tank, Bush making the economy tank, Clinton making the economy good, Reagan making the economy good?

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

The first two (ending communism and economic growth)actually didn't happen during Reagan's Presidency...

If the fall of the Soviet Union isn't enough for you, there's no point in debating the first issue.

As for economic growth, let see....unemployment down over 5%, GDP growth, low inflation...what didn't occur that needed to?

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I didn't (and probably wouldn't) say that Bush tanked the economy, but rather that he was in office when the economy did tank. I disagree with his policies, but I agree with your point that laying today's bad economy on Bush is not fair.

But I was addressing his point that one of the few highlights of Clinton's Presidency was "letting the economy go". I think that's pretty absurd seeing as that the economy improved dramatically during the eight years he was in office.

I guess my question to you would be "What did Clinton do to make the economy do so well?" What major policy change or economic plan did he implement that so dramatically affected the economy? Otherwise, it's like Inq said...he continued previous economic policy and laissez-faire (as much as we have in the US) took over and did what it does.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Presidents do not control the business cycle. Reagan did not engineer the prosperity of the 1980s, when stagflation was finally eliminated. Clinton did not create the prosperity of the 1990s. And Bush did not "tank" anything...

I don't think that's quite true. While business does have its own cycle, the president can certainly make major policy changes that can impact of business works. Reagan substantially adjusted various taxes in order to increase investment in business. It can be debated how much that affected the economy, and whether good or bad. The current president, too, made some substantial changes to tax code to spur investment.

Clinton didn't do as much with the economy, which was fine, because it was already doing well on its own.

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

How was Kosovo a disaster? What part of zero American casualties do you not understand? Reagan achieved the same with Grenada, but I wasn't calling Grenada a disaster either.

Kosovo was a disaster for several reasons. We bombed an independent nation for an internal conflict that didn't threaten neighboring countries, and under the (as usual) inspired leadership of the UN, we're still there, 9 years later, with next to nothing accomplished. What US interests were at stake? Why did the US have to lead (as usual) when it should have been a European issue? How many more years do we have to waste Soldiers' time and government funds on a meaningless mission?

Sure, it's great to have zero casualties, but it's also good to have a meaningful mission and accomplish something productive for all the time, effort and money invested. The return for our investment is pretty poor.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Meh...in 1291 there was one single Crusader fortress left in the entire Holy Land. Does that mean that the Kingdom of Jerusalem still existed? That the Franks were still relevant to the Muslims of the region in any way?

True enough for Cuba, but China? Really?

Are you kidding?



In any case I'm not actually making the argument that Reagan was a bad president, just that he wasn't the amazing one his cult of personality seems to think he was.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

What's why what happened? Clinton making the economy tank, Bush making the economy tank, Clinton making the economy good, Reagan making the economy good?

The economy did well because Clinton did nothing. That's often the best thing politicians can do: Get out of the way.

Government policymaking usually ends up doing more harm than good, because of time lags.

The traditional example is governmental attempts to cut taxes ( or raise spending ) to stimulate an economy.

First, it's often several months into a downturn before the enormous amount of statistics on production, spending, employment and so on can be gathered and analyzed.

Then, it takes more months to design a policy to stimulate growth. More still to push it through Congress. More still to implement it.

And the average recession since 1945 has only lasted 10 months.

So by the time the tax cut ( or spending increase ) actually disperses into the economy, the recession has already passed on its own and the economy is expanding. Now the stimulus only stimulates inflation.

These attempts to "fine tune" the economy seldom succeed, and then only by blind luck.

The Bush tax cuts only proved successful because they were not attempts at stimulus. They came from the philosphical position that taxes were simply too high and should be reduced. There was no attempt to time the cuts to a recession...and so they managed, by sheer blind luck, to take effect when there actually WAS an economic downturn in progress, rather than after it.

The business cycle goes on whatever government does. If its meddling so often manages to exaggerate it, the best thing it can do it not try to meddle.

Now, there are a few continuing programs, already in existence, which can act to dampen the cycle, simply because they are always operating and thus suffer from no time lags: things like unemployment compensation. But these dampen the height of the peaks as well as the depth of the valleys, so I leave it to you to decide whether that's a good thing. ( Economic consensus is that it is: Weak but steady growth is easier on an economy than booms and busts. )

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

True enough for Cuba, but China? Really?

Are you kidding?

China isn't really Communist any more. The only truly Communist countries left are Cuba and North Korea.

A lot of dictatorships call themselves democracies, too. The label doesn't always fit the bottle.

In any case I'm not actually making the argument that Reagan was a bad president, just that he wasn't the amazing one his cult of personality seems to think he was.

Quite right. There hasn't been an "amazing" President since FDR, at least...and possibly not since Teddy Roosevelt.

The system isn't really set up to permit a President to make radical changes in even 2 terms. At best they can nibble at the margins.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

China isn't really Communist any more. The only truly Communist countries left are Cuba and North Korea.

A lot of dictatorships call themselves democracies, too. The label doesn't always fit the bottle.

If you don't consider China to be communist, the USSR can't be said to be in that boat either. Same goes for the DPRK.

As for presidents, I'd offer up Truman and possibly JFK.