Big Ol' Smitty

I wanted to add that there are good people on both sides. For every Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity there is a George Will. For every Al Franken or Paul Begala there is a Mark Shields. Not every liberal is a pot-smoking hippie. Not every conservative is a redneck with an American flag sticker on his truck.

If they're saying things like that then they're not thoughtful in their views. If you carefully consider your political views and look at both sides of the coin and decide, then you have every right to hold that view. You shouldn't get your political views from anyone who calls the other side "evil."

I am going to vote for Kerry. I live in a red state--Kentucky--though so it doesn't really matter. We might get to vote the senile senator Jim Bunning out of office though, so that'll be cool.

Inequality in education between social classes is massive here.

"The "absolute poverty line" is the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living; having insufficient income to provide the food, shelter and clothing needed to preserve health." Source: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Poverty_i...e_United_States

This probably wasn't what you were looking for, but I've found several articles that indicate a correlation between inequality and high mortality rates and other social problems. I know that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. However, George Kaplan, the lead researcher of the Berkeley (4th on the list) study suggests that "income inequality affects all segments of the population because it affects rates of violence and disability, as well as public spending on police protection, education, welfare and health care." Articles: George Davey Smith and others, "Socioeconomic Differentials in Mortality Risk among Men Screened for the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial: I. White Men," American Journal of Public Health Vol. 86, No. 4 (April, 1996), pp. 486-496 George Davey Smith and others, "Socioeconomic Differentials in Mortality Risk among Men Screened for the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial: II. Black Men," American Journal of Public Health Vol. 86, No. 4 (April, 1996), pp. 497-504 Robert Pear, "Big Health Gap, Tied to Income, Is Found in U.S." The New York Times, July 8, 1993, pp. A1. George A. Kaplan and others, "Inequality in income and mortality in the United States: analysis of mortality and potential pathways," British Medical Journal Vol. 312 (April 20, 1996), pp. 999-1003. Bruce P. Kennedy and others, "Income distribution and mortality: cross sectional ecological study of the Robin Hood index in the United States," British Medical Journal Vol. 312 (April 20, 1996), pp. 1004-1007. Alison Bass, "Income inequality, mortality linked; Gap found to hurt wide segment in US," The Boston Globe, April 19, 1996, Friday, City Edition, p. 14.

I didn't recommend any solution.

The poverty rate dropped considerably after the institution of the Great Society. When Reagan cut benefits the rate stopped dropping. I am aware, however, that other factors can affect poverty besides the institution of government programs. All I'm trying to say is that history has not really proven that humanity always finds solutions to problems--as you had asserted. If production/growth was kept at a sustainable level, then perhaps a lot of needless suffering could be avoided. Always? That's a bold statement. Yeah. I don't really see what you're getting at here though. Thanks a lot. Do you normally talk to people this rudely? According to whom? There are likely a great number of different projections. And I guess you mean world population? Yes, I realize this--but what are you getting at? Please don't tell me what to do. In return, I won't tell you what to do, I promise. So you're suggesting we should base our notions of poverty on 3rd world poverty? Poverty in the 3rd world doesn't make poor living conditions here okay. I'm not saying that I believe everything I say or that you guys are wrong. I just think that answers to global problems aren't as easy as some people think they are. Some people think they have it all figured out and, more than likely, they probably don't. It'd be difficult to suggest that it was the best economy just because the poverty rate was the lowest, but I guess you could make that assertion. I was just trying to make MikeSC question his claim that the Great Society was useless. During the Nixon administration, the programs were still in full effect--Reagan hadn't cut them yet.

The whole "necessity is the mother of invention" contention doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Europeans in the 14th century probably would have liked to have some of the medicines that we have now. The argument suggests that suffering is good because is stimulates technological development. And lots of times we haven't found a way to stop such suffering. What about population growth increases technological development? Most evidence suggests that rapid population growth decreases standards of living. So while the population grows rapidly, lots of people suffer needlessly. With sustainable growth, such suffering wouldn't have to happen.

Here's an expanded table that shows poverty rate: Poverty Rate (7) 1959 22.4% 1960 22.2 < recession year 1961 21.9 1962 21.0 1963 19.5 1964 19.0 < Johnson’s Great Society begins 1965 17.3 1966 14.7 1967 14.2 1968 12.8 1969 12.1 1970 12.6 < recession year 1971 12.5 1972 11.9 1973 11.1 1974 11.2 < recession year 1975 12.3 < recession year 1976 11.8 < individual benefits level off, decline 1977 11.6 1978 11.4 1979 11.7 1980 13.0 < recession year 1981 14.0 < Reagan-era cuts in individual benefits 1982 15.0 < recession year 1983 15.2 1984 14.4 1985 14.0 1986 13.6 1987 13.4 1988 13.0 1989 12.8 1990 13.5 < recession year 1991 14.2 < recession year 1992 14.8 1993 15.1 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P-60 series.

Don't know if this has already been discussed but the Union of Concerned Scientists has over 5,000 signatories condemning the Bush administration's attitudes toward science and the scientific community. source: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/r...cfm?pageID=1320 Also, several nobel laureate economists have endorsed Kerry. source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0825-06.htm 186 former ambassadors have endorsed Kerry. source: smh.com.au And "148 Military Brass and Veteran Luminaries Endorse John Kerry for Commander-in-Chief; Kerry-Edwards Campaign Announces Veterans National Steering Committee" as Kerry so repetitively reminded us in one of the debates. Source: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/9/prweb161396.htm

I'm just trying to understand things better. You don't have to insult me. At least I'm trying. Simply being an economist doesn't make you right. How is it the most cost-efficient when we spend the most money but don't have the healthiest population? Don't get angry just because someone questions assumptions.

Good point. It sure as heck didn't decrease under Reagan, though. And it didn't return to Great Society "pre-cut" levels.

Shouldn't the success of a health car system be based on public health?

Yeah that would be a great system, woudn't it?

Percent of children below the poverty level 1970 14.9% 1975 16.8 1980 19.5 1985 20.1 1990 19.9 1992 21.1 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P60-185. When Reagan starting scaling back the programs look what happened.

If people can't afford them it doesn't matter if they're the best. Also, what about primary care? See Highland's post. Other countries have immigrants, too. And the population is so varied because of social inequalities and economic disparity--symptoms of the type of thinking that has caused the health care situation to become what it has. Why are you trying to explain away these bad health indicators? Can't we just acknowledge that it's bad and something needs to be done about it?

The risks aren't even known. They're manipulating the genes of these organisms. What makes you so confident that they'll turn out to be safe? Overgrazing is simply when there are too many animals and not enough pasture. This is largely responsible for desertification. In other words--too much demand for production, not enough resources. I'll find some other examples of threatened resources when I have time later. Drawing lessons from history doesn't always work. Times change. And population increases exponentially, not arithmetically--a J-curve. We're just now starting to get on the "stick" of the J so prior experience really isn't all that relevant. Technology to expand food production would have to also expand exponentially to coincide with this growth.

The economy actually grew under several of FDR's years in office. Hoover's very conservative economic policy did nothing to alleviate the depression (or the subsequent suffering, for that matter). The first countries to emerge from the depression were those that adopted Keynesian spending: Sweden, Germany, and Britain. Also, since Keynesian economics has been incorporated in the post-depression era we have yet to see a similar depression. There had been multiple depressions in the prior era of laissez-faire Smith economics.

Maybe they come here and go to the same doctors that American rich people go to. Just because rich people have access to good health care does that mean the system as a whole is better? Also, how would you respond to the lower infant mortality rates and higher life expectancies in countries with "crappier" health care systems?

This is what Bush said but from what I've read and seen on TV the main reason that they stopped making it was because it just wasn't profitable--market failure. You have a good that society recognizes as valuable but that the market doesn't. Seems like a case when the government should intervene in the interest of public health.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/.../index_np1.html some key quotes for those who don't feel like reading the whole thing: -"Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation reports that in 2003 "government spending exceeded $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II." There are few programs at which the president has not thrown money; he has supported massive farm subsidies, an expensive new Medicare drug benefit, thousands of pork barrel projects, dubious homeland security grants, an expansion of Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps, and new foreign aid programs. What's more, says former conservative Republican Rep. Bob Barr, "in the midst of the war on terror and $500 billion deficits, [bush] proposes sending spaceships to Mars." -"Moreover, whatever the personal preferences of a President Kerry, he could spend only whatever legislators allowed, so assuming that the GOP maintains its control over Congress, outlays almost certainly would rise less than if Bush won reelection. History convincingly demonstrates that divided government delivers less spending than unitary control. Give either party complete control of government and the treasury vaults quickly empty. Share power between the parties and, out of principle or malice, they check each other. The American Conservative Union's Don Devine says bluntly: "A rational conservative would calculate a vote for Kerry as likely to do less damage" fiscally. " -"A few conservatives are distressed at what Bush has wrought in Iraq. "Crossfire" host Tucker Carlson said recently: "I think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in supporting it." William F. Buckley Jr., longtime National Review editor and columnist, wrote: "With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war." -"Those who still believe in Bush have tried to play up comparisons with Ronald Reagan, but I knew Reagan and he was no George W. Bush. It's not just that Reagan read widely, thought deeply about issues and wrote prolifically. He really believed in the primacy of individual liberty and of limited, constitutional government. " -"Government should never try to control or dominate the lives of our citizens," Bush says. But you wouldn't know that from his policies. He has expanded government power, increased federal spending, initiated an unnecessary war, engaged in global social engineering and undercut executive accountability. This is a bill of particulars that could be laid on Lyndon Johnson's grave. No wonder "Republicans aren't very enthusiastic about" Bush, says right-wing syndicated columnist Robert Novak. " -"Serious conservatives should deny their votes to Bush. "When it comes to choosing a president, results matter," the president says. So true. A Kerry victory would likely be bad for the cause of individual liberty and limited government. But based on the results of his presidency, a Bush victory would be catastrophic. Conservatives should choose principle over power. "

I was mistaken about the studies--my bad. But the scientific community is unsure about the risks of GMOs and not many studies have been done on their health effects. From what I understand, though, researchers definitely think there are risks because of genetic factors that I don't understand. I eat GMOs. I wish I could afford organic stuff, though. I hope the fears of the researchers turn out to be unfounded. I hope you're right. Lots of species of fish are threatened. Desertification and overgrazing are destroying arable lands. Those are two off the top of my head--I'm sure I can find others if you'd like. Again, I hope you're right. Seems like an article of faith rather than reason to me.

40 years isn't very long. And we are running out of some resources as I previously mentioned. I think lots of studies have shown that there are negative health effects from genetically modified foods. I think a sustainable economy just makes more sense. Do you really want to rely on technology to feed an exponentially increasing population? What the fuck are we gonna be eating when the population hits 20 billion? According to whom? I think many scientists would suggest otherwise.

I'd like to see an unbiased study that shows your previous assertion about tax revenues increasing after tax cuts to be correct.