March 17, 2004
Money Myths

Myth: The deficit is ballooning out of control, and will undermine the economy.

Fact: The current deficit is equal to or smaller than those recorded in previous recession years, as a percentage of the gross domestic product (citation).

Myth: The current deficit is a gigantic weight on the country's economy.

Fact: The current deficit is impressively large at 521 billion dollars, but this represents just 5% of the gross domestic product of the United States economy (citation).

Myth: The national debt is titanic, growing larger, and will eventually crush our children.

Fact: The national debt currently stands at an admittedly staggering 7.1 trillion dollars. However, this represents just 16% of the currently estimated total household wealth in the United States (citation). Further, more than half this debt is owned by US citizens in the form of various kinds of government bonds (citation).

Myth: Millions of US citizens have no access to health care.

Fact: Federal law requires any person, regardless of insurance, citizenship, or even legal resident status be treated regardless of insurance status if they present themselves to an emergency room (citation).

Myth: Tax burdens fall mostly on middle and lower income families, while the wealthy pay little to nothing at all.

Fact:: Families in the top 5% income bracket pay 50% of all personal income tax the federal government receives. The bottom 60% is responsible for exactly 6%. The bottom 5% receive a 2% credit, regardless of income (citation).

Myth: The war in Iraq will crush the US economy.

Fact:: At the requested funding level of 87 billion dollars, the cost of the war in Iraq represents not quite 4% of the current government budget for the next fiscal year (citation).

Myth: Unemployment is unreasonably high in the United States.

Fact: 94.5% of all eligible workers in the US are in fact employed (citation).

Of course, you know the country's on an express elevator to hell, going down. Just be sure to cite your sources when you prove it.

Posted by scott at March 17, 2004 01:58 PM

eMail this entry!
Comments

I want to comment on the healthcare point. Yes, healthcare is available to people if they are ill at emergency rooms regardless if they have health insurance or not. However, it has been found that people without health insurance do not seek medical attention until the condition is dire. They avoid medical treatment becuase they cannot afford the cost that preventative care could bring them. Many people even avoid treatment until they are brought in on a stretcher because the cost of going to the emergency room with no insurance is incredibly expensive. Its a very difficult position to be in.

Even with healthcare coverage it can be financially draining to get sick. Recently, I avoided going to the doctor when I was ill because I wanted to avoid the $50 or so dollars I would have to spend in medication and co-pay. I couldnt afford it. Eventually I got so sick I HAD to go and had to juggle financially to make it work.

Healthcare is a BIG issue. I dont think that we should have universal health coverage but I do think that the healthcare industries and workplaces need to do more to provide some kind of coverage.

Posted by: carrie on March 17, 2004 03:36 PM

Valid points, but I would argue the grander perception, especially in the international community, is that the US's health care system is a brutal triage, the quality of your insurance card being the only thing between getting better and getting dead.

It just ain't so.

Posted by: Scott on March 17, 2004 03:59 PM

Have to agree with Scott on the perception thing (it helps that I work in the industry). There are plenty of programs out there to help deal with what is referred to as 'indigent care'. Indigent care is used to refer to people who no ability to pay for the services that they are going to receive. In fact, almost all counties have healthcare offices that will provide this care at a minimal/no charge. It does mean that you'll have to wait and the service may be inconvenient, but you will get care. Also, as one that has been in foreign countries (and treated for issues - a broken leg and a don't drink the water problem - I have to say that our healthcare is significantly superior to almost any other country.

One additional point about this. We still have one of the highest standards of living in the world. In almost no other country (outside of ones in the EU and a few others) can you be poor and fat. In the US, you can be poor and fat. In fact, if you are willing, you can be poor, jobless, fat, and have cable TV. That's damn amazing! In India, if you are jobless, you are starving. An example: A company was trying to install sewage lines in a major Indian city. These lines were large concrete ovals (probably about 10' wide and 6' tall, maybe 15' long). When they placed them all in a field in preparation for work, the poor and homeless moved into them. All of them. They couldn't do the work because the people though that these 'homes' were so much better than what else they could get that they wouldn't leave. You just don't hear of that in the US. Now, please don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that our poor people have it made, far from it. However, they are significantly better off than most of the world.

Guess I'm done with my rant...

Posted by: Ron on March 17, 2004 05:04 PM

> Myth: Unemployment is unreasonably high in the United States.

Wrong Question: Unemployment is not a money issue, underpayment is.
A better question would be: while 94% of the poeple are employed, how many of them are paid enough to live a decent life?
(And while you're at it, what's decent?)

Posted by: jadda on March 17, 2004 07:58 PM

Hmm... to me, decent would be a roof over my head, my own personal space to decorate, and enough food and clean water to keep me alive.

Wow, I can get all that without a job! America rules!

Posted by: Tatterdemalian on March 18, 2004 07:53 AM

Underpayment is certainly not the issue. I say this with the basic tenets of capitalism in mind. What is capitalism? According to dictionary.com, it's "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market." That boils down to a couple of things. One major point that I'll focus on is value. Value is the price one is willing to pay for a certain item. It is NOT the price that the seller sets. As Scott, I might think that a white convertable Alfa Romeo is worth, say $80K. However, as Ron, I might think that since it can't do 200 mph+ and it isn't good to haul kayaks with, it's only worth $5K. Guess what? If I'm the only buyer, the value is $5K. This is why prices fluctuate with the market. True, certain things do go up and seem damn pricey, but we continue to pay for them - or buy lower cost imitations. However, no product will end up being over-priced if that company wants to continue to exist (one great is example of this is the automobile industry. When sales are low you see all sorts of rebates and very low interest rates. When sales pick up, those go away.). Therefore, the value of something is dependant upon what someone will pay for it. Based on that, it doesn't matter what I think I deserve. I'm getting paid exactly what I deserve, based on my efforts to date. If I want to be paid more, I need to be willing to go where there is a demand for my particular talents and abilities. To insult Scott a bit more, that means he shouldn't sell to me. He should go to some convention where people like Alfas and try to sell it there.

Another prime example of this is in education. I can get a Master's degree in Sanskrit (you majored in a 5000 year-old dead language?), but I'm only going to make as much money as the average fry chef at McDonald's. However, I can get an MBA from OSU and start, on the average, at $80K/year.

What I'm saying is that anyone who is underemployed has likely engaged in choices throughout their lifetime that have lead them to this situation - whether they chose to work for a financially unstable company, majored in a non-profitable field of study, or just managed to be in the wrong place at the wrong time - and they need to take responsibility for it themselves. Once they've done this, they need to take a very hard evaluation of their skills and abilities. If, based on the current market, they should be making more money - they should get off their asses and get something better. I speak from personal experience in this. My major is genetics. Just a Bachelor's. When I graduated, I could have moved to DC and made $24K/year. Which, as you all know, is poverty level here. I could have stayed in Columbus and gotten a job in the field making $17K. Poverty there, too. I didn't. I switched industries and made a decent wage ($26K there). I worked hard and was promoted - company car, commissions, etc. Then I got laid off - no fault of mine, I was making my sales figures, etc. I just happened to be low man on the totem pole, seniority-wise. I then went and worked for a internet start-up company. I worked very hard there and ended up making significantly more money. Then that company went out of business. After an interim bit of consulting, I landed an even better job (based on the recommendation of a friend who saw that I worked hard, had a good education, etc.) and ended up here in DC. Laid off twice. And am I underemployed? No. (Well, I think I should be making $1,000,000/year to taste test adult beverages in the Caribbean, but that's beside the point...). I'm making a very good salary. This isn't to toot my own horn - it's just to say that if you take responsibility for your actions, and then determine that you will work hard for what you get, keep your eyes open, and don't stop working - you'll get ahead in life.

Wait - that last part sounds like a movie I've watched. "They said no one can build a castle in a swamp. But, by god, I did it. And it sank into the swamp. And so did the next one. The one after that burned down..." (Okay, so it isn't an exact quote, but anyone who can name both of the movies that I've quoted in here can get a Flaming Yellow No Prize for identifying them...

Posted by: Ron on March 18, 2004 06:35 PM

Hey hey hey hey now... who authorized you to give out no-prizes?!? Huh?!? HUH PUNK?!? Don't make me call the RIAA cops on you!

Posted by: scott on March 18, 2004 07:24 PM

RIAA? What's that?

And my sincerest and most humble apologies for over-stepping the established rules. My challenge still stands, but I'll let you determine any prize, as is appropriate.

;P

r

Posted by: Ron on March 19, 2004 06:19 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?