Bill O’Reilly Gets Smacked By Economics Professor – Nanny States Actually Do Better

How Republicans got so stupid.

How Republicans got so stupid.

Certainly part of the reason why today’s Conservative Republicans come off as so stupid is due in large part to Bill O’Reilly’s bullshit “Talking Points Memo.”  Recently Bill said:

Bill O’Reilly: Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, now Cypress, all broke. And other European nations are close. Why? Because they are nanny states. And there are not enough workers to support all the entitlements these progressive paradises are handing out.

Economics professor Richard Wolff punished Bill O’Reilly. Here’s his smackdown on Democracy Now on Monday.

Economic Professor Richard Wolff: You know he gets away with saying things which no undergraduate in the United States with a responsible economic professor could ever get away with. If you want to refer to things as nanny states, then the place you go to in Europe is not the southern tier, Portugal, Spain, and Italy. The places you go are Germany and Scandinavia, because they provide more social services to their people than anybody else.

And guess what, not only are they not in trouble economically, they are the winners of the current situation. The unemployment rate in Germany is now below five percent. Ours is pushing between seven and eight percent.

So, ah, please get your facts right Mr. O’Reilly. The nanny state you call it; the program of countries like Germany and Scandinavia who tax their people heavily by all means, but who provide them with social services that would be the envy of the United States, a national health program that takes care of you whether you are employed or not and gives you proper healthcare.

In France for example the law says when you go to work you get five weeks paid vacation. That’s not an option, that’s the law. You get support when you are a new parent, childcare and so forth.

They provide services and they are successful in Germany and Scandinavia, much more than we are in the United States; and much more than those countries in the south.

So they are not broke in the south because they are nanny states, since the nanny states par excellence are doing better than everyone. The actual truth of Mr. O’Reilly is the opposite of what he says. The more you do nanny state, the better off you are during a crisis, and to minimize the cost of the crisis. That’s what the European economic situation actually teaches. He is just making it up as he goes along to conform to an ideological position that is harder and harder for folks like him to sustain so he has to reach further and further into fantasy.

  1. #1 by brewski on March 27, 2013 - 9:25 am

    Corporate income tax rates (state plus Federal) by country including northern European nanny states:

    Ireland 12.5
    Switzerland 21.2
    United Kingdom 24.0
    Finland 24.5
    Austria 25.0
    Netherlands 25.0
    Denmark 25.0
    Canada 26.1
    Sweden 26.3
    Norway 28.0
    Germany 30.2
    Belgium 34.0
    France 34.4
    United States 39.1

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on March 27, 2013 - 10:01 am

  3. #3 by cav on March 27, 2013 - 11:05 am

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/local-airport-closures-cause-gopers-sequestration-anxiety.php

    These are the same idiots who, if they jumped off a building, would be surprised at their impact when finally they hit the ground.

    “But… but… but… gravity isn’t supposed to apply to me!”

    • #4 by Richard Warnick on March 27, 2013 - 12:37 pm

      They voted for arbitrary across-the-board cuts before they decided they were against them.

  4. #5 by cav on March 27, 2013 - 1:12 pm

    I’m wondering why anyone is still pursuing cuts to SS and Medicare (like that Simpson fella wasn’t an Alzheimer victim)?

    Shouldn’t sequestration be eradicating all of our deficit woes? (Of course, only to replace them with succulent, ever-widening, cat-food recipe woes).

  5. #6 by brewski on March 27, 2013 - 2:52 pm

    Richard, thank you for proving that you can collect more revenue with lower statutory rates. So much for the high statutory rate fetish. It helps to have $9/gal gasoline, 15% VAT and all that.

    • #7 by Richard Warnick on March 27, 2013 - 3:21 pm

      Wow, brewski acknowledges the existence of VAT.

  6. #8 by brewski on March 27, 2013 - 3:02 pm

    Foreign-born population as a % of total population including nanny states:

    Finland 3.7
    Italy 8.8
    Denmark 9.6
    Norway 10.0
    Netherlands 11.2
    France 12.6
    United Kingdom 12.9
    United States 13.1

  7. #9 by brewski on March 27, 2013 - 3:40 pm

    I take it from the comments above that Cliff and Richard are advocating making gas $9/gal, imposing a 15% consumption tax, and dropping the corporate income tax rate, so we can be just like those other admired progressive countries. While we are at it we can drop the birthright citizenship concept just like Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom.

    • #10 by Richard Warnick on March 27, 2013 - 5:10 pm

      Nope. VAT and gas taxes are regressive. Nobody in the 99 Percent is talking about reducing corporate income tax rates.

      I suppose brewski is implying that immigration is bad for the economy, when the reverse is actually true.

  8. #11 by cav on March 27, 2013 - 4:10 pm

    Cliff, your graphic showing Bill O’Rielly in an ancestral position in some bull about evolution, overlooks the fact that our fore fathers were probably really aliens from Bokodogun or Kolob.

    I find the graphic distasteful at best and possibly libelous – if someone wanted to press it. I wonder what Ken Bingham thinks?

  9. #12 by Larry Bergan on March 27, 2013 - 7:48 pm

    It would be great to see more of professor Richard Wolff. He’s been making the rounds on Bill Moyers and Amy Goodman’s shows, but you’ll probably never seen him on Fox “news”. If you do he’ll probably get his mike shut off.

    Terry Gross was interviewing Chris Hayes about his upcoming show on MSNBC, and it sounds like it’s going to be a great one.

    A term I’d never heard before, but a funny one which I think explains why Bill O’ Reilly’s show has viewers. Some people tune in because they like to “hate watch” a television show. In other words they like to be angry when they view.

    I wonder if that’s taken into account when they rate the shows. Is somebody who hates the ground O ‘Reilly walks on getting counted as a fan who likes what he’s doing?

  10. #13 by brewski on March 27, 2013 - 10:07 pm

    Oh I thought this post was about how smart and progressive those countries in Europe are and how we should be more like them. I must be mistaken.

  11. #14 by brewski on March 27, 2013 - 10:09 pm

    Richard, so according to your logic and the logic of your link, the US would be better off and more wealthy if we allowed, say 500 million non-English speaking, unskilled peasants with small children from Africa.

    Yes or no?

    Your logic.

  12. #15 by brewski on March 27, 2013 - 10:49 pm

    Reason #2,853,769 why Democrats are morons:

    Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

    Apparently she thinks it is a bigger problem that her staff doesn’t can’t afford to eat in the Capitol cafeteria than the US is giving hundreds of millions of dollars to the Muslim Brotherhood.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNP8B3S0o_w

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/world/middleeast/kerry-announces-millions-in-us-aid-for-egypt.html?_r=0

    And this woman is their “leader”. Shame.

  13. #16 by cav on March 28, 2013 - 1:04 am

    While not denying Democrats, being the ‘big tent’ party that it is, would most certainly contain a statistical constituency of moron, It would be completely wrong-headed to suggest the Republicans were all geniuses. Far from it.

    Further, the unstated ‘all’, between ‘why’ and ‘Democrats’, would lead an objective observer to believe, that the writer – one…brewski, isn’t altogether rational, giving substance to the notion that much of his / her commentary is utter bullshit.

  14. #17 by brewski on March 28, 2013 - 8:53 am

    I grant that not all Democrats are morons. Just the ones who elected Debbie Wasserman Schultz to be their “leader”.

  15. #18 by cav on March 28, 2013 - 9:00 am

    In recognition of brew’s point however, we do have the ‘Monsanto protection act’, and the permanent Sequester. Two pieces of stupidity for which many Dems have been major movers and shakers.

    The Republicans, well, God will just have to sort them out. But, I’m really thinking the need for better democrats has also become overwhelmingly clear.

    Not particularly optimistic.

  16. #19 by brewski on March 28, 2013 - 1:35 pm

    JFK couldn’t get elected in the Democratic Party today. RFK would be booed and run out of town. The loony-fest that has taken over and has ruined a once thoughtful party.

    If you want Exhibit A I give you Obamacare, the results of which were predictable and are now coming true:

    http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/08/news/economy/employer-health-insurance/index.html

  17. #20 by Larry Bergan on March 28, 2013 - 8:11 pm

    brewski:

    I’ll have to see how this works out, but moving healthcare the hell away from employers sounds like a great thing for employers AND employees.

    I also heard Obamacare is going to be comparative testing drugs to see if patients and hospitals are being charged more then they need to be.

    Somebody recently DID such a test and found out a drug company was charging twice the amount for their new drug, when the old drug had exactly the same effect on patients. This news eventually caused the greedy bastards to cut it’s wonderful new drug’s cost in half.

    See how that works?

  18. #21 by brewski on March 28, 2013 - 9:18 pm

    “I’ll have to see how this works out, but moving healthcare the hell away from employers sounds like a great thing for employers AND employees.”

    Tell me that again when you have to shell out $15,000 per year from your own pocket for a family policy.

    “Somebody recently DID such a test and found out a drug company was charging twice the amount for their new drug, when the old drug had exactly the same effect on patients. This news eventually caused the greedy bastards to cut it’s wonderful new drug’s cost in half.”

    Yes, that is why insurance companies often demand that their patients use generics.

    “See how that works?”

    Very much.

  19. #22 by Larry Bergan on March 28, 2013 - 9:49 pm

    $15,000 per year for a family policy? How about $11,000 a MONTH for one drug?

    From the story I was referring to:

    Saltz and his colleagues at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York made what seemed like a very reasonable decision: The hospital would not stock the more expensive drug. But taking cost into account for a new cancer drug was a very unusual decision for the hospital

    “There was a lot of angst over it, simply because it had never been done before” at Sloan-Kettering, Saltz says.

    Let the market work it’s magic, eh brewski?

  20. #23 by brewski on March 28, 2013 - 10:22 pm

    You proved my point for me. Thank you.

    “The hospital would not stock the more expensive drug.”

  21. #24 by brewski on March 28, 2013 - 10:25 pm

    More proof (some) Democrats are morons:

    From the very left leaning LA Times (and my former employer):

    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-calif-health-rates-20130329,0,6971020.story

  22. #25 by Larry Bergan on March 28, 2013 - 11:12 pm

    Stop it brewski:

    There isn’t any left leaning publication that wasn’t railing against Bush’s war of choice. Was the LA Times doing that?

    The money needed to keep people well could easily come from the trillions we’ve wasted on killing people or the trillions the Federal Reserve gives away behind our backs to corporations like McDonald’s and even other countries.

    Hopefully the people will demand that we go to a single payer system in which they feel more connected to each others needs.

    I didn’t prove anything for you. The hospital was TERRIFIED of not carrying the drug that cost twice as much as the previous one. It’s a one time occurrence the hospital stood up against big Pharma.

  23. #26 by cav on March 28, 2013 - 11:31 pm

    Did it ever occur to any of you that the road the can is being kicked down is just a line on a still larger can – which is itself, about to be kicked?

    With that I hit the sack.

  24. #27 by brewski on March 29, 2013 - 7:01 am

    Why would they be terrified of not carrying the drug since you told me it didn’t work any better than the less expensive one? Start making sense.

  25. #28 by cav on March 29, 2013 - 9:46 am

    Owsley or Sandoz? Cost was NEVER an issue.

  26. #29 by Larry Bergan on March 29, 2013 - 5:23 pm

    brewski:

    Try reading the article.

    cav:

    There’s been a lot of talk about the benefits of psychedelic drugs lately. You can bet everybody’s going to want to get their fingers into that.

  27. #30 by brewski on March 29, 2013 - 11:08 pm

    The story has nothing to do with Obamacare causing 7 million people to lose their insurance.

    the CBO’s latest estimate of people who will be pushed out of employer provided insurance coverage has more than doubled to seven million Americans.

    The Society of Actuaries, a nonpartisan professional association, has issued a new report warning that the cost of medical claims in the new individual-insurance market could rise by an average of 32% per person over the first few years the law is in place.

    As for insurance companies themselves, they estimate that premiums will “increase sharply” beginning next year with the nation’s largest carrier, UnitedHealth Group Inc., predicting that rates for consumers buying their own plans could increase by as much as 116 percent. Small business rates could go up as much as 25-50 percent as well.

    The latest revision of the ten year cost estimate for Obamacare is now $1.6 trillion, nearly double the $898 billion the CBO estimated those costs to be in 2010. Thus, yet another promise made by the president, that the healthcare bill would be “deficit neutral,” is revealed as fraudulent.

    • #31 by Richard Warnick on March 30, 2013 - 4:11 pm

      What the Obama administration deserves for implementing a bad right-wing version of corporatist health care “reform” instead of the real thing. Unfortunately, it will be middle-class Americans who suffer.

  28. #33 by brewski on March 30, 2013 - 4:42 pm

    Richard, Cliff and Glenden think you are a racist.

  29. #34 by Larry Bergan on March 30, 2013 - 5:44 pm

    Thanks for the link cav. I hadn’t heard about “pay for delay” before; it wouldn’t make a great bumper sticker because it only voices support for Big Pharma, and both sides of the proverbial isle in congress know enough not to bring that up.

    I’m thinking even your average republican on the street doesn’t want to pay more for drugs because of a deal like that. Apparently, our esteemed Supremes are too corporate friendly to come up with a decision.

  30. #35 by Larry Bergan on March 30, 2013 - 5:54 pm

    brewski:

    Of course premiums are going to increase. You didn’t think the health insurance corporations went into this deal thinking they weren’t going to come out even richer then they are now did you? I though you would know these guys better then that.

    The market decides.

    Unfortunately, the American people aren’t part of the market when it comes to decisions and the market controls all three branches of government, the media and the supreme court.

    Jeb for pres!

    He’ll fix it! :) :(

  31. #36 by brewski on March 30, 2013 - 6:25 pm

    “Of course premiums are going to increase. You didn’t think the health insurance corporations went into this deal thinking they weren’t going to come out even richer then they are now did you? ”

    Obama promised a $2500 decrease. Period. He lied, people died.

  32. #37 by Larry Bergan on March 30, 2013 - 6:50 pm

    If the corporate owned machine would get the hell out of the way, and stop grabbing for the green, we could have nice things.

    Like I said:

    Jeb will fix everything. Donate!

  33. #38 by brewski on March 30, 2013 - 6:59 pm

    The lefties still haven’t been able to explain how union-owned and union-run non-profit insurance plans are going up just as fast as all the others. If profit is the problem then non-profit insurers would be far cheaper. They aren’t.

  34. #39 by Larry Bergan on March 30, 2013 - 7:20 pm

    Those DAMN union-run non-profit insurance plans!

    I’m voting for Jeb!

  35. #40 by cav on April 1, 2013 - 4:17 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: