As usual Lucy, your brief foray into actual content is followed by a retreat into bluster and bullshit when someone actually starts to discuss your “points”. Well done! Don’t you ever change.
You want to know why I have a problem with you inasmuch as one exists at all? It’s because you show me the back of your hand and then tell me what an upstanding person I am. It’s almost like you can’t decide what you want to be. Do you want to engage in a discussion, or do you want to dazzle me with masterful rhetoric? When you do the former you’re good at it. When it’s the latter, what’s the point of having a discussion anymore?
I don’t pay taxes. To the best of my knowledge, in my 31 years on this Earth I have paid exactly once, and that was a minuscule amount due to some accounting quirk. I took the job that I did, and it comes with benefits, but who pays? I never have. Perhaps it can be rationalized that once I graduate I will start paying, but the debt can never be squared because people carried me on their backs when I had nothing, and all I can do in return is pay it back monetarily. That’s nothing. That’s personal guilt, that I needed help. I’m a beggar at the trough, and I despise myself for being in that position.
Now that is insulting. How much more reasonable do you want me to be? Jesus, any more reasonable and I’d have to lick your boots.
I just don’t get it. What is your problem with me? Can anybody answer this simple question for me, please? Is it because I was an ass a few years ago? That was then. I made mistakes, errors in judgment, and I modified my behavior accordingly. Should I not have strong opinions about anything? I simply don’t know what you people want from me.
Pretty simple, really. I generally wont let somebody beat up on somebody else unjustly without butting my nose in (so to speak…) Even when that somebody is beating up on themselves. OK, so nobody asked me and its none of my beeswax: I don’t care, I’m not just going to stand there with my hands in my pockets and whistle. Suffering is bad enough when its needful.
I’m 59, I want to be 60. That’s pretty much it.
Well, the discussion part is because its what I think, and I think you should thnk so too. As for the rhetorical stuff, I do it 'cause its fun. I like fun. I don’t do it to make you feel small, I’m a smartass, not a sadist.
Be a father, raise a good man, and the world is repaid a hundred times over. Anything else good you accomplish is gravy.
Frankly, I think you need a good laugh. Twain. Wodehouse. Something light to counteract a case of the grims. But hey! No reason to listen to me, just 'cause I’m smarter, older, and wiser. On the other hand, what could it hurt?
You’re baffled by imaginary events? Color me unsurprised.
Are you saying they misrepresented the CBO’s findings?
Assuming they didn’t, I guess you have no rebuttal.
It was meant to be lighthearted, humorous.
Jesus. All I was trying to say is that one’s contributions to society are measured in more than dollars, numbnuts. Being a member of the military adds, in my opinion, a great deal to the plus side of one’s personal account.
If you want to wear a hairshirt and flay yourself because of your numeric contributions to society in terms of taxes, that’s your call.
As to your opinions, have whatever you want. You don’t need my permission. Likewise, I’ll have mine, and I may occasionally express mine about yours. That oughta be okay on an internet discussion board.
You spent most of page two of this thread carping over Mr. Moto’s cite for a claim which was…The NY Times
You can assume anything that you like. Doesn’t make you right, but you can assume it. If you don’t understand that a lobbying group for one side of the debate is not a reputable cite then you’re hopeless. Every once in a while I get the crazy idea that you’re actually going to discuss the issue at hand but it never lasts, you go right back to pedantically nitpicking minor tangents. No, I don’t accept your source as valid, any more than I would accept a link to R.J. Reynolds in a debate on the health effects of tobacco. Unfortunately for you, that doesn’t mean “you win”, it means that you have failed to support your case using reputable, non biased sources. Try again.
These are the divisions of the office of the New York Attorney General:
So yes, I blame Spitzer as well. He was responsible for this unit from 1999 until Andrew Cuomo took over a few months back. And while Cuomo seems to be chasing down fraud to some degree, it doesn’t seem to be nearly enough.
You don’t think the governor ought to run everything, do you? Especially in states where governors and attorney generals are elected seperately?
Keep in mind, too, that this is just New York State. And while it a particularly bad case, it does not fill me with confidence that things are run with perfect integrity in the other forty-nine states and the territories.
And what part of that involved questioning the validity of the NY Times as a cite?
Oh, that’s right: none of it.
I have supplied a source with, IME, a good track record for accuracy with respect to the facts.
They also claim to be quoting the results of a CBO study.
If you think they are an unreliable source that would misrepresent the CBO findings, you can’t have a better opportunity to prove it than this. They link directly to it.
But the notion that anyone with an opinion on an issue is inherently a bad cite is bullshit. You want to cite the Cato Institute on this? Go ahead - I’ll look over their stuff to make sure I believe it, since they too have a bias of their own, but I don’t have any reason to believe they’d bullshit me on the facts. Similarly CBPP. It’s all in the track record.
I think the governor runs any office whose head reports to him. Duuuuuuuh.
But your assigning equal weight to the guy in charge of running the government, and the guy in charge of investigating it (and lots of other things too) is like assigning equal responsibility for a bank robbery to the cops and the robbers.
And once again, Paul Krugman sums it up better than I ever could.
My favorite excerpt “All in all, the Graeme Frost case is a perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate. If service members oppose a Republican war, they’re “phony soldiers”; if Michael J. Fox opposes Bush policy on stem cells, he’s faking his Parkinson’s symptoms; if an injured 12-year-old child makes the case for a government health insurance program, he’s a fraud.”
And:
This is pretty much how the American people feel. If the veto override fails, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if the next Congress, in its opening days, passed an even more far-reaching bill with respect to children’s health care, so that Hillary can sign it into law as one of her first acts as President.
Can you tell me where I assigned equal weight, or even implied such?
The closest I came was saying blame was shared - and that didn’t imply an equal share.
“Let’s go fishing together. We’ll share whatever we catch.”
I’m always glad to accept a correction to the record, though I’m surprised you didn’t do so when I pointed out the ‘equal’ implication some sixty posts upthread. So how would you apportion relative responsibility? 
Well, first, why don’t you tell me how you think Giuliani fits into the mix? After all, he wasn’t an official at the state level.
I don’t think the Attorney General reports to the Governor. If you can dig up any citation that says Cuomo reports to Spitzer, then please do.
What free market approach? There is no free market for health care in the U.S. It’s one of the most heavily regulated sectors of the economy, the government pays for a huge portion of health care spending (in Maryland it pays for almost 50% and I think the number is similar for the U.S. as a whole), and a ridiculous tax incentive for employer-sponsored health insurance has horribly distorted the market. Most of the problems we face in health care today is because of too much, not too lilttle, government involvement in the system.
Actually, areas of medicine subject only to free market conditions do a wonderful job controlling costs and broadening availability.
Think about this the next time you hear an ad for laser eye surgery.
I think you misunderstood me, though I guess I was less than clear. I was saying, or trying to at least, that the office that does such a lousy job of administering Medicaid and SCHIP in New York reports to the Governor.
At the time (post 75, the only mention of his name in the thread until now), I thought he might have been in a position to either administer or investigate problems with Medicaid in NYC, but apparently that isn’t the case.
Your turn.
That office that until now has done a lousy job investigating Medicaid fraud - who do they report to?
I say until now - Andrew Cuomo has appointed Charles Hynes to help reform this unit. He’s the Brooklyn DA, but back in the eighties he helped establish the Medicare Fraud Unit and brought New York’s level down to a low among all of the states.
That indicates to me a seriousness about this that hasn’t been demonstrated by many people in New York until now, and if it is met by system reforms from the legislature, might make a dent in the problem. Unfortunately, as I said above, the legislature is divided and paralyzed - one of the least effective in the country.
As for Giuliani, he actually had a good record in New York City with cleaning up a lot of this obvious fraud - but there was only so much he could do when state and federal regulators alike were giving him no help. And neither showed much interest in helping him in this effort while he was mayor, beyond token efforts.