Forum Post: If Republicans really trust "the Market" they should listen to the private insurance corps on Climate Change
Posted 11 years ago on Oct. 28, 2012, 10:48 a.m. EST by VQkag2
(16478)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mindylubber/2012/10/11/climate-proofing-the-insurance-industry/
Climate-Proofing The Insurance Industry
The world’s largest reinsurer has examined the recent rise in the number and severity of natural disasters worldwide, and finds the trend bears the unmistakable fingerprints of climate change.
What’s more, America is bearing the brunt of that change.
“North America is the continent with the largest increases in disasters,” Munich Re’s Peter Hoppe told USA Today yesterday. Take a look at the map of the most costly extreme weather events in 2011 and so far in 2012 for a snapshot that begins to show what he’s talking about.
The drumbeat of a warming climate, worsening weather, and the resulting human toll continues, and keeps getting louder. At this point, it should be deafening enough to wake up anyone still denying the reality of a new normal for our climate, our weather, and the insurance companies whose stability underlies our economy.
Here are just a few of the voices of concern recently raised:
“Insurance is the first line of defense against extreme weather losses, but climate change is a game-changer for the models that insurers have long relied on,” Washington State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler told an industry blog on risk and insurance. “Companies will need to adapt if insurance is to remain available and affordable.”
“With 40 percent of industrial insurance claims that Allianz now pays out being due to natural catastrophes, climate change represents a threat to our business,” Allianz told the Insurance Journal.
“We are already vulnerable to the impacts of weather related natural catastrophes. We expect climate change to compound the problems,” Swiss Re Natural Hazards Expert Megan Linkin says on the reinsurer’s web site.
“The insurance sector has broader importance because of the role it plays in the broader economy. Insurance is the oxygen that keeps our economy alive,” added Jack Ehnes, CEO of the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, one of the nation’s largest investors. “Despite the significant risk that climate change represents, the insurance industry’s response is still well short of what we need.”
Helping the insurance sector fill in that gap is what Ceres’ latest report is all about. Stormy Future for U.S. Property and Casualty Insurers: The Growing Costs and Risks of Extreme Weather Events lays out a plan of action for insurance companies, regulators and investors to deal with the increased risks tied to climate-driven disaster. And it calls on the insurance sector to help our country adapt, and to tackle the problem of climate change pollution head-on.
In New York, California and Washington State, regulators already require major insurance companies to disclose their exposure to climate-related risks. Our report calls for rolling this approach out nationwide. Expanding disclosure would prompt insurers to incorporate climate risk into their business decisions—something they must do if they are to thrive, and even to survive, the coming storms. Disclosure would also help investors and regulators more accurately assess insurance companies’ financial strength.
And sensible standards for insurability—drawn up with the latest climate science and projections in mind—can help vulnerable communities make good decisions about land use, infrastructure and building codes, so that they are more resilient when disaster strikes.
In the past couple of years, Americans have suffered an extraordinary string of extreme weather events. A glance at the extreme-weather map makes it clear that no part of our United States is safe; we are all vulnerable. And as the climate continues to change, weather disasters are only expected to become more frequent and more intense.
Insurers’ support for research and public policy that helps the U.S. adapt to climate change – and to act in a way that curbs its worst effects – is in the insurance sector’s own best interests. It is also in the best interests of our economy, and of our nation as a whole.
This is just another case where the GOP politicians disagree with their membership, so they can continue to sell out to the oligarchs. There are many of these. Stupidity is voting for folks who have already sold out to someone with interests you reject. Of course they win and you (not you) lose. It is the corollary to the definition of insanity, which is, "I vote Republican."
Isn't it unbelievable.
Sadly. Yes.
Frankly, the Democrats aren't the problem. Neither are the Republicans. It's people like VQkag2 that are the problem. As long as people are willing to swallow every soundbite from a politician as gospel truth, as long as they are willing to ignore every inconvenient fact, as long as they are willing to spout the party line without so much a critical thought about it, as long as they are unwilling or unable to engage in an honest analysis of their own positions and those of their opponents and of the problems we all face; and as long as they are willing to demonize everyone that disagrees with them, the problems that face this country will never be solved.
I do not do that. You're the one spewing republican talkin point lies! I am simply challenging you're lies.
I haven't demonized you! I've called you right wing, you've called me Stalinist! You are Demonizing ME!.
Accusing me of what you are doing is very KarlRovian. But I don't subscribe to that fallacy.
I continue to be critical of all dem failures (like Sen Nelson, & Lincoln) All dems who cave in and support conservative policy are also part of the problem (along with repub conservatives).
Try again. Your inaccurate diatribe of a rant is more applicable to how you are conversing. Not me.
Peace
Really? "Liars"? "Traitors"? "Karlrovian"? "Wacko"? And my favorite, the ultimate insult: "Math boy." And of course, those many exclamation points, your substitute for shouting.
You seem to think that this sort of thing constitutes intelligent, thoughtful discourse. Where I come from it does not. Perhaps it does in your part of the world, but we can only hope that most people do not share your view of this. If they do, we are all in serious trouble.
Your feigned indignation doesn't much impress me. Like all reactionary propagandists, you're thin-skinned about it and uncomfortable being called what you are. The classic dodge is to affect self-righteous indignation, just like you're doing now.
It's a good thing you're all hot air and will never actually do anything. If you ever got any real power, we'd all be in real trouble.
You ARE lying! You ARE clearly republican. You seem wacko to me. And you did continually request Math?
I didn't equate you with one the most productive mass murderer of the 20thcentury (Stalin)
So there is no comparison. You use extreme exaggerated insults to distract from a subject (in place of facts). I use true descriptions of you and harmless nicknames (Math boy) along with the facts of my position.
So I got that goin for me.
Peace.
You lying, Right wing wacko, math boy! LOL
Peace
My friend, this exchange has been most entertaining, and I'd love to continue it, but it has become recursive, and I really have to get back to work, so I'm going to have to cut it off. Suffice it to say that I do not think that your manner of discourse is likely to win many converts for the people you support, nor is it likely to persuade anyone who disagrees with you. And of course, it will not change the many facts that you do not like.
Right back atcha' boss.
Peace,
Good luck in all your good efforts
You are absolutely correct.
Yep - there is another true bell weather - ins refusing to offer certain types of disaster coverage in certain areas. What did that look like - say 10 years ago - 15 - 20 ? Has the areas of coverage denial been growing? are there new areas?
Undoubtedly. They are certainly not gonna put themselves in danger of losing money.
I think the insurance corps are probably a good measure of whether climate change disasters are growing.
Trust the market!
Trust the for profit ins to cover their ass - WHAT??? - Pay out money??? - what do you think we are? - in it for altruism?
LOL.
If anyone does not have their head up their (x) - they should see that fossil fuel is a limited resource that is on the decline - the greedy bastards can forget that fossil fuel is killing us all in it's extraction as well as in it's use - but the assholes should realize - as greed is their thing - that developing and implementing TRUE GREEN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE - is the major growth industry of the future - if we do not all die 1st.
Well said.! Agreed.
Shortsighted, greedy, selfish & self destructive.
That is why they need keepers. So they do not kill us all.
And they cant bear truth or wisdom so simple, but they will freely stinkle common sense of what you say?
The earth should not be a partisan issue. It is a fragile system, and even fish are vanishing.
They stinkle the science/technology that could be used to replace fossil fuel and let us be clean & prosperous - of course they must be Insane.
And that is the insanity of unquestioned capitalism that says dollars worth more than all life.
Greed is blind - and that is why they need keepers - because greed is also insane - and at the moment very suicidal - but they like company so they are planning on murdering the rest of us - prior to killing themselves.
You mean like the Democrats listened to them on catastrophe of healthcare?
The mandate was a republican concept from way back. Dems had to compromise and cave in if they wanted the benefits they got.
We MUST protest for the public option. It's up to US. We can't wait around for politicians to do everything for you.
The days of sitting on our fat, suburban, entitled, asses watching football is over!
Get in the street, educate yourself, and fight for the public option.
You'll never see a public option unless you agree to ante up on your portion of the debt, limit immigration, and massively ramp up this economy. To do this we must eliminate virtually everything else the Left is in favor of - wages for workers, corporate taxes, the EPA, high energy rates... forgetaboutit.
You're against "wages for workers"? Do you mean a living wage? What would that have to do with a public option?
You sound confused!
In light of outsourcing we must lower wages to approximately $1.20 and hour to compete and grow our economy.
That's ridiculous.
Just penalize co's that outsource!
Reward those that insource!
Insist that any corp who wants to do business here must manufacture some percent here!
Easy peezy. Done!
It's not so easy when you are dealing with the money powers of this world.
Gotta give it the old college try, Boss!
thai is just plain stupid - single payer is the least expensive health care system and the only one that makes sense - would save huge money and eliminate the deficit
Agreed!
Wow. The planets must be aligned.
i think it is the storm suge here on the jersey coast
I have prepared here in brooklyn as well but I'm only close to the gowanus canal not the ocean,
Surge gonna get worse 2nite!
Stay safe.
While I agree it is the least expensive, Americans cannot afford it in light of population growth - least expensive, but who pays for it, the Chinese?
we pay silly - remember we have a printing press to pay for anything we need, at least domestically. and what does population grwoth have to do with it - cheaper is cheaper. you have a weird view of the economy - you must be trained by the chicago school or is it the austrian
My version of economy is strictly made in America, peculiar I suppose to myself. I obtained it by venturing back to the Last Glacial Maximum and studying forward; if we do this all things including banks, corporations, even economists, etc. eventually come into view. Your assessment would be correct if the privately owned Federal Reserve did not exist; otherwise there is a bill for monies printed in the form of a loan to the taxpayer, who is already overburdened.
i am all for made in america if that is what is needed. that is, of course the way all countries (including ours) developed their advanced industry in the past. i am also for a national bank but you can see how this bank can create very low interest funding for government needs mwhen it wants to!
"Sorrow, Sufferance and New York City - The Spiritual Is Political", by Michael Robeson :
Good to see you here 'flip' & here's hoping that 'Super Storm Sandy' did not do you too much harm tho' there were more than a few concers given some here know where you live. Stay well comrade :-)
pax, amor et lux ...
thanks - just got power last night - i have friends who lost everything so we are lucky - occupy is stepping up again i hear!
Good to hear that you're ok flip :-) & :
http://occupywallst.org/article/occupy-sandy/#comments &
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article32936.htm !
'OccupySandy' are a heart centred inspiration and Max Keiser is ahead of the curve bro' ;-)
pax, amor et lux ...
The Republican denial of climate change has nothing to do with facts. It's a theological matter, and as such both needs no facts. To the contrary, they're prepared to deny any facts that contradict the theology; and of course, to condemn anyone who calls attention those facts as liars.
The Democrats do the same thing with spending and the deficit. Since their belief that there is an infinite amount of money to spend and that spending it is harmless and cost-free, is theological, they simply refuse to acknowledge the laws of arithmetic, and engage in ad hominem attacks on the bearers of bad tidings.
Religions have been doing these things since the beginning of time; and make no mistake, both political parties are religions. They start with their conclusions and work backward to figure out what facts they need to invent to support those conclusions. Just like all other religions.
No, it isn't religious (for the most part). 70% of Repelicans do believe global warming is contributed to by humans. It is about selling out to the oil and coal industries.
OK there are a few idiots who have Evangelism and science denial as a package but a lot of them (Evangelists) are also "stewards of the earth." So it is a complex tangle of deception, selling out, and irrationality that should be difficult to keep together, but they do it.
Ah, but it is. Like many theologies, it's cynical and self-serving. The point of the theology isn't to actually believe something, but to validate a pre-existing prejudice and justify an outcome. And by extension to paint opponents as infidels. That's exactly what's going on here.
Aah so the parties are the same?
But repub admins are the fiscally irresponsible ones who have exploded the debt with spending & tax cuts without paying as they went. (Reagan, Bush II). And Dem admins have been responsible. Clinton created the 1st budget surplus in decades & Pres Obama has cut the Bush created annual $1.2T deficit by $100B.
Pres Obama would have cut the deficit more if Norquist beholden republicans weren't obstructing all efforts to do so while protecting millionaires/billionaires at the expense of the deficit & the 99%.
So what are you talkin about.?
Excellent example of my point. Get out a pencil and paper and a calculator. Go to the IRS website, they have excellent statistics on income demographics. Calculate for yourself how much Obama's tax on the so-called "rich" will actually bring in every year. You'll discover it doesn't even make a serious dent in the deficit -- 70 billion against a 1.2 trillion deficit, assuming no one engages in any tax avoidance behavior and they collect the entire 70 billion, a dubious proposition. Obama's notions of solving the deficit problem by taxing the rich while continuing to spend at current levels are theology, pure and simple.
"while continuing to spend at current levels" that is the part that is theology. He doesn't advocate that and certainly not long term. What do you do about the $4trillion "grand bargain" that he put on the table? What do you get out of closing the carried interest loophole? What do you get out of closing the relocation writeoffs for moving out of the country. What do you get out of paying tax on foreign profits on sales in the US? What do you get from reducing defense and homeland security spending by $400 billion/year. What do you get by going back to Clinton top rates?
hallelujah! The cavalry.
Thank you. Well said.
He won't do the math penguento. That would be to doubt his Obama God, and his faith runs far too deep.
What about climate change & the right wing private insurers? (this thread!) Do you believe them?
And heres the MTV biy w/ Pres Obama on climate change.
http://www.nationofchange.org/mtv-breaks-climate-silence-interview-president-barack-obama-1351351562
I ain't doubted his math. I question his assertion that Pres Obama wants to cut the deficit by tax increases on the wealthy alone.That is untrue.
I suggest triple the tax increase, and continue the cuts Pres Obama has made. Pass jobs bills to grow economy and increase revenue.
Pres Obama ain't a god (I'm atheist). He's just a moderate trying to fix the repub economic crash.
I
Here's some more math for you: If they taxed the income of the top 1% at a rate of 100% -- every dime they make -- it still wouldn't balance the budget, by quite a margin. Even if nobody took their money and left the country, even if nobody engaged in tax avoidance strategies, even if they docilely handed over every single penny of it.
And here's yet more math for you: Since 2008, annual federal spending has increased by 18%. The annual deficit's gone from 459 billion to 1.09 trillion, an increase of 230%. Total federal debt has gone from 10 trillion to 16.4 trillion, an increase of 60%.
I'm not seeing here where either the facts or what he's actually done match up well with either his or your rhetoric.
Where the debt has come from.
For you edification.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/24/1081151/video-explaining-debt/
exactly why the entire congress needs to be dumped out of office and replaced.
With this I entirely agree. If only it were possible.
The most recent budget (2013) Pres Obama is responsible includes a deficit of $900B.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget
That represents $500B decrease in the Bush annual deficit of $1.4T.
And imagine if Pres Obama had gotten what he proposed from the traitorous republicans who work for Norquist & the 1% p;lutocrats instead of the American people!
We would have no deficit!
Add it up!
You've never shown us your fancy math that would balance the budget by taxing the top 1%. We're all waiting for it.
Again?
This is the last time. Current deficit is $900B
So you say $70B from.tax increases on the wealthy?. I say it is more like $100B. I say further we should triple it! That is $300B from the current $900B deficit leaves
$600B
I believe the cuts he can make are about $300B leaving.
$300B
I believe the economic growth/revenue increase from the jobs bills will equal $300B
That leaves
$0 deficit!
Ok?
The last Bush budget (2009) had a deficit of $1.4Trillion dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget
Please comment.
Math boy
That is your misfortune!
The last budget year of Bush economy would be 2009 that is when he gave us the great recession and a $1.4T annual deficit. Pres Obama has cut that deficit every year (fractionally) since. Would have been more if not for repubs traitorous obstruction.
Do a little of that math thing, this time using dates. Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009. That 1.4 trillon got spent on his watch, and with control of both houses of Congress and a fillibuster-proof Senate. But even supposing otherwise, your own reading of the data would indicate that Obama at his best is only marginally better than Dubya at his catastrophic worst, and you proclaim yourself satifisfied --nay, pleased -- with that outcome. Given your theology, rather low expectations, don't you think? And isn't that even more a copout given that the Dems used to pillory Dubya over deficits that were 1/3 the size of Obama's?
But looked at more carefully, the data doesn't even tell us that. For that, however, I'll have to resort to more of that evil math stuff (yes, I know it's evil, but because I come from the Dark Side, I cannot help but use all of the Dark Arts).
The first three years of Obama's presidency, deficits averaged 1.35 trillion. 2012, it was down a bit to under 1.1 trillion. If it hadn't slowed a bit, we'd have had deficits of 1.35 trillion every year. So what's changed? Let's see if we can puzzle this out:
New President? Nope. Same old Obama, except, if we may borrow from the Greeks, only more so.
New Congress? Yup. At the midterm election, the Dems lost the house, and lost a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate; and with those, Obama, Pelosi, et al, lost their ability to ram through spending legislation unopposed.
Do ya' think that might have had something to do with the slowdown in spending?
The last Bush budget left us a $1.4T deficit, Also left us the worst economic downturn since the great depression.
There was no filibuster proof senate. The repubs traitorously overused/misused filibuster to weaken the recovery.
Even with that treasonous republican effort Pres Obama has cut the deficit to $900B for 2013, created job growth & gdp growth for 3+ years.
We need better but repubs are the problem not Pres Obama.
You got more math problems, and fact problems too boot. Between dems and two liberal independents who caucused with them they had a completely filibuster-proof senate. That's how they rammed through Obamacare. Don't you even read the newspaper?
Do the math on who is hurt be extreme weather/climate change!!!
http://app.mx3.americanprogressaction.org/e/es.aspx?s=785&e=448057&elq=107be381ed9845a38a2eb3c67ce86657
I recall 2 repub sen voting for Obamacare no?
Whatever, filibusters are a matter of record. The repub misuse/overuse of filibuster is a matter of record. The 60 votes dems had was only for a few months.
Regardless the dems don't usually have every single one of their caucus. The real crime is that the repubs are so extreme and traitorous they wouldn't provide the bipartisan votes needed.
The reason was simple they could not have a dem Pres succeed in correcting the repub economic crash. Worse than that he is a black man.
And all the repub racism comes out!
Perhaps you're not aware of this, but they only hold congressional elections every two years. It's not possibly to have a majority for "only a few months."
Heres some details refuting your simplistic repub right wing talkjing point about the myth of the dems filibuster proof supermajority in 2009-2010
http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/
You sure.?
Is it possible for a senator to switch parties?
Is it possible for senator to die, or too ill to vote (Kennedy, Byrd)?
Is it possible for a senator to be delayed in taking their seat because of recount in election (mn Sen Franken)?
Besides all 57/58 dems didn't always vote as a blind block, like the sheep repubs are. Ark Sen Lincoln, Neb Sen Nelson were both conservatives.
So once again conservatives are the problem!
And how many Senators switched parties or died during Obama's first two years, pray tell? Enough to eliminate his majority?
As for Nelson, you've obviously -- and conveniently -- forgotten the infamous Cornhusker Kickback, the most infamous bit of political pork of our time.
Your rhetoric is a classic case of reactionary theological rubbish -- distort or ignore the facts, attack and insult your opponents, and above all, repeat the party line, over and over, very, very loudly. With only very minor changes, your words could be those of an Iranian mullah, or Joe Stalin's public relations man.
You're insulting me! "iranian mullah"? "stalins PR"? "reactionary"?
None of that is true. Thats you deflecting from the subject because your argument can't stand up to civil, honest discussion.
Cornhusker kickback for the conservative Nelson was never finalized.
2 Dem Senators died (Kennedy, Byrd) And of course it eliminated the 60 vote majority.
This article should help you understand the truth as opposed to theright wing wacko talking point lies.
http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/
Peace out
Of course he does. How many times has he said that the "repubs" have obstructed everything the President wanted to do??? LOL
"The last budget year of Bush economy would be 2009?" You sure? You solid on that date? Because the NBER has officially dated the end of the Great Recession June 2009: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/09/its-official-recession-ended-june-2009/
In fact, the GDP trend REVERSED itself and recovered to 4.5% by the last quarter of 2009: http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/27/news/economy/us-gdp/index.htm
SO-you can't credit OBAMA with ending the recession when apparently-using YOUR "fact"-Bush's economic policies were the ones that brought us OUT of it.
Oh, and by the way...Obama's annual deficit is.......????
The most recent budget that Pres Obama is responsible for is 2013.
The budget deficit is listed at $900B
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_States_federal_budget
And although Bush submitted the spending proposal (budget) for 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget
And he did create the recession that began in late 2007. But did not correct the recession. Pres Obamas stimulus policy )passed 3/09) was most responsible for the recovery that began shortly after.
And the Obama recovery would have been much stronger if the republican traitors had not obstructed, watered down, delayed every effort to cut the deficit & improve employment.
Plug those numbers into your calculator, Math girl! Ha ha ha ha!
Bush created the recession? Really? Not according to your apparently endorsed wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_2008%E2%80%932012_global_recession
And you're suggesting that the 03/09 "stimulus" ENDED the recession in three short months. (Official end was June of 2009 remember). It was a miracle!!!!!
Actually, no...no it wasn't. The "recovery" has actually been worse for Americans than the actual recession was:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-23/u-s-incomes-feel-more-in-recovery-sentier-says.html
"American incomes declined more in the three-year expansion that started in June 2009 than during the longest recession since the Great Depression, according an analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data by Sentier Research LLC."
"Median household income fell 4.8 percent on an inflation- adjusted basis since the recession ended in June 2009, more than the 2.6 percent drop during the 18-month contraction, the research firm’s Gordon Green and John Coder wrote in a report today. Household income is 7.2 percent below the December 2007 level, the former Census Bureau economic statisticians wrote."
“Almost every group is worse off than it was three years ago, and some groups had very large declines in income,” Green, who previously directed work on the Census Bureau’s income and poverty statistics program, said in a phone interview today. “We’re in an unprecedented period of economic stagnation.”
Yeah. It's horrible. If only your traitorous republicans in congress valued the majority of the American people more than they do the millionaire/billionaires & the Norquist.
Then we would have a strong recovery instead of problems you listed.
You just keep swinging that bat kiddo. You're not hitting anything but thin air but those wind farms could use the breeze....
Oh you wanna run down alternative energy too?
You are like a living republican talking point machine. LMFAO.
I say end all fossil fuel (19th century tech corp welfare and invest in the 21st century future tech of solar, wind, geothermal, green tech.
Best thing for jobs and a clean environment.
No? Ya with us?
Nope. Just noting that you are oblivious to what Obama's tax increases in a little over 2 months are going to do to the "middle class" and the poor-
http://www.atr.org/five-worst-obamacare-taxes-coming-a7217
For someone who keeps harping that "we must help the middle class" and the "disadvantaged" and "the sick and needy", you sure love turning a blind eye to what your candidate has already done to hurt them starting Jan 2013.
All the other links are related to the sequestration deal that congress and the Pres made.
They will have to make a deal to prevent the tax increases. If the repubs hold everything hostage unless the wealthy keep their tax cuts their will be trouble.
But even then Dems will let all tax cuts die then propose tax cuts for just the middle class. So repubs could get smoked.
Let's hope.
So this Obamacare tax increase link is from right wing wacko Norquist. Not reliable, however the tax increases listed appear to for taxpayers who make over $250k.
I gotta worry about the wealthy? They have armies of lobbyists, accountants, & lawyers to advocate for them.
You got anything that might increase the taxes of regular middle class people? I can't get excited about keeing wealthy peoples taxes low.
I leave that to you and the Norquist!
Oh please I guess it ain't nothing if you can't state it!
What a joke.
We haven't discussed future tax increases. That would be a new subject.
Are we done with the last subject. Smoked you again huh? LOL.
Ok so what taxes are coming in 2013.?
Well Betsy what taxes are you referring to? Please be specific, and I will try to educate you.
It sucks that there is no ability to "reply" to you after a while...
No all the other links are NOT related to sequestration nor are they from the same site. Again:
Google Taxmageddon or Fiscal Cliff. Here's a few to get you started:
http://money.msn.com/politics/post.aspx?post=6dc0aa1f-7265-4dd9-95bd-0b935ec7b42f
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-steber/its-comingbut-just-what-i_b_1932403.html
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/10/02/Taxmageddon-Will-Hit-88-Percent-Prompting-New-Recession.aspx#page1
http://www.examiner.com/article/why-the-economy-may-tank-no-matter-who-wins-the-election
"Well Betsy what taxes are you referring to? Please be specific, and I will try to educate you."
Google Taxmageddon or Fiscal Cliff. Here's a few to get you started:
http://money.msn.com/politics/post.aspx?post=6dc0aa1f-7265-4dd9-95bd-0b935ec7b42f
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-steber/its-comingbut-just-what-i_b_1932403.html
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/10/02/Taxmageddon-Will-Hit-88-Percent-Prompting-New-Recession.aspx#page1
http://www.examiner.com/article/why-the-economy-may-tank-no-matter-who-wins-the-election
"We haven't discussed future tax increases. That would be a new subject."
Actually no. They are part of the wonderful world of Obamacare and they got passed in 2010 by your beloved President and the Democrats. Are you really this oblivious, or is it that you think everyone else is?
And then there's the sequestration fun that's coming!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-fanciful-claim-that-congress-proposed-the-sequester/2012/10/25/8651dc6a-1eed-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_blog.html
And, Bush wasn't president in 2009. Obama was, with control of both houses of Congress and a fillibuster-proof Senate.
You're right, but HIS point was that the "last budget year of Bush economy would be 2009". If he wants to pin the economy of 2009 on Bush's previous actions and budget then let him. It means he has to agree then that Bush is responsible for enacting the policies that had almost ended the recession by the time Obama took office.
If he wants to CREDIT Obama with ending the recession and turning things around in just three months time-then he has to admit that there really couldn't have been as huge a mess as Obama claims to have inherited AND that he might have turned us around but he didn't drive us very far down his road either-even though he had a two year head start with a Democratic House and Senate. (no Republicans to obstruct anything or anyone)
I didn't say you doubted his math. I said you wouldn't do the math.
Nowhere did he "assert" that Obama wants to cut the deficit by tax increases on the wealthy alone. He also talked about SPENDING-which of course you must ignore.
The President doesn't create jobs....except in the government. He's had 4 years to grow the economy and increase revenues. And?
And your repubs have obstructed every effort to cut the deficit, to improve employment, & to strengthen the economy.
Repubs have fired almost a million American public workers in the middle of an unemployment crises!! Repubs filibustered a jobs bill for a million vets.
We would have at least 4 million more workers if not for republican treason.
The repubs are responsible for the weakness of the Obama recovery. They derailed all efforts to improve it
They are traitors.
This is you. Not doing the math some more. :-)
Of course I did the math. You say "he had 4 years to grow the economy & increase revenues, and?"
And he did! Bush left us GDP @ -9%, Pres Obama has had qtrly growth for almost 3 years. Bush left us job losses of 850k per month. Pres Obamas policies gave us job growth for more than 3 years straight.
Are you doin the math? LOL!
So I submit Pres Obama would have created a stronger recovery (better gdp, lower unemployment) if traitorous repubs would get out of the way.
Maybe you need new batteries for that calculator. LMFAO
Ok. Read slowly-
"Go to the IRS website, they have excellent statistics on income demographics. Calculate for yourself how much Obama's tax on the so-called "rich" will actually bring in every year."
This is the MATH we want you to do. And show your work please.
" You'll discover it doesn't even make a serious dent in the deficit -- 70 billion against a 1.2 trillion deficit, assuming no one engages in any tax avoidance behavior and they collect the entire 70 billion, a dubious proposition."
This is what you'll discover, (or disprove) when you do this math.
"Obama's notions of solving the deficit problem by taxing the rich while continuing to spend at current levels are theology, pure and simple."
Please note the words "while continuing" in the above sentence. After you do the math on the Obama proposed "tax increase on the rich", and apply ALL THAT MONEY to the deficit, please tell us how much SPENDING will need to be reduced to make more than "a dent" in it.
But Pres Obama has not suggested "solving the deficit by taxing the rich while continuing to spend at current levels......"
He proposes Cutting spending. As he has done and will increase.
So you say $70B. in tax increeases. I say it is more like $100B. I say further we should triple it! That is $300B from the current $900B deficit leaves
$600B I believe the cuts he can make are about $300B leaving.
$300B I believe the economic growth/revenue increase from the jobs bills will equal $300B
That leaves
$0 deficit!
Ok?
Done. Math girl!
Yah, and when you start taxing these businesses at that rate you know what's going to happen - they will go out of business and then you will see thousands of unemployed workers going to the unemployment line.
Smart thinking - you really know your math when it comes to mathmetically solving problems.
Nah. Thats what they say cause they're greedy, selfish, capitalists who don't mind benefiting from this crash (as they have) but refused to do their fair share to correct it.
Besides the real job creators are the middle class consumers, whose demand is the impetus to hire.
Trust me if consumer activity grows and business can make more money by hiring someone they will!
don't worry about the wealthy. They have armies of lobbyists to rig the system in their favor, armies of accountants to avoid taxes, and armies of lawyers to beat the rap when they get caught evading taxes.
Your efforts are better served advocating for the middle class 99%. They need us. And you are one of them. Why wouldn't you advocate for your own class?. And instead advocate for the class who needs your efforts least of all.
Don't make sense.
So tell me this - if the middle class is slowly slipping down to becoming the lower class how can they be the job creators when they have no money to spend?
There are two ways to make money legally - work for yourself or work for someone else - there are no other ways of doing it.
So if you want to become rich, you work for yourself - if you want to have an income that will suppor a persons living habit work for someone else.
Obviously the peoples govt must use it's resources to help the people BE the powerful consumer job creating engine that they were in the past.
Cut taxes/debt for the working class, create the training and hiring environment to kick start the middle class consumer job creating engine.
Use money from taxes on the wealthy people/business or cut defense budget.
It's the only way.
Ya with us?
Tell me this....how does consumer activity grow-which leads to making more money, which leads to hiring people-if the FREAKING CONSUMERS have no money???
You're the one screaming that the middle class is dying, and poor, and disappearing....so Einstein- you can't then turn around and claim them as some amazingly strong engine that's going to spur economic growth!
You don't even realize that the "more money" you keep allocating to these businesses to "hire more people" you are ALSO allocating to the Federal Government by saying they need to TAKE that money from these businesses in the form of taxes while increasing what they already pay their current workers.
It's YOU who makes no sense. You can't have it both ways anywhere except in your own mind.
You ain't makin sense. Maybe you shouldtake a breath andcalm down.
We MUST help the middle class. We MUST cut taxes/debt for working class families, we must train andget hired unemployed working class people.
Once we do that spending WILL increase, & then revenue, hiring and the cycle will feed on itself. Any monies necessary to do this should come from taxing the wealthiest people, businesses, and/or cutting the defense budget.
Cool? Ya with us?
Help the middle class & small business. Tax the
So, you are expecting the "rich" to cough up another $300 B in taxes on top of what they currently owe, and THEN not only produce enough new "jobs"-BUT pay so much in wages that JUST the taxes (revenue increase) paid BY those employees is ALSO $300 Billion?????
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA beautiful. Really.
Even IF your incredibly naive projections could be realized without collapsing the economy completely for the reasons Shayneh points out below, you STILL haven't addressed the National DEBT-which is completely aside from the annual DEFICIT.
Yes the debt (which Bushes deficits exploded) will have to be paid down. As such the wealthy will have to cough up still more money.
But don't worry about job creation, as I educated you friend Shayn about is not at risk. the real job creators are the middle class consumers. So we should help them by cutting their taxes/debt.
That'll do.
My frend, you don't have clue fuckin' one about job creation. Go start a business and create a few jobs and then come back and tell us all about it.
You don't know what I know. You are just trying to deflect from the issue to me personally so you can attack me pertsonally.
I think that means you got no more facts and I win. No?
Debt increased more under Obama in three years than it did in EIGHT years under Bush- http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/
Your "education" to Shayna is hilarious on many fronts. I replied as to why above. The middle class is currently enjoying the "Bush tax cuts" and the lowest interest rates in history on their debts...and we're in what one of the articles I linked to above called an "unprecedented period of economic stagnation".
Republican traitors have obstructed every effort to strengthen the economy.
The debt increased because of the annual budget deficit ($1.4T 2009) Bush left us. Pres Obama has already cut $500B. Would've cut more if your traitorous repubs would get out of the way.
Repubs are the problem. Face it. Their fiscal irresponsibility blew up the deficit/debt, their weak regulations allowed banksters to crash the economy, their obstruction & protection of millionaire/billionaires along with their worship of the Norquist over the 99% have slowed the recovery.
Add it up. Use a calculator if you must. It's allowed.
Raising taxes on the "rich", and tightening regulations on those who create jobs, does NOT create a stronger economy OR lower unemployment.
http://www.american.com/archive/2011/august/obamasfollytaxingtherich
"If you look carefully, President Obama has never explicitly stated that taxing the rich will bring in much revenue. Instead, the president has made sure to give voters the impression that the Republican refusal to tax the rich is the main cause of the deficit and thus the main obstacle to solving the fiscal crisis. For instance, Obama stated that “tax cuts that went to every millionaire and billionaire in the country” will “force us to borrow an average of $500 billion every year over the next decade.” This message has been widely repeated: Jon Stewart, for instance, has assured his impressionable audience that without the Bush tax cuts, future deficits would not be a major problem."
"But how much revenue are we really talking about? According to the New York Times, the president’s plan to abolish the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 is expected to bring in merely $0.7 trillion over the next decade, or about 0.4 percent of Gross Domestic Product per year. As a comparison, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the deficit over the same period is going to be $13 trillion, more than 6 percent of GDP per year."
THIS math.
They need to bite the bullet. Right? And compromise. Right?
(CNN) -- The deficit and debt are major concerns for swing voters -- and President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have very different visions of how to deal with it. That's why it was significant to see 80 CEOs of major American companies sign a letter this past week committing to press for a balanced bipartisan plan to reduce the deficit and debt no matter which candidate is elected president on November 6. The words "balanced" and "bipartisan" are key here -- because the CEOs understand that this problem is too big to be solved by tax hikes or spending cuts alone. We can't simply tax or cut our way out of this problem.
John Avlon Instead, the CEOs backed the outlines of the Bowles-Simpson commission, which attracted bipartisan support with its plan to cut spending, rein in entitlements and increase tax revenue through lower rates while closing loopholes and deductions. Their vision is also consistent with the plan proposed by the Gang of Six senators who came up with their own formula along the same broad outlines -- cut spending, bending the entitlement cost curve and raise tax revenue. Conservative and liberal senators running the ideological spectrum from Tom Coburn to Dick Durbin have managed to agree on this outline, buoyed by the heroic efforts of centrists like Mark Warner and Lamar Alexander, in addition to the bipartisan duo of Bowles and Simpson themselves. These individuals worked with the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and their Fix the Debt project to corral the CEOs' support. Become a fan of CNNOpinion Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us @CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.
The CEOs in question include prominent Romney donors like AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson and Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini, whose company gave a $4 million donation to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's conservative 501-C6 organization, which has already put more than $15 million into this election. What's surprising is that the CEOs' commitment to a balanced bipartisan plan puts them much closer to Obama's deficit reduction plan than to Mitt Romney's. That's because it also dovetails with the outlines of the Grand Bargain negotiated by Obama and House Speaker John Boehner in the summer of 2011, only to have negotiations fall apart. The human cost of austerity in Greece How Sandy could impact the vote Fact check: Tackling the deficit Tackling U.S.'s runaway debt Mitt Romney has repeatedly and specifically said that he will not consider any plan that raises any increased tax revenue to pay down the deficit and the debt. During the Republican primaries, he famously joined with his competitors in raising his hand to say that he would reject even a 10-to-1 deal splitting spending cuts with tax revenue increases. The Bowles-Simpson plan was based on an even less generous 3-to-1 split (though of course, still weighted decidedly in favor of spending cuts). This is not an academic difference. It goes to the heart of what kind of deficit reduction can be realistically achieved as a matter of both politics and math. A plan that does not include any new revenues is not practical in terms of achieving the larger goal. "When you talk about a $16 trillion debt, I don't see how you can avoid addressing both sides" -- both spending cuts and revenue increases -- said AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson, sensibly. An imbalanced and ideologically pure solution without any revenue increases would be DOA with Democrats in the Senate.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/28/opinion/avlon-ceo-deficit-cutting/index.html
Problematic ally the middle and lower groups are just barely getting by.
It's going to take a compromise from EVERYONE. And this is what happened the last time Washington tried to compromise-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-fanciful-claim-that-congress-proposed-the-sequester/2012/10/25/8651dc6a-1eed-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_blog.html
That's why we should toss overboard the old parties so we can move forward on solving problems.
These old parties are like a couple experiencing divorce. They can't agree water is water.
And probably Obama lied on this. Or he forgot or stretched truth.
I voted for not Obama or Romney 2012
Nevertheless- Don't they need something to compell them to cut the deficit?
If you can think of something that will "compell" them to cut the deficit and run this country like adults, that does NOT at the same time bring this county to it's knees and make those who are already suffering suffer even MORE-I'd love to hear it. Oh, and make it something doable rather than just a trite statement or fond wish.
How do you feel about Obama on Benghazi? Did he lie on that? Or forget or stretch the truth?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/28/lyonsobama-needs-come-clean-what-happened-benghazi/
How exactly do we "compel" people who would act in such a manner to protect themselves over others?
Sure. Pass a law that says if budget not balanced yearly, no one in government, congress can be return to their job.
Benghazi?
Can't say what they said what they did.
I think they should all be thrown out.
And stay out. Direct democracy via technology.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/where-our-tax-dollars-go-in-two-charts/2012/04/17/gIQAzWyNOT_blog.html. I don't see how we will be able to increase spending on defense and balance budget.
Well I recall Pres Obama stating that the deficit was because of 2 wars put on a credit card (massive defense spending), Medicare drug benefit not paid for (repubs abandoned the dem created "pay as you go law") as well as the 2 massive tax cuts for the wealthy.
As well as! Not only.
So we can get rid of the tax cuts on the wealthy, raise their taxes enough so that we bring in $300B, institute cuts of $300B, create economic growth to bring in an additional $300B which brings the grand total of $900B annually.
So with this plan if we assume the current annual deficit is $900B we will have an annual deficit of $0..
Ok?
From the same link above: http://www.american.com/archive/2011/august/obamasfollytaxingtherich
"Instead of picking one historic event that happens to fit your preferred theory, a more reasonable approach is to investigate all historical periods where taxes increased or decreased. This has been done by former Obama advisor Christina Romer and her husband David Romer. They also take into account the causes of tax increases.1 They find that tax increases tend to reduce economic growth, stating that “tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained, and highly significant negative impact on output,” as “an exogenous tax increase of one percent of GDP lowers real GDP by almost three percent.” Similar results have been obtained by Harvard economist Alberto Alesina using a different methodology.2"
And, doing the ol' ad hominem attack thing: "traitors", "liars", and so on.
He's hard to keep on task. He's not even clear on the actual mathematical equations we're talking about in the first place.
Talking points and logical fallacies are his M.O.
But...but....but....Biden and Obama and their supporters like the one below all INSIST that the US Economy is Recovering Well!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-the-us-economy-is-recovering-well/2012/10/24/9c34df9e-1df0-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_story.html
Clearly you are mistaken.
The Obama recovery is weak because of traitorous republican obstruction and their worship of the Norquist.
The repubs have chosen to protect the millionaire/billionaires at the expense of the deficit/debt and the 99%.
Pres Obama has already cut, and is proposing cuts even in SS & Medicare, along with of course taxes on the milionaire/billionaires who haven't helped get us out of this economic crises (but have benefited from it).
So I would say we must triple the wealthy tax increase at least from what Pres Obama is talkin about so that we cover almost 20% of the bush created annual deficit.
Cuts to cover another 20%. Do some real job creation (that repubs have obstructed) and that would create economic growth & cover another 50% of the Bush created deficit.
So Pres Obama is of course cutting and willing to cut. You don't know what you are talkin about.
You sound like the normal everyday repub talkin point campaign lies.
So
Peace, And Good luck with all your good efforts.
Frankly my friend, you're another good example of a theological thinker. Facts don't seem to intrude themselves too far into your worldview, and when they get too close and too uncomfortable, you engage in the classic ad hominem attacks to divert the conversation elsewhere.
Calling me a liar doesn't change the facts. Do the math.
I ain't questioned your math.!!!! Math done!!!
Triple the tax on the wealthy!, Continue the cuts Pres Obama has already made and cut some more!! And pass the jobs bills to strengthen the Obama recovery and increase revenue.
That'll do it. I used a calculator. Did you?
Excessive use of exclamation points doesn't change facts any more than calling me a liar does. Since your math is done, show it to us.
I ain't gonna repeat myself.
Can't you just reread my comments.?
Math boy!
Math boy, indeed. And proud if it. It's a telling statement about you that you use that as an insult.
I see no figures in your posts, just ipsi dixit statements.
Repubs crashed the economy and have prevented a strong recovery. That adds up to treason.
you 're talking to an idiot (vqkag). he has his talking points and is sticking to them.
He amuses me, so I humor him.
I know what you mean about being amused. it's like being a cat and toying with a mouse.
I wish that those who discuss the "denial" of others would be specific about exactly what they are talking about. I do not deny that the climate is changing, but I also do not deny that it has changed in the past and will always BE changing in the future.
I LOVE facts. I like them a lot more than theories. I like it when facts contradict theories just as much as when they confirm them because BOTH are a part of advancing the truth. FACTS proved that the earth was not flat, and that the Sun doesn't orbit the Earth even when the vast majority of people insisted on telling an entirely different story.
The more FACTS we gather, the more we learn about this planet, the more we realize we didn't know before. And that gets us ALL closer to the truth.
So you don't think the insurers are using facts when they decide they cannot insure certain areas of the country because of the climate disasters likely to come?
I didn't see any facts about insurers not insuring certain areas of the country. Using climate predictions or saying that something is "likely to come" doesn't make that something a FACT.
I find it fascinating that insurers have Re insurers themselves.
Isn't this enough evidence that the oil industry does NOT deserve subsidies.?
http://www.nationofchange.org/three-ways-big-oil-spends-its-profits-defend-oil-subsidies-and-defeat-clean-energy-1351171043
This thread isn't about subsidies for the oil industry is it?
It is about climate change. So repub enabling of oil industry w/ billions in subsidies is related.
Big time. Do you have anything to say about it? Thread police.
Sure. End all subsidies to oil companies! Surely THAT will end climate change.
And give them to insurance companies!
End all private insurance welfare, tax breaks, loopholes!
invest all those monies in green tech!
Give the money to companies with no viable product to offer yet now, and then scream about it in the future when THEY are the ones stealing money from the taxpayers for their enormous coffers!!!
Now you got it.