Sarah Palin – President Not Serious About Fixing Economy

But Mata, think of all the union jobs we save by replacing engines instead of trying to troubleshoot the problems on a piecemeal basis. Replacing engines is just another way of spreading the wealth around. Of course, there will have to be provisions for ensuring that some people (friends of the administration) won’t really have to have their engines replaced ALL the time, because that would be too expensive for the privileged few. The rest of us will have to have our engines replaced or else pay a hefty fine if we try to let the local mechanic troubleshoot our cars (or, God forbid, try to fix our cars ourselves or just live with the annoying rattles, etc.)

The analogy possibilities are endless!

Jeff

Larry, I will only add that you’ve hit upon the real problem:
You wrote, ”….one thing is certain….”

Yup, that’s the biggest problem of all of Obama’s supposed attempts at solutions.

There is NO CERTAINTY.

If there is one thing that businesses thrive on it is CERTAINTY.

Knowing a tax rate will remain the same for the next year or so; knowing health insurance premiums will be ~ the same over the long haul, knowing this, knowing that…..

That’s what’s missing from ALL of Obama’s attempts.
He is not business friendly nor business savvy enough to give them what they NEED to get moving again.

Larry, again I must call you delusional. Obama is a flaming socialist. That is not even debatable any longer. Only those obama-drones suffering from pathological denial of reality like yourself say he isn’t a socialist.

I knew some moonbat would make the claim that because obama has not been fully successful at his socialist efforts that he isn’t a socialist. You want to play word games. Just because he hasn’t made an across the board push no matter what, you want to pretend he isn’t what we know he is-socialist.
BTW, I know the definition of socialism better than you, obviously. You see, nationalization of industry is but one facet of socialism. You undertsand it that far, and think you’re clever to mention it. Problem is, you have to ignore all the other parts of socialism that prove your theory wrong. I expect that from you.
Gaffe, you are in the same class as b-rob, rich w, and john ryan. The zero credibility class. You are a leftist and incapable of facing reality. This is all the time I will waste on you since you aren’t capable of understanding.

@Hard Right

BTW, I know the definition of socialism better than you, obviously. You see, nationalization of industry is but one facet of socialism. You undertsand it that far, and think you’re clever to mention it. Problem is, you have to ignore all the other parts of socialism that prove your theory wrong. I expect that from you.

Ok tell us what are the other facets as implemented by Obama which fit the definition of socialism. Hmmm?

@JVernie

Sometimes, it’s just easier to say we don’t want socialism. We want free markets and minimum government bureaucracy.

Out of interest – did the size of Government and spending go up or down under Reagan?
Also if Bush was for free markets why did he put high tariffs on foreign steel? http://www.atimes.com/global-econ/DC08Dj01.html

Amusing how politicans (right and left) say one thing and do another.

And I think most liberals understand that this is what we mean, but it’s just too tempting for them to belittle us for misuse of the term.

So rather than misuse the term – which is a diversionary scare tactic in itself – why don’t the right simply not use the term?

@Mata

So does that make Dubya a socialist too – because Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were effectively nationalized? Or how about when he nationalized airport security and created the TSA? And under Reagan there was the government owned Resolution Trust Corporation, under Ford – there was Conrail, under Nixon there was Amtrak. Does that make them all socialists too? 😆

@guffa: With regard to US versus British longevity. The UK has a healthier lifestyle: more exercise; less obesity. The UK also has universal health care. So, up to age 65, you Brits have less mortality.

But what happens AFTER age 65 (when Americans also have universal health care)? Surprise, we outlive you, despite our greater obesity and less exercise.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/04/news/la-heb-death-rates-20101104

Why is this? Our health care system is BETTER than yours! British cancer mortality rates (life expectancy AFTER cancer diagnosis) are, by comparison, dreadful, for example. The problem with the US health care system is access.

In the USA, we lost 3,000 people in a one off terrorist attack, which was fixed not by fighting what will end up being a $3 trillion dollar war in Iraq, but by locking the cockpit doors on airliners. But we lose 45,000 people a year, because they don’t have health insurance. But after age 65, things are different. All Americans now have access to the best medicine in the world, and the results speak for themselves.

And here’s the kicker: The great health care system which takes care of over age 65 Americans costs less than the private health insurance system which is in effect for those under age 65 and delivers greater consumer satisfaction. Were it not for Medicare, how would the elderly get healthcare? Working people would pay less in taxes but more in insurance premiums for their aging parents.

I don’t have the energy to get into Mata’s misleading and simplistic analysis of ObamaCare. But I can’t resist taking the golden opportunity she’s offered relating to Obama’s policies being “Socialistic.”

Over and over, on this blog, I have asked for the top three positions of Obama’s Presidency which are “socialistic.” I have received no answers. Mata now does offer up the following examples:

What’s with the “successful” companies forced into nationalism bit, Gaffa? Is it any less socialist to force UNsuccessful companies (i.e. GM/Chrysler) into nationalism? How about nationalizing student loans which, prior to this, had been handled in the majority by private lenders?

So we – FINALLY! – have two examples: (1) The GM/Chrysler bailouts. (2) “Nationalizing” student loans.

First, the bailouts. These were the idea of Dick Cheney, who told George Bush that, were Bush to let the auto companies go under on his watch, he’d forever be remembered as a 21st Century Herbert Hoover. You (Mata) pegged the GM/Chrysler support given by Bush to be $17 billion. The taxpayers will never see a nickle of this back. Obama came in, examined the problem, and made the decision to rescue the US auto industry, for a lot of reasons, including the fact that GM is a vital defense contractor. Just as an aside, the space station is getting a new robot, which will greatly diminish the need for astronaut EVAs. This is GM technology But I digress.

Rather than just GIVING the money to GM, Obama INVESTED the money. Temporarily, the USA became the majority stakeholder in GM. As majority stakeholder, we got to call some of the shots. The most important decision was to sack the CEO and replace him. The result is that GM got its act together. The US government is in the process of divesting and, at this point, prospects for a return of the taxpayer’s money spent on GM by Obama look to be very good, although, again, the $17 billion Bush gift is probably gone for good. So who was the better steward of the taxpayers’ money?

With regard to “nationalizing” student loans, this is a very misleading statement. It’s not like the banks were lending their own money to the students. Rather, the banks were lending the taxpayer’s money, and collecting a cut of the action. A team of analysts determined that administration of this loan program was sufficiently straight forward and simple that it didn’t require middlemen. So the middlemen were cut out; the government directly lends money to the students and the students directly repay the money to the government.

Now, maybe you consider the federal student loan program to be “socialistic.” But this wasn’t Obama’s program. I have no idea when this program got started, but I borrowed federal money to go to medical school and my kids borrowed federal money to go to college and postgraduate school and, hopefully, all of us will have not only paid back the loans but provided a good return on the investment of the taxpayers into our respective life’s work. If it’s a socialistic program, it’s a program which has done a whole lot of good.

But what, again, did Obama do? He just decided that the program was supposed to be a loan program to students and not a government make-work program for the bankers who were the former middlemen. This saved money, allowing more of it to go to the students, for which the program was intended.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Mata —

The reason it is cheaper for the federal government to do the federal student loan program than to pay the private sector to do it should be obvious. (1) there is no advertising/marketing kinda costs for federal government the way there is for the private sector; (2) the federal employees are not led by a cadre of $400,000 to $1.5 million “officers” whose salaries flow through as administrative costs that have to be bourne in the price charged; and (3) federal employees can be multi-tasked to do other jobs, such as processing student loans AND processing small business loans; no so for stand alone student loan companies . . . which is how they were structured.

Contrary to what cons always claim, privatization is no panacea. I know . . . because I have worked with school boards who were considering privatization of non-teaching functions. Indeed, in Ohio we saw the downside of privatization when the military tried to privatize certain military financial functions, including payroll for soldiers. The only way the private sector folks “won” the competition initially was when the “judges” assigned a higher overhead figure to the federal employees than they actually incurred. When you assign the ACTUAL OBSERVED overhead costs (for the GSA managed buildings, for heat, power, administration, etc.) the federal employees won. And why was the privatization even in question? Because unlike the Social Security Administration, the private sector had a consistent pattern of f-ing up military payrolls — not paying people, paying the wrong amounts, etc.

@aye: In Mata’s reply to me, which you referenced, she wrote that she thought I’d write a rejoinder, but that she wouldn’t be around for awhile, to respond, in kind. Out of courtesy, I waited until she returned, which she just did.

Very well.

Since no one has ever offered anything beyond what Mata wrote, I’ll take Mata’s response as being the official Flopping Aces brief against Obama as a socialist/Marxist.

Socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

Marxism

System of economic, social, and political philosophy based on the idea that class struggle is the “”””motor of history,”””” and that the outdated class structures will be overthrown with force (revolution) instead of being replaced through patient modification. It explains that as the capitalism has succeeded the feudalism, it too will be removed by a dictatorship of the workers (proletariat) called socialism, followed quickly and inevitably by a classless society which governs itself without a governing class or structure.

Here’s Mata’s case for Obama having pursued socialist/Marxist policies during his Presidency:

INRE your challenge of Obama’s evidence of socialism and Marxist tendencies, I’m happy to comply. I’ll toss the likely candidates out there, but not apt to be around for the next week much to follow up.

1: Naturally, we will start with your favorite and most contentious subject, healthcare. First, there is no doubt that Obama’s quest is for single payer healthcare, but realizes it will take perhaps a decade to get there…. because he said so.

Yes, Obama would like Medicare for all and so would I. But Medicare is not “socialized” medicine. It is single payer medicine. Socialized medicine is the UK system, where the government owns the hospitals and clinics and the government pays the doctors a salary. By your definition of socialized medicine, we have a “socialized” national defense industry, because we also have a single payer (the US government). The federal highway system is “socialized,” because the government picks up the tab for the Interstates. This was a program started by Eisenhower, by the way. Certain things work better and more efficiently when there is a single payer. At a time when health care is beginning to bankrupt the nation, we need the health care system to work better and more efficiently.

But, regardless of what may be in Obama’s heart of hearts, Obamacare was originally proposed by GOP Senators Grassley and Dole in 1993 and was put into place by the GOP’s Romney in Massachussetts several years ago. Obamacare is built on the exact same principles and whether it goes further, in ten years time, will be something for the voters to determine, at that time, because Obama will be long gone.

Conclusion: Obamacare is not “socialized” medicine and it is certainly not Marxism!

Mata anticipates this argument, and goes on to state:

Secondly, since I know you’ll go to battle about single payer being socialist/marxist in construction, I went over this with Rich Wheeler back in Feb 2010. And to demonstrate, I used the description of single payer Physicians for a National Health Plan.

Single-payer is a term used to describe a type of financing system. It refers to one entity acting as administrator, or “payer”. In the case of health care, a single-payer system would be setup such that one entity – a government run organization – would collect all health care fees, and pay out all health care costs.

Single payer… Obama’s desired and undoubted socialist/marxist quest… had step one put in place with O’healthcare, just as he planned.

To repeat, there is nothing in Obamacare which in anyway resembles true socialist (i.e. UK-style) health care. And … Marxist (!?) … in who’s universe?

Mata continues:

2: GM bailout/government takeover. I know you didn’t support the bailouts anymore than I did, Larry, but Obama and his czars took it several steps further than Bush’s $13 bil of TARP to them at the end of 2008 when they… as government and now owners… fired and replaced a CEO, and turned bankruptcy laws upside down when they screwed the bondholders and moved unions/pensions into first place for ownership and payback. This was done using coercive and thug WH tactics. This was necessary as you can’t usurp existing law without written contractual agreement by both parties. So the power of the office was applied to accomplish that. Additionally, they (i.e. Obama/government) assumed the unfunded pension debt on the backs of the nation’s taxpayers for GM.

I discussed the GM bailout in #26. You obviously haven’t had any experience with a corporation teetering on financial insolvency. I have. In my case, there was no option for a government bailout. We had to work with the private sector (venture capitalists and other investors). Their terms were basically take it or leave it. Fire your CEO; take your marching orders from the CEO we hire for you. Cheerfully accept that your financial position in the company has been gutted. Or else don’t accept it and just die. “Screwed the bondholders??” Absent the bailout, the bondholders would have had nothing at all. Nor any of the shareholders.

There was never any intention to assume permanent ownership of GM. Bottom line, they saved an iconic American corporation. They saved 1.5 million jobs. They saved an important defense contractor. And the US taxpayers have a great chance of recapturing most or all of their temporary investment.

This isn’t socialism and it sure isn’t Marxism.

Mata then goes on to argue otherwise:

Now Billy Bob attempted to argue that Obama’s seizure of GM was quite Constitutional under the “general welfare” phrasing. Problem is, Billy Bob’s interpretation goes far wider than SCOTUS defines as national “welfare”, while seizing ownership of an auto industry is inarguably local welfare, and not applicable to the nation at large… save by a very broad interpretation. (i.e. when unemployment for auto workers goes up, the nation at large suffers…). To embark on that path as the guiding rule of thumb, there are few businesses and industries the feds couldn’t justify seizing for “general welfare”.

Seizing businesses and/or industries “for the general welfare” is at the heart of socialist/marxist beliefs. Only the future will reveal what this GM seizing has wrought in the terms of future seizures.

No. The government didn’t “seize” GM! What a bunch of malarky. GM’s management and shareholders had the option of not taking any government money. Ford didn’t take any money. Ford, therefore, wasn’t “seized.” The use of the word “seized,” in this context, is a distorted use of the English language.

Mata:

3: Burdening the entire nation with public debt via ARRA/stimulus to pay for local government payrolls. According to a New York Post article, that was $220 billion, or approx 1/3 of the entire stimulus allocated. And not all states received, or needed, help meeting their payrolls. Instead of forcing the states to embark on overdue austerity measures, and cut their spending for wasteful welfare programs, the nation bailed out overspending states like California.
Why is the nation at large paying the payroll for local governments, Larry? Again, this is extremely socialist/marxist in nature.

The nation bailed out all of the states. California for years has sent much more to Washington than it’s received in return, unlike, for example, such well managed capitalist states, such as Wyoming and Alaska (#1 and #2 on the Federal dole). It’s not “socialist” to pay public employees like law enforcement and teachers and prison guards. Is the police department or sheriffs department a “socialist” enterprise? Are public schools “socialized?” If so, then all states are socialist states. All cities. The vast majority of Republicans support public schools and public ownership of law enforcement agencies.

How about the US government borrowing money to finance tax cuts? How is that less “socialist/Marxist” than borrowing money to finance fiscal shortfalls for state and local governments, to pay for legitimate government programs which are supported by probably 90% of the entire electorate?

Mata:

4: Obama’s feds have repeatedly infringed on States’ 10th Amendment rights… both in healthcare/mandates and in AZ’s immigration. Obama had only been in office five weeks when 11 states introduced resolutions, re’asserting their sovereign states rights to remind him that “…his reckless government expansion” and “…that federal laws and regulations implemented in violation of the 10th Amendment can be nullified by the states.” Since then, the list of states signing on to battle O’healthcare mandates, and immigration laws, has grown.
Again, exerting unConstitutional federal central governing authority over the states is another mark of a socialist/marxist’s concept of power.

The blueprint for the mandates came from GOP Senators Grassley and Dole. The model was put into place by the GOP’s Romney.

“Arizona’s immigration?” Border security and immigration policy is and has to be a federal responsibility. You like the AZ immigration policy, because it seems to be more strict than the federal policy. What if the State of Maine or Michigan or Washington or California decided that they wouldn’t require passports for passengers landing in their airports, ports, or crossing international borders? It’s not “socialist” for a Federal government to assert that it has the authority to make laws regarding requirements for foreign nationals.

Mata:

5: Then there is his early on stated desire to convert the nation’s preferred stocks to common stocks. This, of course, puts control of all of the currently publicly traded major banks and financial institutions in the feds hands, and whips it out of the hands of individual shareholders. Socialist/marxist much?

The above is poppycock. Mata is referring to a brilliant move by Geithner. Had the US government retained a passive equity position (i.e. preferred stock position, as opposed to common), none of the banks would have returned any of the money. It’s precisely because of the (entirely legal) threat to convert preferred to common that they all rushed to repay the taxpayers. There was NEVER any intent to nationalize banks, and Mata knows this very well. It’s simply good stewardship of public funds, as in the case of the GM “investment.”

6: Part of the reconciliation O’healthcare passage was the seizure of student loans, and directing them thru the government. Prior to the passage, only about 30% of fed guarantee student loans went thru Sallie Mae, and private lenders had the balance. This, of course, will severely slash the private sector, if not totally eliminate it. Obama had been advocating this from the start, and slid it thru O’healthcare to get it thru.

I think that only 20% of all student loans were entirely private, previously. The rest were all government guaranteed. The burden of college and professional school tuition is crushing, as it is. It’s a huge national problem. It’s in the national interest to solve this problem. The government can reduce educational costs to the students by subsidizing their educations or they can reduce the cost of borrowing. If private lending institutions can make money available to the students at lower rates than can the government, then they can and should do it. I think that they’ll always be some market for private lending, as the government loans have a lot of limits, regarding parental income, etc. But we are falling behind in education and it’s more important to allow our kids to get educated than to avoid stepping on the toes of private lenders.

That figure was actually 20%, according to a Sept 2009 WSJ article. The money started drying up after the Pelosi/Reid majority Congress 2007 legislated a return so low that no private lenders could no longer stay afloat, holding these assets. To keep the money flowing to student borrowers, the government began buying the loans from private in 2008. But this federal intervention was intended to be temporary, with an expiration date this past summer.
Well, O’healthcare fixed that, and make the feds a permanent, and likely to end up, being the only student loan lender…. with the taxpayers as the bank, of course.

I’ll give you (Mata) partial credit for this last one. It’s the government competing with the private sector in student loans. But the private sector is supposed to be so much more efficient, right? In this case, the private sector won’t make most of these loans without a government guarantee. So it’s not really private enterprise, is it? We aren’t, therefore, talking about a government “takeover.” It’s more an adjustment of a previously existing public/private partnership, necessitated by a true crisis in education and international competitiveness.

Mata:

7: The housing tax credits x 2, and the sundry HAFA type programs. Why is the nation’s taxpayer subsidizing the purchase of homes by individuals? And the HAFA “bailouts”, which was an abject failure, BTW, was another way that the taxpayers were subsidizing what was tantamount to irresponsible borrowers, punishing those that were responsible.
Socialist/marxist much?

Oh good grief. Gerald Ford signed into law a similar (in concept and magnitude) housing tax credit in 1975. I bought my first house in 1975, helped out by this tax credit. No one ever called Gerald Ford a socialist, much less a Marxist.

Let’s get rid of all the tax credits in the tax code, shall we? Want to go through the list of corporate tax credits?

P.S. (11:07 AM PST): I just noted that I didn’t respond to your comment about taxpayers subsidizing irresponsible borrowers. As you doubtless know, virtually NONE (1% or less) of the mortgage defaults (by dollars) were for the community reinvestment act borrowers. Of the remainder, the majority were people who would have qualified for conventional, fixed, lower rate mortgages, only they were steered into higher rate subprimes by a national army of mortgage brokers, working on commission. Even at that, the majority of defaults are not people who can’t afford to make payments, but are “strategic defaults,” by individuals who don’t see the sense in continuing to make payments on property which has fallen in value to much less than they paid for it. I personally think that this is immoral, but large, respected business corporations do this also. They take out loans to buy large commercial buildings, including skyscrapers and shopping centers and, when real estate values plummeted, they just walked away, rather than making payments on a bad investment. Now, the HAFA “bailouts” couldn’t succeed when a large part of the problem was people who didn’t want to be bailed out (the strategic defaulters) and where another part of the problem was lenders who found it financially more advantageous to foreclose than to modify loans.

http://www.stlouisrefinancinggroup.com/st-louis-mortgage-news/st-louis-home-loan-report-says-foreclosures-more-profitable-than-loan-modifications

So, while, yes, this was one particular program which has not succeeded, neither was it any more “socialistic” than the original TARP program initiated by Bush and Paulson.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Mata —

Must you ALWAYS be so obtuse? I called Alaska “small” because it IS SMALL — in population. That’s why it only has the bare minimum number of representatives in Congress (three). Alaska has about a third the population of Brooklyn, New York. It has fewer people than the eastern half of my county, and fewer residents than my state capital, Columbus. Rhode Island, a state smaller than my county, has almost 50% more residents than Alaska. It is rinky dink small.

Surely you do not quibble that it is federally dependent, do you? The feds provide huge transfers to that state, for the Native population, for roads, for bridges to no where . . . . I saw a stat (which haven’t confirmed yet) that a third of Alaska’s population is employed by the federal government. I would hate to see what percentage is on welfare.

And I notice you still have not given a link showing how “productive” the state is. That’s ok. I know you pulled it out your colon.

aye —

You trotted out the same excuse for poor infant mortality numbers that all cons trot out.
But a simple question: can you show me ANY DATA, restated however you want, that would show our infant mortality as really LOWER than Canada or Great Britain or France? No, you can’t. Why? Because they have cradle to grave health care for everyone. A poor girl in Canada or Britain or France who thinks she is pregnant simply goes to the doctor. In the states, if she is from a working poor family, she has a serious problem. In addition, for many health insurance policies here (probably the vast majority), the pregnant teen would be covered under her parents policy, but her baby, when born, would not be. Think about THAT for a bit.

You can always quibble with how Zimbabwe defines mortality or live births, but the bottom line is . . . our numbers suck. You see nothing wrong with this, or with our lower life expectancy; I do. For you, having the best health care system in the world (and we don’t) is not important; for me, it would be a priority. You like things the way they are — whether with our second rate public education system, or our misconstructed health care system. Hell, I bet you even oppose the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report, don’t you?

That is where you and I simply differ — I think this country can and should be the best in EVERYTHING. You are content to be mediocre. Luckily, I think more people think like me than think like you. They are troubled that our schools suck and our health care system is hydebound and they are looking for change, not the same old same old.

Whoops!

G-20 Refuses to Back U.S. Push on China’s Currency

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/12/g-refuses-push-chinas-currency/

SEOUL, South Korea — Leaders of 20 major economies on Friday refused to endorse a U.S. push to get China to let its currency rise, keeping alive a dispute that has raised the specter of a global trade war.

At the end of their two-day summit, the leaders of the Group of 20 rich and developing economies — including President Barack Obama and China’s Hu Jintao — issued a watered-down statement that only said they agreed to refrain from “competitive devaluation” of currencies.

Such a statement is of little consequence since countries usually only devalue their currencies in extreme situations like a severe financial crisis.

The real dispute is over Washington’s allegations that Beijing resorts to “competitive undervaluation” — artificially keeping its currency, the yuan, weak to gain a trade advantage. But the U.S. position itself has been undermined by its own recent policy of printing
money to boost a sluggish economy, which is weakening the dollar.

The joint statement avoided the words “competitive undervaluation,” which was a reference to China’s currency policy that had been inserted into a draft of the statement by officials during pre-summit negotiations.

The dispute over whether China and the United States are manipulating their currencies is threatening to resurrect destructive protectionist policies like those that worsened the Great Depression in the 1930s.

The biggest fear is that trade barriers will send the global economy back into recession. A law the United States passed in 1930 that raised tariffs on imports is widely thought to have deepened the Great Depression by stifling trade.

The G-20 leaders pledged to move toward more market-determined exchange rate systems and enhance exchange rate flexibility. Although directed against China, the statement leaves significant room for interpretation since the language is vague and does not impose any timeframe for enforcing a market-determined exchange rate.

The U.S. says a higher-valued yuan would make Chinese exports costlier abroad and make U.S. imports cheaper for the Chinese to buy. It would shrink the U.S. trade deficit with China, which is on track this year to match its 2008 record of $268 billion, and encourage Chinese companies to sell more to their own consumers rather than rely so much on the U.S. and others to buy low-priced Chinese goods.

Other countries are irate over the Federal Reserve’s plans to pump $600 billion into the sluggish American economy. They see that move as a reckless and selfish scheme to flood markets with dollars, driving down the value of the U.S. currency and giving American exporters an advantage.

Some critics warn that U.S. interest rates kept too low for too long could inflate new bubbles in the prices of commodities, stocks and other assets. Developing countries like Thailand and Indonesia fear that falling yields on U.S. government bonds will send money flooding their way in search of higher returns. Such emerging markets could be left vulnerable to a crash if investors later decide to pull out and move their money elsewhere.

Friday’s statement is unlikely to immediately resolve the most vexing problem facing the G-20 members: how to fix a global economy that’s long been nourished by huge U.S. trade deficits with China, Germany and Japan.

Exports to the United States powered those countries’ economies for years. But they’ve also produced enormous trade gaps for the U.S. because Americans consume far more in foreign goods and services than they sell abroad.

Is this a message that the Economic Illiterates in the Current Regime heard above their Own Talking Points? Nope. The Recession/Depression continues unabated.

Aye is absolutely correct about the infant mortality statistics. Here’s how I explained it in a 2002 debate on a Usenet international discussion board. (rec.sport.swimming was supposed to be about swimming, but it often drifted to an international gang tackle of me defending US politics. My role was defending the US system against the gang tackles by Brits, Frenchies, Aussies, Canadians, and others. Just the opposite of here on F/A; which shows that one person’s liberal is another person’s conservative).

From: RunnSwim

Sep 26 2002, 10:47 am
In article , “Paul Gormley” (nb: a Brit)
writes:
>Duh, so babies deserve to die because their parents can’t afford to buy
>adequate food and medical care! Your attitude makes me sick. Thank goodness
>Martin is out there so I don’t have to think that all americans are so
>self-centred and oblivious to poverty as you appear to be.

Martin Smith adds:
>>I’m sorry, how do infants bring mortality on themselves?

[Larry replies –>]

Since infant mortality seems to have emerged as exhibit A in the
indictment of the American system, perhaps we should make the
effort to understand what it is that the data really do show:

Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2002 Jan;16(1):16-22

Registration artifacts in international comparisons of
infant mortality.

Kramer MS, Platt RW, Yang H, Haglund B, Cnattingius S,
Bergsjo P.

Department of Pediatrics, McGill University Faculty of
Medicine, Montreal, Canada. michael.kra…@mcgill.ca

Large differences in infant mortality are reported
among and within industrialised countries. We
hypothesised that these differences are at least partly
the result of intercountry differences in registration
of infants near the borderline of viability (<750 g
birthweight) and/or their classification as stillbirths
vs. live births. We used the database of the
International Collaborative Effort (ICE) on Perinatal
and Infant Mortality to compare infant mortality rates
and registration practices in Norway (n = 112484),
Sweden (n = 215 908), Israeli Jews (n = 148123),
Israeli non-Jews (n = 52 606), US Whites (n = 6 074
222) and US Blacks (n = 1328332). To avoid confounding
by strong secular trends in these outcomes, we
restricted our analysis to 1987-88, the most recent
years for which data are available in the ICE database
for all six groups.

Compared with Norway (with an
infant mortality rate of 8.5 per 1000), the crude
relative risks [95% confidence intervals] were 0.75
[0.69,0.81] in Sweden, 0.97 [0.90,1.06] in Israeli
Jews, 1.98 [1.81,2.17] in Israeli non-Jews, 0.95
[0.89,1.01] in US Whites and 2.05 [1.95,2.19] in US
Blacks. For borderline-viable infants, fetal deaths
varied twofold as a proportion of perinatal deaths,
with Norway reporting the highest (83.9% for births
<500 g and 61.8% for births 500-749 g) and US Blacks
the lowest (40.3% and 37.6% respectively) proportions.

Reported proportions of live births <500 g varied
50-fold from 0.6 and 0.7 per 10000 in Sweden and
Israeli Jews and non-Jews to 9.1 and 33.8 per 10000 in
US Whites and Blacks respectively. Reported proportions
500-749 g varied sevenfold from 7.5 per 10000 in Sweden
to 16.2 and 55.4 in US Whites and Blacks respectively.

After eliminating births <750 g, the relative risks
(again with Norway as the reference) of infant
mortality changed drastically for US Whites and Blacks:
0.82 [0.76,0.87] and 1.42 [1.33,1.53] respectively. The
huge disparities in the ratio of fetal to infant deaths
<750 g and in the proportion of live births <750 g
among these developed countries probably result from
differences in birth and death registration practices.
International comparisons and rankings of infant
mortality should be interpreted with caution.

[nb: The “differences in registration practices” constitute what is recorded as a live birth, which, in the USA, is any baby which takes one breath when it comes out of the uterus. In many other countries, babies must live for a day or more, before they are considered to be a live birth. My editorial comments were as follows] –>

Now, several points (besides the obvious) must be made:

Firstly, infant mortality among US whites is significantly
less than among Norwegians (overwhelmingly white, in
a health care system overwhelmingly socialized). Secondly,
the relatively high infant mortality among blacks has been
attributable to higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse among
pregnant women. This may be an indictment of something,
but it is not an indictment of health care. Thirdly, infant
mortality is hardly the “gold standard” yardstick of a healthcare
system which it has been assumed to be. Fourthly, infant
mortality rates are affected by additional social and factors, such
as frequency of abortions.

We now move to another study which sheds light on these
issues:

Br Med J 1992 Sep 19;305(6855):687-91

Social class differences in infant mortality in Sweden:
comparison with England and Wales.

Leon DA, Vagero D, Otterblad Olausson P.

Social class differences in infant mortality in Sweden
are analyzed using official data for all live births in
1985-1986 and are compared with corresponding data for
England and Wales for 1983-1985. The results show that
the existence of an equitable health care system and a
strong social welfare policy in Sweden has not
eliminated inequalities in postneonatal mortality.

The conclusions are, that, considering differences in
reporting methodology and other factors, differences
between infant mortality among industrialized nations
are largely attributable to individual lifestyle choices
of the parents, over which the state has little control.
Certainly, there is nothing at all in the infant mortality
data which can in any way be used to condemn the
the US health care system or to support the alleged
superiority of the European welfare state as far as
providing for the health needs of its most vulnerable
citizens.

– Larry Weisenthal

>>>>

P.S. @B-ROB:

You ask: “But a simple question: can you show me ANY DATA, restated however you want, that would show our infant mortality as really LOWER than Canada or Great Britain or France?”

See the study above, from McGill University (in Canada, by the way), which showed that, comparing apples to apples (white Americans to Norwegians), American infant mortality was significantly lower than Norwegian infant mortality. You simply can’t use international infant mortality statistics to make any meaningful comparisons between the efficacy of different health care systems, without accounting for the very large differences in methodology (definition of a live birth, versus a still birth, where still births are not counted in the infant mortality statistics) and without accounting for important differences between populations.

P.S. I do agree with everything you wrote in #35

Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

About VA health care:

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2007/12/10/gvsa1210.htm

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html

I know something about the VA system, having worked at three VAs (Ann Arbor, Washington DC, and Long Beach, CA — the latter for 8 years).

First, read the above two articles.

Second, regarding the comment that veterans

“have to deal with a number of interns who had to “settle” for VA hospitals because they didn’t get matched with the hospitals they had hoped to match:”

NOTHING could be further from the truth!

99% of the VAs offering internship and residency training programs do so in conjunction with University Medical Schools:

Here’s a list of the VAs and their affiliated University programs:

http://www4.va.gov/oaa/oaa_affiliations_list.asp

As you’ll see, these include literally the most prestigious, competitive residency programs in the USA. When I worked at the Washington DC VA, the oncology care was provided by fellows from the National Cancer Institute (me being one), supervised by NCI attending oncologists — this being the most competitive oncology training program, probably in the world. Here in Southern California, the San Diego VA is staffed through the University of California San Diego. Long Beach through the University of California Irvine. Sepulveda through UCLA and USC. These are all first rate, highly competitive residency programs.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

@hard (#41).

Duly shredded, I yield. You got me, partner. You got me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSlkO41Y9I4

– Larry Dubya/Surf City

@JVerive: I don’t know how old your brother is (speaking of his “fellow classmates” who were disappointed at matching with a VA hospital). I suspect that this was in the somewhat distant past. I don’t know how many standalone VA residency programs still exist, if any. Today, virtually all of them are part of University residency programs in which the intern/resident physicians rotate between a university hospital and a VA, a university hospital/private hospital/VA, a university hospital/public city or county hospital/VA (this latter being the arrangement for my own residency (University of Michigan Med Ctr/Wayne County General Hosp/Ann Arbor VA). Therefore the image you create of VAs staffed by “disappointed” residents who couldn’t match elsewhere is certainly incorrect or at least out of date.

I agree that things look different sitting on the examination table than they do from behind the white coat. But this goes for all medical facilities. Problems which occur at VA hospitals quickly become public knowledge. Problems which occur in purely private hospitals are covered up. You’ve heard that old adage about doctors burying their mistakes, but occasionally a whistle blower leaks a scandal to the press, and this occurs at the so-called “best” private hospitals in the nation, e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16radiation.html. Here’s an eye-opening table (I can’t vouch for its accuracy; I merely Googled “iatrogenic deaths,” and this was the first thing which popped up): http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed/deaths.htm

In any event, absolutely no one — not even Dennis Kucinich, much less Obama, is proposing a British-style system of socialized medicine (where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors receive a salary from the government).

As I’ve explained elsewhere, the fatal flaw behind the fanciful notion that traditional fee for service healthcare provides the best and most efficient care is that, in medicine, the sellers make the purchase decisions for the buyers and it’s in the self-interest of the sellers to provide as much service as possible, which means, in the case of medicine, providing as many procedures as possible, as doctors are generously compensated for providing procedures but are virtually not compensated at all for solving problems and counseling patients.

One potential solution is to put all doctors on salary (which is happening at an accelerating rate), but this presents problems of its own, in a system which still rewards procedures over outcomes. One of the vitally important features of Obamacare is its emphasis on shifting physician rewards from procedures to outcomes. This delights primary care physicians but infuriates some specialists. But there is no doubt that this is the only way to control costs, while improving outcomes, long-term.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

JVerive —

Both the VA and the military hospital systems are socialistic because (a) they are government programs providing a service that could be provided by the private sector; (b) it involves the provision of those services in a government owned facility; (c) with the service provided by government employees. There are few programs that would so closely fit the definition of “socialism” or “socialistic.” The fact that “not everyone” can use them does not make them any less socialistic. That just makes them socialistic and exclusive.

If cons truly opposed socialism, they would be proposing that the military hospitals and VA hospitals be closed. The military hospital care could be contracted out in war zones the same way Halliburton provides food services in Iraq. In non-war zones, such as Germany or South Korea, the government could contract with local hospitals to provide the care. Or it could be offered to the private sector, too. There is no need to have the VA hospitals, either. It might be cheaper to just put veterans into the federal employees’ health insurance program, or buy a Blue Cross/Blue Shield policy for each vet.

In short, there are private sector options for providing services to soldiers and vets, yet you NEVER hear cons propose them. Why? It is very simple . . . when all is said and done, these socialist programs work VERY WELL. Soldiers who receive VA care are very appreciative of the care and there is an ease and simplicity of soldiers using the military hospital system — everyone speaks English, there is less “pass the buck,” etc.

Cons who truly oppose socialism could/should be the first ones calling for the elimination of these programs. But I notice that con opposition to socialism is quite selective, both as to WHEN they decry socialism (only when they lose the White House or Congress, never when they control it) and WHICH “socialistic programs” they hate (always programs for the benefit of the general public, and never programs that benefit business or the military).

Larry —

In my town, the VA is a training hospital for Case Western Reserve University. In Boston, Harvard Med students work at that VA. Great med schools, both.

I completely agree with Sarah on this important issue. Palin in 2012 looks like it could happen if she keeps up this type of attack on Obama and his radical agenda.

For some reason, my links aren’t showing up. Here they are in plain old text form, so you’ll have to copy-and-paste them into your browsers. Sorry to all.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2003-09-12/news/0309120222_1_veterans-memorial-park-baldwin-park-veterans-affairs

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2009/03/proposal-to-have-soldiers-pay-for-war.html

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/12/06/plan_urges_1b_va_hospital_in_hub/

Jeff