The Decline and Fall of Declinism: Some people don't want to admit it, but America is in great shape.

I'm with you Steve, it's time we pop that oily tit out of America's mouth

I'm no fan of Republicans, but I like Huckabee's (sp?) view on the flat tax. Demolish the IRS, people get their full paycheck and then hike up the tax on consumer goods. Not only does this get the pimps and prostitutes paying tax, but it'd make people think twice about buying a gas guzzler as a status symbol (or if they feel the need to compensate for something).

In fact, I'm against everything Huckabee is for, but if he does run for president and seems to have the Flat Tax on his top agenda, hell, I just might vote him (I want that flat tax that bad).

So no, no hike on taxes, but lets just get rid of them altogether and put it on consumer goods.

Like using the oil we have below our territories,

Which isn't as much as you think 10 years worth if you're very liberal with your estimates. Gonna run your car on nuclear AJS? can't wait to see a nuclear powered car!

And what is wrong with government gas guzzler tax if benefits the nation as a whole? You do know where most of the oil comes from don't you? Besides oil will not be around as long as you think, and if government can 'encourage' people to move to hybrids and electric cars, then they absolutely should do it.

OH and AJS you know why Amendinjad is smiling in your profile pic? Cause American demand for gasoline keeps big fat loads of cash in his governments coffers. He laughs at us all the way to the bank.

"No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity" R Limbaugh

You lost me at Limbaugh. He's an entertainer, not an informer. I wouldn't give 2 cents and a rat's ass of what he has to say.

Everything else I'll listen to what you say.

The economy is doing well. We still have a Constitution and it still seems to be working too.

Working? No way. The law of the land, our Constitution, has been disregarded time and time again. I don't know about any of you, but I'm not exactly happy with all the domestic spying 'laws' that have been passed this summer.

Isn't the US supposed to be the land of the free? But how can we be free when we pay a large portion of our income to the Fed government? How are we free with the current slow demise of personal liberty? All the time I'm seeing laws and such being pass telling us what we can and cannot do. If we want this country to be #1 as you say, we need to take hold of what matters to us the most and fight for it.

The US economy is rather unstable right now and I wouldn't say it's in great shape by any means. The Fed. government's spending keeps on skyrocketing while they're not doing very well performing the tasks all our tax money goes to. look at how Katrina was handled, the Fed completely f-ed that up I may say. Privatizing a lot of the current functions of the Federal government would lead to cheaper better service. Well I see I'm kind of ranting...sry

The numbers that I have seen show a robust economy. Inflation is down. Job Growth continues. Unemployment is at average levels and has not risen past that of the Clinton Administration. More Americans have more dispensable income. More Americans own homes than have ever before. The stock market despite its recent tumbles has reached all time highs. What would you consider a good economy?

I'm not ecstatic about the domestic spying laws that have been passed, but I'm not naive enough to think this is the first time there has been domestic spying. I hear a lot about the end of personal liberty, but thus far 99.99 percent of Americans have not been affected. I do disagree with the attempt to hold US citizens as enemy combatants and such.

As to Katrina. The State and Local governments are truly the ones who messed up and to say otherwise is disingenuous. The federal government can not do everything for the states and rightfully shouldn't. Just look at how the state of Mississippi handled itself compared to Louisiana. Yes the federal government didn't do a great job, but the problem started with the inept state and local governments.

The numbers that I have seen show a robust economy. Inflation is down. Job Growth continues. Unemployment is at average levels and has not risen past that of the Clinton Administration. More Americans have more dispensable income

You seem to be looking at funny numbers. Your claim about income is just not true. A tiny fraction of Americans have a LOT more disposable income - the majority of Americans have less.

How does the median income in 2006 compare to the median income in 1999 - its lower now.

How does unemployment now compare with what it was in 2000, its higher now.

How does the US savings rate now compare with what it was in 2000, its lower now (near record levls since the great depression).

How does the poverty rate compare with what it was in 2000 - its higher now.

How does the rate of participation in the labor force now than in 2000 - its lower now.

How does the rate of those without medical insurance now compare with 2000 - its higher now.

Heck its hard to find much in the economy that has done from 2000-2007 anywhere near as well as it did during Clinton's term.

Government spending : Higher.
Government debt: Higher and increasing

You did get one thing correct, there are more home owners, then again bankruptcy forecloures and an easy credit crisis is now hitting the country.

You must have some funny numbers as well. Even CBS, ABC, NBC and other mainstream media outlets just the other day reported on how the poverty level in America has dropped dramatically.

According to government reports the unemployment rate in July was 4.6 percent. The lowest point during the Clinton Administration was during the end of his second term where it fell to 4 percent. So you are correct unemployment is higher now than in 2000, but we can blame the post 911 recession for that.

Brett Andrew Ferguson,

Nice spin.

You must have some funny numbers as well.

That is funny since nothing what you wrote contradicted anything I wrote.

According to government reports the unemployment rate in July was 4.6 percent. The lowest point during the Clinton Administration was during the end of his second term where it fell to 4 percent.

Given that you have chosen a monthly rate, actually the lowest rate of unemploment during the Clinton adminstration was 3.6% in October 2000. Yes the rate of unemployment was lower at the end of the Clinton adminstration, do you find that funny?

So you are correct unemployment is higher now than in 2000, but we can blame the post 911 recession for that

You can choose to blame 911 for everything bad in the world but its not really a fact based opinon. There is little question that it had an impact, but you cant honestly blame 9/11 for everything even if it is politically convenient. It did have a slight impact on unemployment but it was also fortunatley temporary

The fact is that this recovery has been unusual in that jobs have been very slow to be added and there is no basis to blame 9/11. It . Its also highly unusual given the extreme favorable interest rates set by the Fed. Its also highly unusly given the HUGE amounts of deficit spending and large increases in government employment.

Countering spin with spin is the way to go. I don;t blame everything bad on 911 I just realize the impact it had on our economy was immense and real. I guess I should have not have picked the most recent monthly rate because it makes no sense to cite the most recent statistics. What I do find funny is that no matter the state of the economy if a Republican is in the White House the economy is terrible, and if a Democrat is in office then everything is peachy.

we can blame the post 911 recession for that.

That is pretty straightforward. Its simple answer to a complex question and by the account of most economists is not the primary causal factor for employment statistics over the last 7 years. The fact is it did have an impact, but that it doesnt begin to explain the difference.

What I do find funny is that no matter the state of the economy if a Republican is in the White House the economy is terrible, and if a Democrat is in office then everything is peachy.

Thats not what I wrote, if you want to draw that conclusion its your own buisness. I just pointed out by most economic indicators the country was doing better in 1999 and 2000 than it is now. You have drawn your own conclusions about who is in office. Personally I think it is more complicated than that but it is also not entirely a coincidence that over the last 70 years most major economic indicators have generally done far better during Democratic Presidential administrations than Republican. That the deficit in particular has tended to skyrocket under Republican administrations compared to Democratic Administrations. I understand that there are a lot more factors to consider but I dont think its an accident.

So you could change your sentence:

What I do find funny is that no matter the state of the economy if a Republican is in the White House the economy is terrible, as measured by most major economic indicators tends to overall perform below average and if a Democrat is in office then everything is peachy then by most economic indicators generally tends to be better.

I would rather let the facts speak for themselvese.

Facts do speak for themselves, but as we have seen throughout the past 70 years facts can be manipulated by both sides of the political spectrum. There are a multitude of factors that go into examining the overall strength of the economy and over the past 70 years the media and others have stressed the positives while a Democrat is in the White House and the negatives while a Republican is in the White House.

There are a multitude of factors that go into examining the overall strength of the economy and over the past 70 years the media and others have stressed the positives while a Democrat is in the White House and the negatives while a Republican is in the White House.

Thats true and not really relevant. The difference is I have pointed to actual facts and indicators. There is a side for which the better objective case can be made.

Yes. Wheter or not they are manipulated doesnt change the fact that major economic idicators such as employment, median income, GNP, budget deficit All tend to do better under Democrats.
That is just a fact. Yes people try to spin things a lot of ways but that doesnt mean there isnt a real story there.

Ok. The only facts I saw you actually cite were the ones I cited. Manipulation does matter, but let's just stop right here. The circles we have been going around in are making me dizzy.

Don't rain on my parade.

Why do I have to worry about the National Debt? I can pass it on to my children!

I have a solution. We could raise taxes and spend even more money. We could spend money on Universal Healthcare and really get that national debt up and going.

There is no question that the United States is a global economic power. There is little question that it is the most powerful nation on Earth.

NEWSFLASH: It has been for a long time since at least WWII There is nothing particularly new here.

This tells us little about where the nation is currently headed and whether or not that course is sustainable in the long run.

Things were great during the roaring 20's also. No I am not predicting another great depression, but that doesnt mean that our nation faces huge challenges and systemic problems. Ironic that most of the progress in this article is from the policies put in place in the 90s during the Clinton Administration.

Are we as a nation better off than we were 7 years ago? Are we on track to improve life for the next generation?

I have a solution. We could raise taxes and spend even more money. We could spend money on Universal Healthcare and really get that national debt up and going.

The current course is to lower taxes and spend even more money. With respect to healthcare you must realize that we spend far more than any other nation on Earth and that the rest of the industrialized world has universal health care and spends on average half as much. Of course there are better examples than other.

I notied the quote from France in the article. Get past the anti-French sentiment and you will find a health care system that consistently delivers higher quality care for all of its citizens at roughly half the price. Why is it that so many "defeatist" Americans think we cant do healthcare as effeciently as the French? Why is it that we can only cover about 80% of the people after spending twice as much while the French cover 100% with about half the cost and better results?

I agree that the current course of cutting taxes and spending more is a disaster. I have a friend who lives in France and is a big fan of the health care. I would ask you to please post some evidence of your claim that the health care system in France is of a higher quality, produces better results, and costs less. I'm not trying to be argumentative it's just that from the articles I've read, the numbers I've seen, and firsthand accounts from those living in France the cost is outrageous. That being said, so far I fail to see how such a system would be cheaper than the one we have now.

I appreciate the ressponse, my point is more than France which is just one example but Universal Healthcare in general.

This is what I dug up quickly.

Overview of Healthcare in France

Yeah, the second one. France's health care system bodyslams us on most every metric. Beyond the beds per 1,000 stat mentioned above, France has more doctors per 1,000 people (3.3 vs. 2.4), spends way less, has 3.2 more physician visits per capita (6 in France vs. 2.8 in America, which probably accounts for the better preventive care in France), has a much higher hospital admission rate, and beats us handily on the most important measure: potential years of life lost. American women lose 3,836 years per 100,000, while American men give up 6,648 in the same sample size (yes, we get screwed). In France, the comparable numbers are 2,588 years for the women and 5,610 for the men. Still not great, but quite a bit better.

So France spends less, gets more, and does so through a public-private hybrid that's heavily, heavily public.

The health system in France is regarded as delivering high quality services, with freedom of choice and generally no waiting lists for treatments. Access to medical services is equal among the population and, unlike in some other countries, people can get the treatments they need irrespective of their social status or work situation.

Here is a study that does not include France but does include the US and 5 other countries that have universal healthcare

Among the six nations studied—Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2006 and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, efficiency, and equity. The 2007 edition includes data from the six countries and incorporates patients' and physicians' survey results on care experiences and ratings on various dimensions of care.

The most notable way the U.S. differs from other countries is the absence of universal health insurance coverage.

The cost is clear (article includes only anecdotal evidence on quality)

The United States spent more than $6,000 per person on health care in 2004, about double what France, Germany and Canada spent per capita.

Look at Japan. It has universal health care. It also has more CT scanners and MRIs, per person, than the United States....On a per capita basis the French get more physician office visits and more drugs than their American counterparts....The Germans get almost as much time as the French.

.

Thanks for the link. Nonetheless, its going to take a lot to convince me.

Nonetheless, its going to take a lot to convince me.

It should. It is certainly no panacea and any significant shift in how we provide healthcare will be costly and fraught with possible mistakes. To learn from other nations, we must get past the propaganda and "socialism" boogeyman rhetoric.

The only clear issue is that our current system costs WAY to much and is not particularly good on many quality measures. Some will blame government, and posit more market freedom, which might be good in theory but unlike univeral healthcare, such ideological advocates have no concrete compraisons.

The Health Care System Under French National Health
Insurance: Lessons for Health Reform in the United States

This is not about "declinism," this about believing America can do better in delivering healthcare to Americans.

One spectacularly sneaky conspiracy i came across that is so simple it cannot be believed but none the less is interesting is that the whole Mexican/US/Canada free trade thing that's being done behind closed doors will bring with it a new common currency that will severely impact the worth of the greenback without hurting the US economy and render the deficit a fraction of what it's now worth in real terms.

Again it's too simple an escape.

What's a "numbers-genius"? Is this some way of putting down the guy who supplies the facts? There are others who are always complaining that there are too few figures, demanding proof. So I am surprised to hear someone who doesn't want them and doesn't supply a single one. Allegations, would you rather have that?