Tim Cook and Other Tech Executives to Meet With President Obama to Discuss NSA Surveillance and Health Care Website

[Eraserhead]

This is a very important point since dems claim a 50% reduction in the deficit since 09. That is, indeed, a true statement, since the deficit was reduced from 1.4 trillionish to 680b or so..., but...WHO is really responsible for the $1.4 trillion deficit in the 09 budget?? Prior to 09 budget, the deficit was 480 billion...so who was responsible for the 480b deficit to the 1.4 trillion deficit?

Republicans claim that the since the deficit was 480 billion in 08, and 1.1 trillion in 2012, obama more than doubled the deficit. Dems say that since obama inherited the 1.4 trillion deficit in 09, and reduced it to 1.1 trillion in 2012 (and now 680B in 2013), that obama has reduced the deficit. As usual, both sides are spinning it.

Well it would be an important point if it was actually true. We should of course blame the democrats for adding ~$200 billion to the $1400 billion deficit.

That said the most successful major economy since 2008 has been China. And they had a huge stimulus.

 

[sransari]

On the other hand Americas private based healthcare system costs more than twice as much as Britain's public based healthcare system for similar outcomes.

Life isn't as black and white as you'd like it to be.

America's "private based" system is by no means a true, consumer driven free-market system. Consumers are not very price conscious of healthcare services, since very few people even understand the pricing scheme of healthcare services.

I actually see an unintended GOOD consequence of the ACA...since deductibles are so high, i think we are going to see a lot of patients that were previously not sensitive to prices, to suddenly become sensitive to pricing, and start acting more like consumers vs. insurance company pawns. So if I'm right, our system will start to move towards the consumer-driven system that we need to improve quality and reduce prices. Since patients are going to have to pay a large sum of their healthcare costs directly before insurance kicks in, patients are going to start shopping around for healthcare, negotiating, and, selecting healthcare based on price and quality...something that isn't done much these days under our "insurance pays all" system.

As for Britain, I'm not sure if you've actually lived under such a system, but if you have, then you'll know the perils of a government managed system of long wait times, few options, and lower quality care. Maybe socialized medicine is cheaper than what we have today (which is a perverse hybrid of socialized medicine managed by profit hungry insurance companies that respond rationally to perverse economic incentives), but it certainly isn't going to be cheaper than a true consumer-driven system. Only consumers that can vote with their dollars, and pay for a majority of healthcare directly and not through insurance companies, can improve quality and reduce prices.

----------

Well it would be an important point if it was actually true. We should of course blame the democrats for adding ~$200 billion to the $1400 billion deficit.

That said the most successful major economy since 2008 has been China. And they had a huge stimulus.

If what were true? The numbers I quoted were accurate...in 2008, deficit was $480b...in 2009, $1.4 trillion...who is responsible for that increase is a key point.

As for China, they have had the most successful economy for a while, and it is attributed to the economic freedoms they enjoy, not wealth redistribution (e.g., stimulus). Their economy is strong in-spite of stimulus, not because of it. The Chinese work hard and save. That's why their economy gets stronger by the day. Americans spend and consume without producing. Common sense and Austrian economics dictate that this type of activity is not part of a sustainable economy. Of course, Keynesian economics dictates the opposite.

 

[MyMac1976]

Yeah, you wouldn't want Cook to show any sense of civic responsibility.

Very impressed with the post's sense of involvement in the world.

We don't need any of that civic responsibility stuff jeez

 

[Shrink]

We don't need any of that civic responsibility stuff jeez

You're right.

I live in a dream world!

Very embarrassed...

 

[Happybunny]

Americans spend and consume without producing. Common sense and Austrian economics dictate that this type of activity is not part of a sustainable economy. Of course, Keynesian economics dictates the opposite.

Well you had better get used to it because it's not going to change anytime soon. There will be no going back to the gold standard, there are just too many interests it keeping the status quo.

 

[sransari]

Well you had better get used to it because it's not going to change anytime soon. There will be no going back to the gold standard, there are just too many interests it keeping the status quo.

It's all like a house of cards, and I wouldn't be surprised if it collapses a lot sooner than most think.

 

[Happybunny]

It's all like a house of cards, and I wouldn't be surprised if it collapses a lot sooner than most think.

That sounds like wishful thinking.

The cold hard fact is this is the system that's here and it will be for the foreseeable future, if the banking crisis and the melt down of the Euro didn't collapses it, a few libertarians will have no affect.

 

[Mac32]

After watching 60 Minutes yesterday, I actually feel a little better about the whole NSA/Prism situation.

With proper oversight and accountability, we need to allow the government certain tools to protect us, or another 9/11, or much worse, could be here sooner rather than later.

Wake up. The whole segment was a pure infomercial for the NSA. Totally bogus "investigative" journalism, no critical questions raised. Very disappointing for a news show like 60 Minutes. There's way too much propaganda and disinformation in American mainstream media these days.

 

[JHankwitz]

After watching 60 Minutes yesterday, I actually feel a little better about the whole NSA/Prism situation.

With proper oversight and accountability, we need to allow the government certain tools to protect us, or another 9/11, or much worse, could be here sooner rather than later.

It looks like their sales pitch on 60 Minutes was very effective and worked well for them. Privacy is now a thing of the past. It may well help protect us, but nothing you say or do will ever be personal or private again. Employers already scrutinize your Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn postings before they will interview or promote you. George Orwell nailed it, except it's taken a bit longer than he predicted.

 

[sransari]

That sounds like wishful thinking.

The cold hard fact is this is the system that's here and it will be for the foreseeable future, if the banking crisis and the melt down of the Euro didn't collapses it, a few libertarians will have no affect.

It's not wishful to see our economy collapse. I don't want it to, but that doesn't stop the fact that it will happen, since, as you pointed out, spending and consuming without producing is not going to change.

 

[Rocketman]

Republicans claim that the since the deficit was 480 billion in 08, and 1.1 trillion in 2012, Obama more than doubled the deficit. Dems say that since Obama inherited the 1.4 trillion deficit in 09, and reduced it to 1.1 trillion in 2012 . . .

The fact is Obama and Pelosi and Reid collectively decided to use as stimulus, pork programs. Republicans would have lowered taxes temporarily as the stimulus thus sharing the benefit among all taxpayers. Because D had total control of the House, Senate, and Presidency they unilaterally decided what to do and refused all substantial amendments by any R at all. This is an Obama D deficit.

The D theory was that government spending would increase jobs. The opposite has happened. U6 way up, participation way down. Minorities suffering most by far.

The R theory based on past experience with Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton was private spending would create more jobs, and also increase money velocity. Money velocity dropped like a rock under Obama/Pelosi/Reid.

So the results are obvious to all but the most extreme partisans.

To keep this on-topic, Cook and other celebrities reading this should communicate this to the Executive branch in a way to say you will get your goals of social equality better under a LARGE shift from the public sector to the private sector as a matter of policy.

Rocketman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money

The major inflection in the chart is 9/11/01 and the massive increase in police and military and government and the associated drag. Tried to get on a plane lately? The break-out to the bottom of the trend was the recent liquidity crisis. Government policy of more government continued the past trend with an accelerated vengence! Tax and government spending cuts would have reversed that trend.

 

[Eraserhead]

America's "private based" system is by no means a true, consumer driven free-market system.

Sounds like a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Consumers are not very price conscious of healthcare services, since very few people even understand the pricing scheme of healthcare services.

Which is why government healthcare offers better value for money.

As for Britain, I'm not sure if you've actually lived under such a system, but if you have, then you'll know the perils of a government managed system of long wait times, few options, and lower quality care.

I have (see my location) and it delivers perfectly good results in my experience. It also clearly delivers decent results overall as life expectancy is higher in the UK than in the US.

I actually have private healthcare as a work perk, and I pay about $8/month for it with the employer paying another $40/month. If it was more expensive though, I probably wouldn't bother.

but it certainly isn't going to be cheaper than a true consumer-driven system.

Such as what? Healthcare before World War 2? That delivered worse results than today.

If what were true? The numbers I quoted were accurate...in 2008, deficit was $480b...in 2009, $1.4 trillion...who is responsible for that increase is a key point.

Because the 2009 budget was made under President Bush before Obama was elected. So the vast majority of it has nothing to do with Obama.

As for China, they have had the most successful economy for a while, and it is attributed to the economic freedoms they enjoy,

In part, yes, but their economy is also still pretty heavily planned by the state.

Their economy is strong in-spite of stimulus, not because of it.

Why do you think that?

The Chinese work hard and save.

Even the Greeks work hard. And actually the Chinese are usually criticised for over-investing and not spending enough (source 1, source 2, source 3).

----------

Because D had total control of the House, Senate, and Presidency they unilaterally decided what to do and refused all substantial amendments by any R at all. This is an Obama D deficit.

How is it Obama's deficit when the vast majority of the 2009 budget was decided before he became President? That sounds like the same kind of partisan ******** you are allegedly claiming to be against.

The D theory was that government spending would increase jobs. The opposite has happened. U6 way up, participation way down. Minorities suffering most by far.

Source?

So the results are obvious to all but the most extreme partisans.

Because you aren't partisan? Come on.

If you weren't partisan you'd accept that the 2009 budget was mostly decided before Obama became president.

 

[Rocketman]

If you weren't partisan you'd accept that the 2009 budget was mostly decided before Obama became president.

Correct. Of the about 2.7T Bush budget in 2008-9 (FY09) Obama/Pelosi/Reid added $883B with the stimulus in 3-09 (Bush left office 1-09) to the FY09 budget ending Sep 30 09. Before the stimulus the annual deficit was $480B (Bush), after it was $1363B (Obama). So most of the deficit is Obama. Most of the budget is baseline or what Congress and Bush agreed to the prior period. Since Obama was elected, besides the add-on to Bush's budget Obama has passed NO budget. He is operating on the Bush budget! Thus he has kept the $883B stimulus each and every year by refusing to pass a budget in cooperation with the D Senate. Growth has lowered the absolute annual deficit a bit each year and the Sequester dropped it faster, but it is ONLY down to about $660B. That is the deficit for this year alone FY13 ended 9-30-13. Running deficits sucks capital out of the private sector, since bond buyers would otherwise buy commercial bonds. And muni bonds for infrastructure! Obama kills infrastructure investment then pontificates about it!

Let's be clear. I am arguing for how Democrats can get what they say they want! Jobs and infrastructure and social equity and stable entitlement programs. The chart is from HuffPo.

 

[webbuzz]

Because you aren't partisan? Come on.

If you weren't partisan you'd accept that the 2009 budget was mostly decided before Obama became president.

Are you referring to the FY 2009 Budget Resolution?

Senate vote was 48/45, with only 2 Republicans voting in favor.
House vote was 214/210, with no Republicans voting.

By the way, Senator Obama voted in favor of the resolution.

 

[tasset]

All that government concentration reduced GDP and employment and labor participation and zeroed out savers with the resulting Fed action, further reducing GDP.

Rocketman

http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/12/17/0254235/gms-ceo-rejects-repaying-feds-for-bailout-losses

I won't disagree with facts/figures about the rise in debt over the past few years, but I will add it's a continuation of the trend of the previous 8 years.

I will take issue with the screenshot of federal income tax contribution by wealth levels because that is cherry-picking stats of the highest magnitude. Tell me sir, what percentage of a person's income that, for example earns under $50,000, goes to sales taxes, FICA, medicare, social security, and general day-to-day essential living expenses? I'd say damn close to 100% if not above. Now how about someone who earns $250,000? You see friend, it's pretty hard for the masses to contribute to federal income taxes WHEN THERE IS NOTHING LEFT TO PAY! Either you are tone deaf or cynical.

 

[Eraserhead]

Correct. Of the about 2.7T Bush budget in 2008-9 (FY09) Obama/Pelosi/Reid added $883B with the stimulus in 3-09 (Bush left office 1-09) to the FY09 budget ending Sep 30 09. Before the stimulus the annual deficit was $480B (Bush), after it was $1363B (Obama). So most of the deficit is Obama.

So how come Wikipedia says that the increase of the deficit in FY2009 thanks to the stimulus was only $185 billion?

Most of the budget is baseline or what Congress and Bush agreed to the prior period. Since Obama was elected, besides the add-on to Bush's budget Obama has passed NO budget. He is operating on the Bush budget!

If he's operating on Bushes budget how come he has raised spending? According to the Heritage Foundation continuing resolutions don't generally increase spending, although the FY2013 version did by 0.6% (which is less than inflation)…

Though IMO it is fair enough to blame Obama for not passing a budget though.

Thus he has kept the $883B stimulus each and every year

Source? Because that doesn't really make any sense...

Running deficits sucks capital out of the private sector, since bond buyers would otherwise buy commercial bonds. And muni bonds for infrastructure! Obama kills infrastructure investment then pontificates about it!

So I presume you were massively against deficits under Bush and Reagan etc. etc?

----------

Are you referring to the FY 2009 Budget Resolution?

Senate vote was 48/45, with only 2 Republicans voting in favor.
House vote was 214/210, with no Republicans voting.

By the way, Senator Obama voted in favor of the resolution.

But Bush could have vetoed the bill if he objected...

 

[Rocketman]

I won't disagree with facts/figures about the rise in debt over the past few years, but I will add it's a continuation of the trend of the previous 8 years.

I will take issue with the screenshot of federal income tax contribution by wealth levels because that is cherry-picking stats of the highest magnitude. Tell me sir, what percentage of a person's income that, for example earns under $50,000, goes to sales taxes, FICA, medicare, social security, and general day-to-day essential living expenses? I'd say damn close to 100% if not above. Now how about someone who earns $250,000? You see friend, it's pretty hard for the masses to contribute to federal income taxes WHEN THERE IS NOTHING LEFT TO PAY! Either you are tone deaf or cynical.

Personal attack not deleted. People who earn in the lower 40% of taxpayers actually get reverse taxes on income due to EITC and transfer payments from food stamps, welfare and others. Many expenses are MANDATED by government. About 68% of what I earn is paid to the tax man directly or indirectly by people I buy from. 68%.

I would be extremely easy for the poor to pay taxes if the rate were a flat 15-20%. That's about what it would take to keep the same gross revenue and service levels.

To Eraserhead, reread my prior posts. Your inquiries are answered. Wikipedia? Want me to go there right now and correct it?

 

[webbuzz]

But Bush could have vetoed the bill if he objected...

Obama signed it in March of 2009.

The 110th Congress was a Democratic Majority. Had Bush vetoed it, they could have passed it by a 2/3 vote.

 

[tasset]

Personal attack not deleted. People who earn in the lower 40% of taxpayers actually get reverse taxes on income due to EITC and transfer payments from food stamps, welfare and others. Many expenses are MANDATED by government. About 68% of what I earn is paid to the tax man directly or indirectly by people I buy from. 68%.

I would be extremely easy for the poor to pay taxes if the rate were a flat 15-20%. That's about what it would take to keep the same gross revenue and service levels.

To Eraserhead, reread my prior posts. Your inquiries are answered. Wikipedia? Want me to go there right now and correct it?

68%, my you poor soul that is horrible. You must only have left what I can guess by that amount to be only six figures to live off. Meanwhile you do not dispute my comment that the bottom 60% of the income brackets are churning 100% of their income back into the economy. Or do you suggest that they are accumulating wealth in fat bank accounts? But go on, keep using your disdain to piss on the fire that is the true driver of this consumer economy of ours.

If we can agree on anything it's probably that is a sad state of the reality of the middle class that does not seem to have a positive outlook going forward.

 

[Rocketman]

68%, my you poor soul that is horrible. You must only have left what I can guess by that amount to be only six figures to live off. Meanwhile you do not dispute my comment that the bottom 60% of the income brackets are churning 100% of their income back into the economy. Or do you suggest that they are accumulating wealth in fat bank accounts? But go on, keep using your disdain to piss on the fire that is the true driver of this consumer economy of ours.

If we can agree on anything it's probably that is a sad state of the reality of the middle class that does not seem to have a positive outlook going forward.

How much of my 100% am I entitled to? Not 32%. 5%? 1%? 0%?

Consider this. If the government simply repopulated the trust funds for social security and medicare, and reimbursed the lost interest while they stole it, we would be able to reduce income tax rates to zero. That's right we would not need an income tax at all. Then as people die and the funds survive them, at some point we could pull an Alaska and pay citizens to live here! I say let's pay the poor first.

Rocketman

cite tax layers:
https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/18500278/

 

[Eraserhead]

Obama signed it in March of 2009.

The 110th Congress was a Democratic Majority. Had Bush vetoed it, it could have been passed by a 2/3 vote.

Obama passed the stimulus is March 2009. The FY2009 budget was passed earlier than that. And the Democrats didn't have a 2/3 majority (or anything close) before the 2008 election when that budget was passed.

----------

To Eraserhead, reread my prior posts. Your inquiries are answered. Wikipedia? Want me to go there right now and correct it?

I have read your posts and they only point to a single source (for a different point) which is ironically Wikipedia.

So you haven't backed up any of your claims about the stimulus with evidence.

 

[webbuzz]

Obama passed the stimulus is March 2009. The FY2009 budget was passed earlier than that. And the Democrats didn't have a 2/3 majority (or anything close) before the 2008 election when that budget was passed.

The budget was passed on June 5th 2008, with only 2 Republican votes in the Senate, and ZERO in the House. Bush refused to sign it. Obama signed it into law in 2009.

 

[Eraserhead]

The budget was passed on June 5th 2008, with only 2 Republican votes in the Senate, and ZERO in the House. Bush refused to sign it. Obama signed it into law in 2009.

If so how come the CATO institute thinks Bush should be blamed?

 

[webbuzz]

If so how come the CATO institute thinks Bush should be blamed?

Bush did not sign the budget.

 

[Eraserhead]

Bush did not sign the budget.

But he did sign a lot of spending into place. Neutral sources like Politifact back that up.