Let it stand as a testament to the awesome political power of Money. Because this bill is the smallest of the smaller potato, reform wise. Radical, it is not, its as about as modest a challenge to the rampant greed of the insurance trust as can be imagined. As I might have said before, if they cannot turn a modest but respectable profit without pulling the sort of crap they’ve been getting away with…then I say they’re spinach, and I say to hell with them!
But now I think I see, maybe, why the whole “single payer” thing never got a hearing, which pissed me off no end. Because Obama is smarter about this stuff than I am, and knew he’d never get it. He correctly estimated just how far Money was willing to go to defend its privileges and hunting rights. They pulled out all the stops, they fed boxcars of money into the public opinion industry. (Sure, your Germans got your physicists, your Italians your singers, but America! America has salesmen!..)
And damned if the shit don’t work! This modest, mousy little bill applying for a respectable position as a nanny state is, to a huge swath of our fellow citizens, the Whore of Babylon and the Slum Goddess from the Lower East Side. The font of all corruptions, she will kill your granny and teach your children how to fuck in kindergarten.
In any sufficiently degraded civilization, money becomes indistinguishable from magic.
We’re getting there luce, we’re getting there. More your thing than mine, certainly, but still it won’t be long. Perhaps even in our lifetime.
And if it does, I’ll expect you, in time-honored American liberal fashion, to forget that you once made fun of the idea in the first place and to then proclaim that neither matters a whit anyhow - after all, people gotta die and kids gotta fuck, right?..and besides, nobody but tighty-righties ever gave a shit about that in the first place.
There, I think that about covers it. If I’ve left anything out please feel free to advise. After all, you’re clearly plugged in deeply insofar as liberal strategy goes while I have only my life’s experience and observations to go by. Still, I doubt I’m far off the mark.
Quotes from wikipedia are hazardous. Find me a macroeconomist who believes that deficit spending during a recession is a bad idea when monetary policy has been maxed out (i.e. with short term interest rates at virtually zero percent).
I know, the stuff is dense. And though deficit spending during recessions is part of intermediate level macroeconomic textbooks, the fact is that there’s a vocal minority who disagrees with it, with varying levels of coherence. Some of their errors are embarrassing, which is disturbing as (to me) it shows that conservative cultishness and craziness can infect some remarkably sharp thinkers. For Cochrane and Fama are very bright men and bright men typically make a different category of error. (I trust Nobel laureate Lucas’ POV to be coherent though he might get tripped up like everyone else now and then.)
You may disagree with me John or perhaps take a more agnostic stance. But if my perceptions are accurate, I maintain that it’s …disturbing.
Strip away the rhetoric and this is a pretty good representation of the modern conservative mentality. It is of course delusional: while conservatives care about the size of government as an intrinsic issue, liberals take a more utilitarian perspective. There are many examples. US liberals haven’t pushed for governmental takeover of industry since the 1950s. The number of federal government nonmilitary employees hasn’t skyrocketed under any Democratic administration for the past 50 or so years. When command-control methods in environmental control seemed less effective, liberals promptly pivoted to more market friendly techniques such as tradeable emissions permits.
To think that liberals just want a bigger federal government intrinsically flies in the face of the evidence. More plausibly, you could make the argument for conservatives if you consider military spending and Reagan’s peacetime buildup.
Regarding the taciturn American conservative: ROTFLMAO. Regarding: not particularly active: eh, maybe.
Regarding: “Liberals want to take over our lives”: some of that is of course regulatory in nature and won’t involve a lot of governmental spending. But let’s focus on the essential myopia of Scylla’s posts. Yes, liberals are always going on about something. Put another way, after they solve one problem they move on to another. Following a lot of hard work, American air quality has gotten a lot better. Because the plan was designed well, Cash for Clunkers stimulated 2009 vehicle sales.
Apparently, “worked as intended,” means, “if we pay people an insane amount of money to part with their junkers and buy new cars, they will.”
Shockingly, that statement proved accurate.
But the rate at which the fund were exhausted and more needed to be appropriated to continue the program suggests that the payments were too high – that even if they had been more modest, people would have traded in cars and the same effect could have been achieved for less money – or more cars “recycled” for the same amount of money.
So I question the “well designed” part of this claim.
No. It’s a commonly used word to describe Obama’s HCR proposal. It has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal. If it bothers you, then that’s your problem. There’s nothing objectively “wrong” about the term. It’s just a word.
It’s a political word intended to falsely imply that the HCR package entails any kind of new, public provider option. It doesn’t. There is no such thing as “Obamacare.” It does not impress me that some progressives have been lulled into using the word to describe the package. The clear, intentional insinuation behind the word is that it entails any kind of government provided health care. It does not.
Actually, it just shows that you’re so lazy in your thinking you fall victim to one of the classic symptoms of conservatism.
Because it doesn’t apply to you, it doesn’t happen. Starving Artist makes the same claim above, Curlcoat makes the same arguments. Because they have never known a good person that went bankrupt due to health care related costs, no one does. Because they have seen (or think they have) the degrading culture it’s degrading, no matter what facts or statistics you can show. Your personal collection of anecdotes is utterly worthless.
Think about it:
The conservative argument against HCR: Don’t get a free ride, get a job and get insurance (which of course ignores the fact that many cannot get it, even with a good job).
The conservative argument against Social Security, Medicare and Welfare: Plan for your ownself. Starve/freeze/die if you don’t have money.
All these things are predicated on the ignorant notion that, “I made it, so anyone who has less than me is lazier than me.” That’s clearly stupid and a result of a dim and flabby mind.
Here you are, ignoring that many if not most conservatives believe all those things, but since you don’t somehow it’s not widespread.
That’s an interesting, if unusual, opinion. Got any facts?
And the idea that Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning Economist and noted political supporter of the left, got “lulled” into using a loaded conservative code word is laughable. I mean, we call make up shit like that to defend our crazy ideas.
It shows that I was a math major before I switched majors.
If the argument is, “Many conservatives believe…” then we can quibble endlessly about percentages. But this argument seemed much easier to address: you must believe these things to be a conservative. Straight logic, if A then B.
And to rebut it, all I must show is one counter example.
“Oh, no,” I hear you whine. “Obviously this wasn’t meant as a serious statement.”
Let me translate: “Oh, no, I obviously would like to reap the persuasive benefits of the absolute language and at the same time disclaim any resposnibility for actually supporting it!”
Really, it’s a simple trick used by dishonest shitbags, so I don’t why you’re lowering yourself to wallow in that kind of mud.
Why would you say that? In case you’re not aware, I never supported the Iraq War. Never. And I have probably called it Bush’s War myself. If I didn’t, I’ll call it so now: The Iraq war was (and is) Bush’s War.
Sorry retard. If that were the case there would be no conservatives anywhere. We have to look at what large amounts of the group think. Jesus you’re a fucking moron.
I’m not whining. I’m depressed that a sociopath with a bag of shit where his brain should be is allowed to practice law in this country.
Oh, no, I explained what I was thinking in my OP. Read it, why don’t you.
When you’re investigating the reasoning of pigs, I expect a little pigshit.
Since you’re too fucking stupid to understand things said plain. Lets go with majority views. Although for our purposes anything over say, 40% should still be troubling, in my opinion.
