An “unprecedented” stimulus bill
I certainly haven’t read the stimulus bill. Few have, since it wasn’t posted as promised, and its length is extraordinary.
But here’s a summary of its provisions that makes chilling reading. It illustrates why people (including me) were so incensed about the prospect of “creeping socialism” and “redistribution of income,” and a host of other moves to the left if Obama and a resoundingly Democrat Congress were elected. The stimulus bill certainly seems to fit the bill.
You might say we deserve this, because the people voted for it. I’m not so sure most voters realized that their “throw the bums out” feeling on election day 2008 would result in this sort of thing. But whether we realized it or not, this is what that action hath wrought.
So much of this bill has nothing to do with financial stimulus, and everything to do with extending benefits to liberal Democrats’ traditional constituents. But in order to pass it, several things seem necessary: to keep the American people from knowing the details, to rush it through before they can find out, and to label the whole thing (including the rush) as absolutely necessary to avoid catastrophe.
Obama is very fond of that oh-so-reassuring word “catastrophe.” He also likes to say that what we’re facing now is “unprecedented.” Both create a sense of extreme urgency.
Well, in a sense, every event is new, and different from all those that have preceded it, so in that sense everything is unprecedented. But what’s really so unprecedented about the current crisis?
This is going to sound as if perhaps I have purposely been left uninformed. But if no one has read this bill, who the hell wrote it? What individuals submitted what portions? Who compiled it to be presented as is for a vote? I don’t know the answers to any of those questions. The internet is so crowded at this moment, I can’t even chase down your links right now.
It was to be up for 5 days originally. Didn’t happen. Then 48 hours was promised. Didn’t happen. Then by 11:00 o’clock last night, but was put up at around midnight. What person could possibly think any other way than to believe this is being rammed through before anyone – including those voting for it – even know what it is they are voting for. But we’ve been there already, on this blog, on almost every blog.
It is my belief the majority of those in our military will side with the republican / conservative right when the coup comes. As fast as things are moving now, just like a flock of birds in flight, a tipping point could be reached and the whole thing turn that fast, that completely.
I’m beginning to think that this Presidency is going to be the direct opposite of FDR’s Presidency. Rather than a Congress that will bend over and enact whatever the President wants, we have a President that bends over and spouts whatever nonsense Congress decides is needed to convince the people that Congress is on their side.
Problem is, we’re going to get the same result, or maybe worse.
Neo, what happened in the 2008 elections cannot be called “throw the bums out”. Congress’ average seat retention rate since 1855 is 95.4 percent. In 2008, 95.6 percent of the incumbents were retained. Of the 20 incumbents who lost, all but one was Republican. If the electorate knew what they wanted, they got it, if they didn’t, they’ll get it.
I said before the election that the only benefit John McCain would bring to the White House would be as a possible obstruction to Pelosi and Reid. I knew that those two would ride the naive neophyte Obama like a cheap rented mule.
And I was right.
That Cloward/Piven and Alinsky angle on explaining White House actions is growing in credibility, as far as I am concerned.
Let’s look at the criticisms in the NRO article (which is an extremely biased site, to say the least).
1) Abolishing welfare reforms – this is simply partisan hyperbole. The actual change is simply to allow a temporary increase in welfare caseloads during an economic emergency (i.e., now). It is not a long-term reversal of welfare reform incentives. See:
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/are_dems_secretly_gutting_welfare_reform.php
2) Expanding the welfare state – This is another misrepresentation. It is true the tax credit will go to working people who make so little as to not pay income tax — but EVERYONE pays Social Security tax. Most economists agree that tax cuts to the poor are generally more immediately stimulative because poor people tend to spend their tax cuts immediately, whereas higher income people tend to save it. The remainder of the criticisms are about, again, temporary Federal support for programs that are coming under stress, causing budget crises in the states in the middle of this economic crisis.
3) Health Care Agenda – This is a point where liberals and conservatives simply disagree. Conservatives think health care ought to be left to “the market” but I believe the evidence is overwhelming that government health care programs are both cheaper and more effective. The United States spends more on health care than any other industrialized nation, yet we have vast numbers of people underinsured or uninsured. We have skyrocketing health care costs that go up more every year than inflation. The measures in the plan are intended to help tamp down the rising costs of health care, as well as to help the unemployed pay for health insurance until they can find another job.
4) Bailing Out Irresponsible State Governments – Oh, come on, this is really an absurd complaint. State governments are coming under pressure due to the economic debacle that was created during the Bush Administration. They, like the banks, need a temporary infusion of cash. Unlike the Federal Government they have limited authority to deficit spend. One of the most important parts of this package is to help state governments weather this storm. State governments are also huge employers, and having them go bankrupt would cause a chain reaction across the economy. Should they “be allowed to fail”? I would argue that when a bubble collapses they should not … for same reason deficit spending is a good idea during a depression.
5) Global Trade War – This is one criticism from the article I happen to agree with. I think the “Buy American” provision is bad policy and sets a bad precedent.
6) Education Spending – Here again I totally disagree with the criticism — As a country we have one of the worst public school systems in the developed world. To a large degree, it’s even worse in red states. This has a lot to do with our general global lack of competitiveness. Attacks on education spending is a conservative trope I’ve never understood and can never sympathize with.
Mitsu
I was very much impressed with your posting, feeling that you perhaps had some inside info concerning the topic, but when you stated the “economic debacle that was created during the Bush Administration.” you destroyed the illusion.
Neo (squared) con,
Absolutely right – why the big rush? No one in their right mind can possibly believe that to delay a couple of months will cause any greater problems -especially since not much of the money will get spent anywhere for months. It’s obvious the package is being rushed through because the longer it sits out there and people learn more about it the more they will oppose it.
Does anyone else find it strange that the party who wants long waiting periods for buying guns doesn’t want any for this bill? And this bill is a lot more lethal.
Mitsu,
For someone who admonished us in a previous thread that we should take economics 101 I can return the admonishment and say that maybe you should study Human Nature 101 and Bureaucracy 101. Of course the course “ain’t book learnin’ ” bu let’s see if we can’t use them to refute your arguments.
1. Abolish welfare reform – it’s naivete to say “a temporary increase”. With government there is no temporary increase. Increases in funding of any kind also bring increases in the number of bureaucrats and are almost impossible to fire or do away with their positions. Most of these bureaucrats (like many liberal leaders) don’t want people to better their lives and move off assistance. In fact they are vested in keeping them ON assistance to keep themselves on the payroll.
2. Everyone pays social security tax ? Really ? People who live totally off the taxpayers and do not work do not pay social security tax. And yet they can spend their whole lives on public assistance and still collect social security when they get to that age. Saying that people who do not pay income tax still pay tax because they pay social security tax is such a sill argument anyway – it’s a liberal talking point aimed at assuaging some (income) taxpayer ire. And while we are speaking of social security tax – it was supposed to be a “temporary” measure (relating back to point 1).
3. Health Care Agenda – All you have to do is look at the European and Canadian models and you will see government run health care does not do well. Many places it is bankrupting the economies so more and more costs are being shifted back to the consumer. Of course we spend more on health care than any other country – we have more people. Do we spend more per person – hard to say. Billions per year delivered to non citizens for free – billions a year delivered to citizens who pay nothing. The government already controls well over 40% of health care dollars spent in this country and they are poor stewards of that money as they are defrauded out of billions every year and recoup next to none of it.
Tort reform would lower the cost of health care in this country immensely. Cost of malpractice insurance for NYC hospitals has gone up 150% since 1999 and look at the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors in New York State (from and insurers website)
General Area Internal Medicine General Surgery OB \ GYN
New York City $25,300 $84,000 $152,100
Nassau County $31,500 $105,000 $186,000
Upstate NY $10,750 $36,000 $65,300
Much, much more for a neurosurgeon. So how much do you think that adds to the cost of an office visit or procedure?
Oddly enough the trial lawyers who lobby so hard against tort reform will get a rude awakening if the government takes over health care because most doctors, nurses, hospitals will be government employees and you won’t be able to sue them.
And there is always the argument that the government will be in complete control of who gets what care. Euthanasia by inaction anyone???
4. State Government bailout – So you are saying like the banks and AIG they are too big to fail? What rot. That’s part of their problem. Live on a budget like the rest of us. Those of us who live in states that are pretty fiscally responsible should not have subsidize those states that are not. If Kalee-forn-eee-ya digs itself a hole by paying for all kinds of social services for illegals and other social engineering then it shouldn’t be on my dime.
5. We agree on this one
6. Education spending – Government (local, state, and federal) has continued to throw more and more money at the public education system and it has only gotten worse. Parochial schools spend less than 50 % per student than the public schools and actually turn out educated individuals. So money is not the answer. If you look at most school districts you will see they are incredibly bloated bureaucracies as well.
Money is not and never has been the issue. Look to the teacher’s unions for much of the problem. I laugh every time I hear people saying teachers aren’t well paid. While some states the pay is low – in most states if you look at the hourly wage (per hours worked per year) it is pretty competitive. And to follow that up I also laugh when I hear these NEA members spouting the old mantra ” I didn’t get in to teaching for the money – I wanted to make a difference” trying to tell us they are caring individuals. Well down here the teacher’s union just rejected a proposal from the state to take a 5% decrease in pay so that no teachers would have to be laid off. I hope they care about their students more than for their fellow teachers – but I doubt it. And if they did care for their students and the education they were receiving then they wouldn’t back their union when it defends totally incompetent teachers.
My apologies for the long post everyone.
>created during the Bush Administration
Well, it is true that some of the groundwork for the current fiasco happened near the end of the Clinton Administration, when he signed legislation sponsored by Republicans repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, which set up the conditions under which the current market bubble happened. However, the Bush Administration took deregulation to an extreme. (Again, as I’ve said before, I’m not opposed to SOME deregulation, nor am I in favor of excessive intrusive regulation. I merely point out that the needle went too far in the deregulatory direction and balance needs to be restored).
>naive … temporary increase
The temporary nature of the increase is built into the language of the stimulus bill, as I understand it. Since both Democrats and Republicans now largely support welfare reform I doubt this is going to be reversed later.
>everybody pays social security tax?
The tax cuts go to people who are working and make an income.
>of course we spend more
I was referring to the percentage of GDP spend on health care. Here are the percentages for some of the top industrialized nations:
Country Per Capita Expense % of GDP
Canada 2,058 9.1
England (U.K.) 1,747 7.3
France 2,057 9.5
Italy 1,498 8.1
Japan 2,908 7.8
United States 4,499 13
Our country lacks government-based health care, yet we spend more per capita, by far, than any other major industrialized nation, yet we have terrible quality of care for a large swath of the population. We have the highest infant mortality rate of any industrialized nation, for example. Not only this, but our health care costs continue to skyrocket.
Quality of care, as measured by mortality rates, etc., is quite high in countries like Canada, the UK, and France, despite what you say. But in any event the plans under consideration by this government will maintain private insurance carriers and choice of providers, etc. The idea is to get some of the benefits of socialized medicine without all of the drawbacks.
On education spending, I just have to say — yes, money is not everything, but it is a lot of it. There are a lot of schools in our country which lack even basic supplies (paper, books). Others which have ample supplies. Sure, money doesn’t solve everything but it makes a difference — Massachusetts, for example, has significant state support for education in poor communities, and they also have test scores that rival those of Japan and other countries with far better education systems.
dane: “If Kalee-forn-eee-ya digs itself a hole by paying for all kinds of social services for illegals and other social engineering then it shouldn’t be on my dime.”
I agree, BUT… California voters approved Prop 187 which was to stop certain payments to illegal aliens, but a FEDERAL judge threw it out and Governor Grey Davis did not appeal it.
As one Mexican politician who happens to be a California Legislature said: ” Proposition 187 was the lasp gasp of whites in California.”
Texas is not far behind now. It is said that 1/3 of Texas households speak Spanish at home as their primary language…. not saying all those are illegals, but…..do the math in a non-PC way.
“Legislator” not “Legislature”
To use Phil Gramm’s metaphor, we have reached the point where there are more people in the wagon than pulling the wagon.
dane: The actual quote is “Remember, 187 is the last gasp of white America in California.” : ART Torres
This guy also happens to now be the Chairman of the California Democratic party. See here:
http://vdare.com/nachman/090114_ccir.htm
“At the time Chairman of the California Democratic Party” not “”now be”.
Ok , no more typing for me today……
Let’s look at the criticisms in the NRO article (which is an extremely biased site, to say the least).
Mitsu — No, it is a website with a point of view different from yours.
Or perhaps we should start all our responses to you with: “Let’s look at Mitsu’s criticisms (who is an extremely biased person, to say the least).”
This is part of what I mean when I charge you with intellectually dishonesty. It seems to me that you should know better than this, that you are familiar with the fallacy known as “Poisoning the Well.”
Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.
–Wikipedia
1) Abolishing welfare reforms – this is simply partisan hyperbole. The actual change is simply to allow a temporary increase in welfare caseloads during an economic emergency (i.e., now). It is not a long-term reversal of welfare reform incentives. See:
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/are_dems_secretly_gutting_welfare_reform.php
Mitsu — As usual, you lead with Poisoning the Well (“simply partisan hyperbole” — I wish you would stop doing that). The link you present is not does not support your typical absolute certainty. Your source hedges his or her opinion:
The idea here — if I’m reading the bill correctly — is that the caseload reduction credit would effectively be “updated” to account for economic emergencies. State would get more welfare funds without letting their threshold dip below 50%. Again, I think this is what’s happening. Not 100 percent sure.
If one follows the NR link to its longer discussion from the Heritage Foundation, one finds the opposite claim:
Proponents of the stimulus plan might argue that these changes are necessary to help TANF weather the current recession. This is not true. Under existing TANF law, the federal government operates a TANF “contingency fund” with nearly $2 billion in funding that can be quickly funneled to states that have rising unemployment. It should be noted that the existing contingency fund ties increased financial support to states to the objective external factor of unemployment; it specifically avoids a policy of funding states for increased welfare caseloads, recognizing the perverse incentives this could entail.
If the authors of the stimulus bills merely wanted to provide states with more TANF funds in the current recession, they could have increased funding in the existing contingency fund. But they deliberately did not do this.
—
At this point I’m not sure what the stimulus bill’s impact on previous welfare reform is. I don’t think you are either.
But your usual approach is to bull ahead with confident blunt assertions that sound to me like you are bluffing and trying to buy the pot.
The Heritage link got lost. See http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/wm2287.cfm#_ftn2
Dane — No apologies. You win, hands down!
Mitsu –Huxley is on the mark when he says “you with intellectually dishonesty. It seems to me that you should know better than this, that you are familiar with the fallacy known as ‘Poisoning the Well.’”
Further, you state “The temporary nature of the increase is built into the language of the stimulus bill, as I understand it.”
As you UNDERSTAND it? Is that an assumption on your part? Or something a pal told you?
The fact is — NO ONE has read the bill! It is over 1100 pgs, is a stack of paper almost a foot high (liberals take note: talk about green while you think of all those dead trees) and weighs more than 5 lbs. (source: numerous Congressmen on the news tonight physically holding up the thing that they were not allowed to read).
Not only is the unimaginable spending in this bill obscene, but the manner in which the bill itself was rammed thru Congress by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (and campaigning — more accurately, inducement by threat — courtesy of Barack Obama and David Axelrod) was an abomination. Republican input was strictly forbidden. As was any reaction/response from the public as the bill remained unaccessable.
Bipartisanship? Transparency? Hope?
Well…there certainly is Change! And not for the better. Don’t know about you, but I watch these methods and the madness in horror.
Mitsu has the largest case of White Guilt ever diagnosed by modern (private) medicine.
The only cure for this mysterious and self-inflicted malady is making you pay for things until he feels better!
I buy my family a good health-care plan. I pay out the ass for it. I don’t want my family to go to a clinic. Public medicine kills.
In fact there is nothing with the word “public” in it that is worth a shit:
Public restroom vs private restroom
Public park vs Private park
Public school vs private school
Public room vs private room
Public clinic vs private clinic
Can you think of anything, anything at all, with the word “public”, “people” or “peoples” in it that is worth a shit?
I’m not going, nor am I sending my family, to a Public Clinic. It’s like going to the Motor Vehicle Department for an operation.
Mitwit.
Gray — Mitsu is not white, but of Japanese descent. Personally I don’t have the impression he is motivated by guilt. But his motivation should not be our concern here.
I am curious whether he notices that his posts do not bear close scrutiny. I assume he is aware of this but perhaps he is not. It’s interesting.
Certain patterns are beginning to emerge with President Obama. Among them is the need to closely parse what he says, because what he says can sound persuasive but, upon examination, tends not to hold up. To take just one example, Obama has said repeatedly, including at his press conference earlier this week, that:
“What I won’t do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place, because those theories have been tested and they have failed.”
Wehner demolishes Obama’s claim — read the article for that — then Wehner concludes:
To correct the record obviously takes some effort. And for a man who promised to help “turn the page” on this kind of political nonsense, in which blame is affixed where it doesn’t belong by advancing intellectually unserious and misleading claims, eschewing this effort is a shame. Over time, we will see whether this turns into a pattern.
Boy, WordPress won’t take the Commentary link.
Google: “Parsing the President” wehner
to see the article.
Again: To correct the record obviously takes some effort. And for a man who promised to help “turn the page” on this kind of political nonsense, in which blame is affixed where it doesn’t belong by advancing intellectually unserious and misleading claims, eschewing this effort is a shame.
This seems to be the pattern with both Obama’s speeches and Mitsu’s posts. Perhaps calling them intellectually dishonest is too strong, but it’s hard for me to believe that they don’t know what they are doing with their saying.
But his motivation should not be our concern here.
Motivation should always be your concern.
It’s clear he’s not swayed by fact, logic, reason or self interest. Something motivates him to parrot leftist talking points.
The “White” in “White Guilt” is really only figurative. Clearly, one can be any color and succomb to it.
Perhaps calling them intellectually dishonest is too strong, but it’s hard for me to believe that they don’t know what they are doing with their saying.
Calling them “intellectually dishonest” doesn’t go far enough! There is nothing intellectual about it and there can be no dishonesty when they can’t recognize truth.
It’s like calling someone “intellectually dishonest” ‘cuz they “still feel hungry” after eating a bucket of chicken.
They honestly feel hungry: you can’t argue it away; they cannot be reasoned with; you cannot talk them out of it and they cannot talk themselves out of it.
Nonetheless, it makes no objective sense that they “feel hungry” after stuffing themselves with a bucket of chicken.
Just as it makes no objective sense that they would advocate policies that they do not personally follow and would harm them if they did.
Look, if Mitsu, or the other dopes that come on here actually believed the lefty crap they preach, they wouldn’t be on here ‘cuz they would have given their computers to the ‘less fortunate’!
huxley, what is the date for the Wehner post at Commentary? Alternatively, I think you can fool WordPress by enclosing the URL in quotation marks.
Gray, as I’ve said numerous times before, your idea of what “liberalism” is about has nothing to do with my views. I’m interested solely in what works. To that end, I believe, in general, that one-sided solutions rarely are optimal. That is to say, I was and am a supporter of welfare reform, i.e., incentives to help states get people off of welfare, combined with training and jobs programs. If the stimulus bill, which neither I nor you nor anyone else here has read, actually dismantled these incentives, I would obviously think that is a bad idea.
Huxley, the NRO quote you posted does not contradict the link I posted. The fact that the stimulus bill doesn’t use the existing contingency mechanism does not mean that the Atlantic article is incorrect in stating that the relaxation of the rules is temporary. If you can actually find a link that specifically states the rule change is a permanent repeal of the incentive rules, then fine, I’ll agree with you that is a bad idea. So far, I see no reason to think the Atlantic article is incorrect.
Gray, I think you are wrong about Mitsu, and getting worked up isn’t helping anyone, including the people who disagree with Mitsu. His problem is intellectual complacency and perhaps a touch of laziness, but not dishonesty. Throw in pride, insecurity, and naivete, and you still have a mix that can be pretty irritating.
But I am not convinced that he is anything more sinister than a well-meaning liberal. He sometimes uses a slippery and sloppy rhetorical style that passes for reason among the soft Left. We should help him with that.
huxley points to President Obama as a master such rhetorical legerdemain. It is a way to avoid taking accountability, just like voting “Present.”
Mitsu — You ignore my main point that Armbinder of the Atlantic is not certain that he is reading the bill properly.
I can’t recall an author hedging so furiously. I see no reason to take Armbinder’s word–or yours–that he understands the bill. I don’t claim to know either way.
I would think that the onus would be on you to support your claim that the NRO piece was “simply partisan hyperbole.”
Oblio — Google:
Parsing the President
Peter Wehner – 02.13.2009 – 10:49 AM
I cannot seem to get the Commentary link past WordPress, even just the naked link I copy from the browser.
To that end, I believe, in general, that one-sided solutions rarely are optimal.
I was and am a supporter of welfare reform, i.e., incentives to help states get people off of welfare, combined with training and jobs programs.
You can’t see any conflict with those two statements? None? You really can’t see it?
I don’t believe you are dishonest. I never said you were dishonest. However, if you believed the self-contradictory nonsense you post, you wouldn’t be posting, you would have donated your computer to a jobs program you so love….
I would like to see Mitsu provide some evidence that the natural and traditional advocates of welfare support returning to reform after the crisis has passed. The evidence of this would be speeches by active anti-poverty or urban activists in 2006 or 2007 saying, “Thank God for Clinton’s Welfare Reform in 1996. I know we complained bitterly at the time and fought against it, but it turns out he was right and we should never go back.”
That would be compelling and interesting reading, and it would strongly support your contention that even the Democrats want only a temporary relaxation of the rules.
But I’m not going to go looking for it, because I believe it doesn’t exist.
Gray, I think you are wrong about Mitsu, and getting worked up isn’t helping anyone, including the people who disagree with Mitsu.
I’m not worked up in the slightest.
His problem is intellectual complacency and perhaps a touch of laziness, but not dishonesty.
I never accused him of dishonesty. How can one argue with feelings? How can a feeling be ‘dishonest’? You can’t even use the term ‘intellectual’ to describe his feelings in favor of government robbery.
He feels like the government should take stuff away from people like me and you and give it to other people.
His arguments are no deeper than that.
Really, what kind of inner spiritual rot causes someone to be in favor of government agents confiscating wealth from the people who worked for it and earned it in order to give it to impecunious dopes simply because they are impecunious dopes!
What kind of inner spiritual rot causes someone to want punishment for anyone who makes a penny more than they do.
What kind of inner rot causes someone to punish achievement and reward failure?
If they are wealthy, it’s guilt. If they are failures, it’s revenge.
You cannot reason with it.
Sorry, Gray, I didn’t mean to imply that you had said Mitsu was intellectually dishonest. I am defending him against huxley’s original characterization. There are better and simpler explanations for Mitsu’s arguments–which Occam’s Beard would appreciate–and it is wrong, I think, to treat him as a collectivist.
Oblio — I read Mitsu as an intellectual thug, who can be and often is decent, but if the stakes require it, his M.O. is to just browbeat people into submission by any means necessary.
He can’t help it. He’s smarter than everyone else, he believes, so it’s up to him to set people straight, and he’s used to just bulldozing everyone with a lot of bluff and pseudo-arguments.
Like Barack Obama.
Oblio — I characterized Mitsu as intellectually dishonest. I stand by that.
You will notice that he did not contradict or acknowledge my charge that he was poisoning the well. I know he is aware of that fallacy. He just quietly stopped doing it.
Well, I’m being more of a bastard than I like here, but Mitsu really puts my teeth on edge.
Gray — the reason you find my views so “contradictory” is that you are someone who thinks people ought to believe only one side of a two-sided tension. I believe that *some* government support system is reasonable, and I also believe that incentives to get people off of welfare are good policy. Why is that contradictory? It makes perfect sense to believe in both. And yes, I am in strong disagreement with those liberals who believe that welfare reform was a disaster. I don’t agree with them, period. It’s not the first way in which I disagree with some on the left, and it’s not the last.
Huxley — if you wish, you can say that it is my *opinion* that the NRO claim against the stimulus bill is partisan hyperbole. I believe this for a number of reasons — the opinion of the author of that Atlantic article, the fact that I know of no Democratic movement to entirely abolish welfare reform, the fact that the Senate already edited the bill which was scrutinized by Republicans, and if it were a total dismantling of welfare reform, I am certain that would have become a big issue and something I doubt Collins, Specter, and Snowe would have gone along with. Again: when you find some evidence that I am wrong about this, feel free to post it. I really doubt you’re going to find it.
The Wehner piece possess rare clarity on why constant reference to “failed economic policies of the last 8 years” is just so much mindless rhetoric. It only works because people don’t know any better, and don’t want to know any better.
He might have made the case stronger by including the magnifying effects of The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA), which created opportunities to take high-leverage off balance sheet bets. No one looks good in the story of that bill, and how it was slipped into an omnibus spending bill signed by out-going President Clinton. The Senate vote in favor was unanimous. 51 Republicans opposed the bill in the House; so did 9 Democrats.
huxley, to be a thug you have to be capable of doing some damage.
I will agree that his reasoning is conveniently obtuse at times, and way below what we should expect from someone of his purported intellect. Witness the way he tries to turn my challenge to him into a challenge for you. Mitsu, that is lame.
Mitsu said,
Care to site any of that evidence?
It seems that all of the physicians that I have discussed this with are unanimously of the opinion that it is government meddling that is so screwing up our medical system and that if the government removed itself completely, prices would become far more competitive and quickly.
One small example, three years ago I was part of a group that was working with some physicians who were looking at a building renovation in order to relocate their MRI operation. In order to get this done, the first thing needed was a certificate of need from the local and/or state government. Why? Because you just don’t go opening up medical facilities unless the government is convinced that it is needed. Never mind that the competition might bring costs down. That is government regulation of free trade. The list goes on and on. Of course, the hospital; where this facility was presently located was against it and just who do you think really has more clout with the government? The point was rendered moot when the estimated cost was in excess of what they were willing or able to pay.
Three of the main culprits responsible for the state of medicine in this country are the federal government, insurance corporations and hospitals. There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle for the craven politicos who aid the insurance corporations and hospitals with legislation friendly to their interests, to the detriment of the public.
Dane is also correct about tort reform being helpful, but that is contingent on the medical community more effectively policing itself and states taking away the licenses of doctors who are found to have engaged in malpractice.
If there is no downside for the physician, when he/she has operated on the wrong leg, kidney or whatever, you damn sure can bet I want some serious money from them. Compensatory AND punitive because that financial suffering is nothing compared to physical agony of loss of use of part of your body.
What really incenses me is that regardless of party such an important bill was passed without anyone reading it! What does this say about not just the leadership in congress and the White House who cynically rammed this through before anyone could read it, but the democrats who voted for it anyway? Are they that stupid or just that supine and corrupt?
Where’s the outrage at a candidate who’s whole platform consisted of the simple empty mantra hope & change, but who has constantly preached about imminent doom since assuming office? Who has openly disdained the very bi-partisan spirit he spoke so often about? Who promised transparency in government? Where is he AND the leaders of this democrat congress, who in 2006 promised to end the ‘culture’ of corruption, not to be the petri dish in which it thrived? Where’s the outrage at the republicans who have only now had a deathbed conversion and become the fiscal hawks that they claimed to be so long ago? Though once in power, they simply proved to be as profligate as the democrats. So much so that they set the stage for this debacle?
Where’s the outrage at the MSM who willfully turned a blind eye and even ran interference for all the lies, evasions, and empty puffery that passed for Obama’s campaign rhetoric? Who spent 8 years spreading the most vicious lies about Bush yet criticize as a racist, anyone who dares to point out Obama’s flaws? Yada yada…
H.L. Mencken said that, “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”
I’m coming more & more, around to his point of view.
Mitsu,
I’ll say it this time.
Your dishonesty tires me out.
To call our health care system ‘market based’ is a flat out misrepresentation.
There is such a large amount of health care dollars spent by the government in this country. Additionally, because OF GOVERNMENT (regulations and beaurocratic hurdles) health care costs more. Thirdly, we have 200 times MORE lawyers than Japan with many of them specializing in driving health care costs UP.
Now. Forthly, if you look at John Stossel’s work and articles on health care in this country (do the due diligence instead of being dishonest and lazy) WE AMERICANS DRIVE UP our own costs. We have more obesity and make more bad choices for our health than ANY OTHER NATION.
So for you to dishonestly ACT like we have higher costs because we are market based is rot gut lying.
You keep doing it with every post and I for one will keep calling you on it just to make sure you aren’t persuading anybody new to politics.
I could btw, shred your other arguments that you numbered. Suffice to say that you continue to be lazy and dishonest.
How is that for identity politics (you do it with every post).
Mitsu — “the opinion of the author of that Atlantic article”. That’s your first support point?
Again, Armbinder is stuttering all over himself that he is not sure what the bill means. How can this support you?
I would have to read the original bill and spend several hours, maybe days, thinking it through and examining other sources.
My position is I don’t know, and given the complexity of these things, I don’t think Armbinder or you know. And perhaps NRO and the Heritage Foundation don’t know either.
If your point is that the bill does not “entirely abolish welfare reform”, well, bully for you. But NRO was not claiming that. Specifically it said, “Reversing the 1996 Welfare Reforms” as its bullet point title.
However you distorted that into “Abolishing welfare reforms” in your initial post, and now into “entirely abolish welfare reform” or “total dismantling of welfare reform”. Slip sliding away. You have heard of the Strawman Fallacy, haven’t you?
You are either intellectually careless or intellectually dishonest.
As Wehner says about Obama, it takes a lot of work to unravel your “intellectually unserious and misleading claims.”
Baklava, when you say “identity politics,” I don’t understand how you are applying that to what Mitsu wrote.
>Mitsu, that is lame
To announce that the stimulus bill is a “dismantling” of welfare reform is a pretty bold claim, and I for one would be certainly against it if that were the case. So far, neither the NRO article nor anything posted so far appear in any way to contradict the analysis in the Atlantic article. If you insist that it is the case, then I do think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate this. I’ve read the NRO article and the quotes Huxley posted above, and so far, I don’t see any evidence the bill isn’t exactly what the Atlantic article suggests, a temporary adjustment in the rules during a time of economic crisis. If you want to call me “intellectually lazy” for not reading the entire text of the giant bill in order to bolster a debate point in a blog comment thread, by all means, be my guest.
>to dishonestly ACT like we have higher costs because we
>are market based
I didn’t “act” like it, I never even stated that. I simply stated that the fact that we are more market-based than, say, France or England or Canada does not mean that we have lower costs; to the contrary, we have far higher costs. I did not claim that the *reason* for this is simply that we do not have socialized medicine, though I do happen to believe this is part of the reason. I simply do not believe that the market is adequate in the case of health care to keep costs down. I do think the topic is certainly one which is open to debate, but I think the raw numbers don’t bode well for our system.
huxley, “complacent and lazy” describes mitsu’s intellectual style extremely well.
If you guys want to run the facts down, here is the government site describing Temporary Aid for Needy Families, the replacement for AFDC that came our of the 1996 welfare reform.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/opa/fact_sheets/tanf_factsheet.html
This issue paper from the Congressional Progressive Caucus from 2007 shows that progressives have not stopped thinking about ways to change the focus away from reducing welfare caseload.
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/images/user_images/cpcissuereport2.pdf
In addition, Mitsu there is your list of some 70-odd Left Democrats and Socialist(s) to start your research on statements of support for TANF.
I think we will be waiting a long time to see the fruits of Mitsu’s labor on this. Honestly, Harvard should ask for its diploma back, or maybe Mitsu should ask for a refund of his tuition.
Huxley, the term “abolishing” comes from the title of an article referenced by the NRO piece.
And, Oblio, I’ve already stated that I’m opposed to those on the left who believe welfare reform was a mistake. I never said there was no interest in the Democratic caucus at all, just that I find it quite implausible that it would have managed to not only get into the stimulus bill but make it past the Senate, where Republicans still have some power, albeit small, but certainly enough to stop any wholesale reversal of welfare reform.
(As for all the claims of “intellectual laziness” — I certainly admit to writing posts here without doing hours of exhaustive research to back every opinion I state, but then again, neither do most of you. This is a blog comment section, for chrissake, not a peer reviewed policy journal. Having said that, I certainly stand by my characterization of the NRO claim that the stimulus bill either “abolishes” or “reverses” welfare reform to be hyperbole, based on what I know now.)
To announce that the stimulus bill is a “dismantling” of welfare reform is a pretty bold claim, and I for one would be certainly against it if that were the case.
Mitsu — That is your claim about NRO, not NRO’s. As I said. You are the only entity here using the word “dismantle.”
Please quote your opponents accurately. That’s one of the main sources of the dishonesty in your posts. You shift the goal posts by paraphrasing, then you paraphrase your paraphrase.
Then you shift the burden of proof to your opponents to demonstrate otherwise.
I’m not impressed.
Please see above, Huxley.
Mitsu — Ok. The Heritage Foundation article is titled “Stimulus Bill Abolishes Welfare Reform and Adds New Welfare Spending”.” In the context you were attacking NRO so I thought that was the antecedent.
I remain unconvinced either way, though I lean to the conservative interpretation that this might undo some of the 1996 welfare reforms. I’m reading other people’s interpretations of complex legislation and it’s hard to say.
However, I really don’t see how you have made the case for your certainty by citing Armbinder, who admits he’s not sure, then a secondary argument that it would have “become a big issue and something I doubt Collins, Specter, and Snowe would have gone along with” and therefore it’s up to me to disprove your point.
It’s huge bill that has been rushed through and god knows what intended and unintended effects it will have.
I have come to the conclusion that this bill will be accepted by the populace, all will blow over, and self preservation will set in. People will leap for numerous new government jobs, as they will have the highest average pay, and one will have the guarantee of a permanent position. Comparative high paying government jobs with permanent position guarantee regardless of ability or effort means votes for democrats. The least capable will land those jobs – because they can’t get a job anywhere in the private sector where ability and performance count. A profit needs to be made in the private sector, you see. The private sector will not be able to afford the best and the brightest because their tax burden will not allow them to pay enough to get them, and keep them. It’s a dead end.
The most important thing this stimulus bill fails to understand and address is human nature. Capitalism understands human nature, and rewards its “good” side – because it benefits everyone. There are 24 hours in every day, 7 days in every week, yada, yada, yada. Every one of us has the same amount of time allotted to us on a daily basis, while we walk this earth. In that time some of us end up in refrigerator boxes in alley ways, some in pretty nice homes, some in gaudy mansions. This bill practically guarantees the millionaire next door will become extinct. Too many sand bags are being attached to the balloons. Nothing will get off the ground.
The only world leader of any renown who seems to openly state that socialism is the answer to the world’s problems is Chavez. And we can see on a daily basis what he is doing in his own country in pursuit of that conviction – with him as fearless leader, of course.
The timing of the stimulus bill is perfect. Or, the timing of this world crisis is perfect, depending on your point of view. Either way, the doors have been opened allowing it to waltz right in. This stimulus bill will affect the entire world. It’s meant to.
The entire history of Rome has been available for all of us to read for a thousand years. It has been discussed, it has been taught, warnings have been issued time after time. With all of the almost magical increases of cumulative knowledge that are in this world, all the giants whose shoulders we stand upon, and all the examples of the flip side of that coin just as available, just as well known, human nature remains unchanged.
Forget about creeping socialism. It’s galloping now.
The practically overnite rush-rush on “stimulus” spending to be actively expedited in 2009 “may” be one thing, the timing for the rest is an obvious fraud. The Democrats have sold this country out for their personal and petty ideological party agendas, while money, private enterprise and business is simply not real to these fools any longer.
I’m in the middle of The Teaching Company Economics CD course right now. Looking at many of the most important financial parameters in relation to GDP, historically, is an interesting exercise in perspective. In the midst of this wild proposal for government deficit spending, for Obama and the Dems to also be concentrating on cutting defense and military expenditures in the midst of our current challenges and dangers, it’s no exaggeration to suggest that Obama and company have crossed the line into the traitorous…
Oblio,
He misdefines the “conservative” position (just like Bill Clinton and Obama and most other liberals) and goes from there.
You might say that conservatives misdefine liberals but – I once was a liberal pre-1991. I know what liberals felt and thought.
It was when I went to the library 3 times a week in 1991 for a full year when I found that liberalism does not deal with reality or facts.
They make up their own just like Mitsu did with the health care debate.
Mitsu,
Do you take back your health care claims about market oriented health care?
Probably not.
Mitsu,
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2007/09/19/socialized_medicine_is_broken_and_cant_be_fixed
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2007/08/29/another_bogus_report_card_for_us_medical_care
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2007/08/22/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_health-care_study
Read and stop being dishonest. I’m using the word on purpose. It’s what is required to wake you up as I was woken up in 1991.
Capitalism = the people choosing who gets what resources
Socialism = the government choosing who gets what resources.
In health care, it is us the people that are driving up costs.
1) Instead of insurance being the traditional pay so that a catastrophic issue does not wipe out your family resources, insurance nowadays is for the cough and cold. That’s ridiculous. People use auto insurance for broken windshields and health insurance for each and every visit.
2) We have a thriving set of lawyers driving up health care costs. Yes, bad doctors need to lose their licenses but we have people making ridiculous claims about hospitals, doctors and nurses and that is making the rest of us have to pay so much more. Extra tests and procedures are done in order to mitigate a lawsuit and yet the government is asking doctors why they are doing so many unneeded tests. Blah.
3) We choose to be the most obese nation and we choose to exercise less. Given all things equal, yes, we will pay more for health care for that reason alone. But everything isn’t equal. I have points 1 and 2 above and you could have points 1 through 10 above if you wanted.
4) One of the points above could be the illegal immigrant coming and driving up costs so much so that Southern United States hospitals have had to CLOSE their doors because of debt and financing issues.
There is only a few ways forward in all of this mess.
1) Tort reform
2) solve the illegal immigrant problem
3) Americans need to choose to be healthier. I’m a 5’9″ guy at 160 lbs who rides his bike to work some days (which takes 2.5 hours there and back)
4) Educate the American public about what insurance was and what it should be. You save more money if you get catastrophic plans for health, auto, home, etc.
We could lower health care costs by 50% if we aggressively tackle these issues. Just look at studies that show how much more people have to see the doctor when they are obese. See the costs to hospitals who serve communities with illegal immigrants. See the costs because of lawyers.
Mitsu,
To argue that you you can’t be held accountable for your lack of care and effort because others do as badly (which you haven’t shown, by the way) is a form of the fallacy called “tu quoque” (Latin for “you too”). This is a rejoinder young Leftists learn early on to escape the heat and change the subject. It works, because their anti-Leftist interlocutors typically value consistency back to first principles. Rhetorically, it’s a distraction or head fake, but one young Republicans, for example, tend to fall for every time.
Anti-Leftists need to know that this is a rookie mistake.
Mitsu, no one expects you to spend hours and hours researching every topic. Having an opinion where you have no facts is a time-honored American tradition.
But with the Internet at hand, it is the work of moments to find primary documents that can provide strong evidence for your claims, as opposed to learning on the equivocal interpretation of intermediaries, whether in the Atlantic, HuffPo, or NRO.
That is, if you actually want to prove your claims, as opposed to trying to paraphrase your way to victory, as huxley correctly points out. I argue that you are wasting your time and that of everyone else if you don’t want to do the work to narrow down to a point that could convince anyone, as opposed to just generating a pie fight for the pleasure of it.
The idea that you have your knickers in a twist about how a headline writer at the the Heritage Foundation described the treatment of TANF in the stimulus bill is comical. “Abolish” is clearly too strong. On the other hand, the stimulus bill clearly disables the key goal of TANF and the incentives intended to reduce welfare caseload, a long-standing goal of the Left Democrats. This is at a minimum a reversal, which is the word NRO used. Conservatives also suspect that the Left Democrats will look for opportunities to make “temporary” reversals permanent, in fact to gut the point of welfare reform, even if they leave some of the forms and substance in place. To connect the dots for you, the Left Democrats will have motive and opportunity to do so, and conservatives understand this very well.
It matters not at all whether it is your position that welfare reform from 1996 is a settled issue: the Democratic Party is not just your personal opinion projected on to a larger screen.
br549 at 6:17 & 6:54 am:
You sound just like my boss, a small business owner who has been in business for nearly 40 years. I will have been working for him for 19 years in March.
He studied Greek and Roman history in college and always points out that human nature never changes.
(FWIW, he has also been saying as long as I’ve known him that he expects to see a military government in the United States in his lifetime. I’ve always taken that with a grain of salt and assumed that if it happens it will be some time in the vague indeterminate future. But I can’t help noticing that the likelihood of that happening has increased enormously in the past month.)
Oblio and Huxley: I offered quite a while ago that a reasonable correction of my original statement was simply to add the phrase “in my opinion” to it, which I believe is obviously something one ought to add to nearly anything I or anyone else posts in a place like this.
Futhermore, in my opinion, the NRO article is filled with misrepresentations and exaggerations, many of which I went over, briefly, in my quick response to the article which I posted, above.
I might again note that what I said was simply that the one claim I criticized (the “abolishing” claim) was partisan hyperbole, not that it had no basis whatsoever. It misrepresented the purpose and function of that section of the bill (again, in my opinion) in a somewhat paranoid and exaggerated fashion.
I should also note that in your verve to attack me, you’re all missing the point that I happen to *agree* with you that welfare reform is a good idea, one which should not be dismantled. As I’ve said, above, if it WERE the case that this Congress were to dismantle welfare reform, I would certainly be opposed to that. I also noted that I am opposed to the “Buy American” provision in the stimulus bill which I believe is a repeat of some of the mistakes made during the Great Depression.
Finally, Oblio, I find it amusing that you always seem to come up with these dark-sounding pronouncements about how people opposed to your views are engaging in rhetorical methods that “young Leftists” are inculcated in in nefarious institutions like Harvard. Again, let me assure you I never attending any “Leftist” training seminars at evil Harvard … if there were such things, no one told me where they were meeting. My comment about the absurdity of the attacks on “intellectual laziness” is twofold: 1) I believe my original statement, a statement of my opinion after reading the NRO article and three other articles on the subject, online, was and remains quite justifiable, and 2) I think reading a few online articles is not only ample research for a comment to a blog post, but far more than most people bother to do, including most of you.
never attending -> never attended
Mitsu, Still haven’t addressed your RIDICULOUS assertions regarding government financed versus “market” oriented health care.
You can’t because your opinion isn’t based in fact. 🙂
Just letting you know any future attempts at that would be DISHONEST !
Hi Baklava,
Okay, on the health care issue. Yes, I agree that some of our health care is paid for by government, however, our system is, on the whole, not socialized in the sense that health care is typically paid for by private insurers which is normally paid for by the insured or by their employers, and there is minimal government subsidies for most people. The net result is a very large number of people who are uninsured or underinsured (by that I mean, people with insurance which can’t or won’t pay for needed medical care, or people with insurance who can’t afford to pay for medical care). You obviously object to my characterization of our system as “market based”, but that’s all I meant by it — there is a health care market, and most health care is paid for via private means.
There are several points that ought to be made here. First, articles attacking socialized medicine tend to pick the worst-sounding anecdotes to make it sound typical of socialized medicine. Consider this Business Week article (not exactly a leftist propaganda magazine) comparing the United States to other countries with respect to waiting times:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042072.htm
‘a 2005 survey by the Commonwealth Fund of sick adults in six nations found that only 47% of U.S. patients could get a same- or next-day appointment for a medical problem, worse than every other country except Canada.
The Commonwealth survey did find that U.S. patients had the second-shortest wait times if they wished to see a specialist or have nonemergency surgery, such as a hip replacement or cataract operation (Germany, which has national health care, came in first on both measures). But Gerard F. Anderson, a health policy expert at Johns Hopkins University, says doctors in countries where there are lengthy queues for elective surgeries put at-risk patients on the list long before their need is critical. “Their wait might be uncomfortable, but it makes very little clinical difference,” he says.’
This is not to say that there aren’t some problems with some socialized medicine systems. Britain’s system seems to be replete with anecdotes of long wait times, for example. However, Germany, which has a national single payer system, has the shortest wait times in the world for both ordinary appointments and specialist appointments. In Canada, average wait times are about 4 weeks in most areas for MRIs — my father in law, in San Diego, had to wait 6 weeks to get his MRI for cancer, with Kaiser Permanente.
Finally, however, the fact is our system has 16% of the population who have no insurance whatsoever. Those who do have insurance are often underinsured, i.e., refused care for medical procedures deemed “unnecessary”, or have their insurance cancelled when they get sick (as has been in the news quite a bit lately). For all the complaints about the government telling your doctor what to do, what about people who have no doctors at all!
Our system is great for people with expensive or premium health insurance. I certainly don’t dispute that. But it is incredibly expensive (far higher than any other industrialized country), and does a terrible job treating the public as a whole.
Oh, one other thing: the program that Obama has proposed is NOT a single payer system a la France, Germany, England, etc. It is actually just a set of policies and programs to help reduce health care costs via improving efficiencies (i.e., the health care information technology initiatives) and government subsidies for private insurance. It won’t eliminate private insurance, competition, etc. As such it might actually only be moderately effective at providing universal coverage and reducing costs, but it is likely to be a hell of a lot better than the system we have now (in my opinion!)
Mitsu — OK. Throw in some qualifiers to indicate where the facts end and your opinions begin and I will be much more content with your posts.
I noticed your position on welfare reform, and now I’m aware of your position on Buy American, but your positions–like your opinions–are of little import to me, aside from how they inform the clarity of the discussion.
Mitsu, I went back and read your original post, as well as huxley’s responses. I conclude that you started the exaggeration by pulling the Heritage headline in as your summary of NRO’s point. Perhaps in the circles you travel, an opinion you DON’T like is considered to be rebutted if countered with an opinion you DO like; I think the readers here deserve better than that. I’m sorry your standards are so low.
Now with respect to Harvard and Leftist indoctrination. I have to admit I smiled at the idea of posters advertising “Left Wing Indoctrination Seminar Tonight at the Hong Kong! Free Scorpion Bowls!” It’s like something from a Mel Brooks movie.
But I know, and you should know, that this is not the way indoctrination happens. Most of it is informal. It happens in the dining halls, the history classes, in bull sessions, in discussions with your girlfriend, in publicity for campus events sponsored by the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador, in editorials in the Crimson. The pressure is constant. And you don’t have to end us as a hard Leftist to use the techniques you see on display. Surely, all that is obvious. Even the great Niall Ferguson is starting to go wobbly now that he is on the faculty and exposed to it 24/7.
Harvard isn’t evil, by the way. It’s just a byword for arrogance, smugness, and complacency. Alex Beam at the Boston Globe used to refer to it as W.G.U.–“World’s Greatest University” as an ironical tribute to the Harvards’ view of themselves.
I am willing to believe that you don’t understand how you have been indoctrinated.
“…since it wasn’t posted as promised…”
Nor was there a review period, as promised. Not the last of the promises that “The Won” will break. I expect the oath of office to go any day now, not that I think he really meant any of it.
The bad one is the census. “The Won” will gerrymander the c0onservative base out of business, permanently if he can. If he cannot, then I expect he will fire up the Patriot Act and jail us all. This guy is just that dangerous.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/obama.html
Mitsu wrote, however, our system is, on the whole, not socialized in the sense that health care is typically paid for by private insurers which is normally paid for by the insured or by their employers, and there is minimal government subsidies for most people.
Democrats and liberals are the problem here.
Our market system is not comparable to any other country given the problems I outlined:
1) Lawyers driving costs up which Democrats do NOTHING about and Republicans have been trying to reform for years
2) The way we treat ourselves – we are the most obese – these are our own decisions.
3) Government regulation and meddling (not just who pays for it but they put their hand heavily into making costs higher….
… see a pattern here? It is government and ourselves driving costs up. We can’t get reasonable reforms because Democrats are interested in high health care costs.
A little bit of seriousness here.
You have to identify the problem.
Then you can come up with solutions that address the problems.
Our high costs again are the result of:
1) Our own poor health choices
2) Lawyers
3) Big government
Access to preventative medicine is a different problem requiring a different solution. And the solution is not a blanket covering requiring little from the recipient.
Mitsu,
Do you know what Hawaii did with health care recently?
For answers don’t look at HuffPo. Look at news sources.
I’ve scrolled through these many posts without reading any, because Mitsu is an ass and debating just generates more brays.
Mitsu comes on like “Lord Mitsu, Supreme High Intellect of Planet Earth” but when you boil his posts down, you discover that they are mostly a string of opinions, often not well supported, but delivered with such force and quantity that you are supposed to do just bow down and submit to his superior intelligence.
It’s a lot of work to respond to his dense, poorly edited, posting style. You have to take his posts apart a phrase a time, check the reasoning, and sources if any, plus note rhetorical tricks, and keep track of the overall flow of his arguments.
Then, after you respond, you get another flurry of comments in this style, and it’s back to work prying another such missive apart.
My complaint about dishonesty is that I keep thinking Mitsu knows what a clear, well-formed, and honest argument is yet he prefers a complex, overbearing, overreaching style that appears to aim for domination rather than for an honest exchange of views.
I rest my dishonesty case with his health care claims about cost and attributing them to the “market”.
He knows very well what would happen in other countries.
1) Rationing – because of our poor health choices – people would be regulated on what they eat and how much they exercise.
2) Tort reform because countries would not stand for the lawyers driving up cost.
3) Research and Development being driven down.
4) Less choice – less health care.
It is because of government and lawyers and the people that cost is so high.
We want everything free yet the government, lawyers and we the people are driving cost up. Not the insurance companies or the hospitals.
Essentially, Government and lawyers and freeloaders being the problem…
… the way to solve the problem is by pulling back on government, lawyers and freeloaders.
It’s killing the rest of us.
How do people get the idea that Mitsu is at all intelligent?
He just wants to claim membership among the Enlightened by spouting the correct leftist ideas.
Our system is great for people with expensive or premium health insurance. I certainly don’t dispute that. But it is incredibly expensive (far higher than any other industrialized country), and does a terrible job treating the public as a whole.
Oh, bullshit. I have a premium program. I earned it. I work for it and I buy it for my family. It’s mine. I buy it. Why do I have to fund “The public as a whole”? The public is a hole!
As far as higher cost, why is it better to spend $500 a month on health-care taxes and $85 on your premium vs $500 a month on your premium and $85 on taxes?
I see you didn’t take up my challenge to find just one thing with the word “public” in it that is any good at all….
Well, all I can say is, the whole “dishonesty” angle of this conversation obviously doesn’t interest me in the least, as it is totally unwarranted — though I don’t really know how I can prove this to your satisfaction. I of course may be wrong about some things I argue but I certainly make as sincere an effort as possible in my attempts, however inadequate, to argue my point of view. You’re welcome to believe otherwise.
Baklava, I certainly agree, based on what I know, that tort reform and obesity are major problems. However, there are other factors, such as much higher administration costs due to our complex health insurance system, and the fact that our system simply charges more for the same medical services than is the case in other countries. It’s also not the case that our system produces better health care outcomes than those in other industrialized nations. For example, see:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-i/
The problem with these sorts of discussions, in a political context, is that people (like you) want to identify ALL the problems with one side of the political spectrum, whichever is the opposite from the team they’re rooting for. I on the other hand am a pragmatist. If tort reform is worth doing, we ought to do it. If obesity is a problem, we need to address it. But consider this — many poor people go to the emergency room for services, and don’t go to the doctor for routine appointments, which is another factor driving up costs. Having a lot of uninsured and underinsured is certainly not a laudable social outcome, either. I believe we ought to look at solutions from both the right and the left, in every case, and try to look at things from as pragmatic a position as possible, rather than from an ideological view.
Oblio, all I can say is, I’ve always been an independent thinker, whether at Harvard or elsewhere. I really think your idea of what goes on at Harvard, even the more sophisticated version you present above, is hardly accurate. What goes on is discussion, conversation, and people do like to talk a lot there. But they are generally open to considering nearly any argument. Yes, most people are liberal, but the ideological distortion you imagine is really far less of a reality there than you seem to think.
I’ve always wondered why so many people who make the claim to be “independent thinkers” always sound like a tape recording of everyone else who share their ideology. Mitsu’s arguments and opinions have always been regurgitated talking points memos. Nothing more. Just check out all the other “independent thinkers” at Huffpo, Kos, and MoveOn ( who all as a collective “independently” come to the same conclusions).
Obviously someone comes up with this stuff, but it’s never Mitsu.
Oblio, all I can say is, I’ve always been an independent thinker, whether at Harvard or elsewhere.
Wahahahaahahahahah!
You independently came to the same conclusions that all the other pedestrian, populist, path-of-least-intellectual-resistance, Group-thinkers came to?
If I were you, I’d contact that Harvard place and get a refund on that education thing….
This is because, during the wage-and-price controls still in effect during WWII, it was necessary to attract employees. The government didn’t want to give in on the controls, but they allowed paid health care benefits.
We’re still living with that decision. Individuals don’t see the actual cost of their care.
At the moment, I’m on COBRA and hoping to get a permanent position with a company known for good salaries and very good benefits. (Cross your fingers; I’ll know by this time in April.) If I get the job, I won’t have much to worry about in terms of medical costs.
Now, would it be better if I paid for my own (even with company money) and saw what the costs were? Well, it would if I were a reasonable steward of that money. A few years ago, I had a very minor muscle tear and my doctor wanted to prescribe large-dose ibuprofen. I asked instead to take the same dose in over-the-counter pills. Why? Because I saw no point in paying the premium for the prescription drug which does, after all, require handling by the pharmacist and other extra costs. I may have actually paid a bit more for all those over-the-counter pills than my prescription co-pay, but it seemed the right thing to do.
What was lacking was the information about the real cost, and the transformation of that information into price, to reward me for making the right decisions.
Which leads me to wonder about the wisdom of co-pay over co-insure. For very large expenses, a logarithmic co-insure might be appropriate, but a flat co-pay seems a poor idea. (In fairness, my blood pressure meds are on “formulary 2”, which means that I pay about five times the normal co-pay, but still about a third of the list.)
Mitsu wrote, though I don’t really know how I can prove this to your satisfaction.
You prove it by acknowledging your CLAIMES were without basis in fact. Government, lawyers and people’s attitudes about their own bodies drive up health costs and you want to blame it on it being the market based system versus a government funded system.
READ the links provided. YOUR links are totally smacked down if you would do the due diligence. Stop being lazy and dishonest. We aren’t dumb here. I’ve said repeatedly that I went to the library 3 times a week in 1991 when moving from liberalism to conservatism. I’ve read and read and read since then. Your arguments are weak and have been heard by everyone here time and time again.
Mitsu, You simply do not understand economics and you do NOT know what is best for America.
That said. I am appealing to you as an ex-liberal to figure out that dependency is not the answer.
What is the answer is a thriving private sector. What is the answer is the answer that has made OUR POOR more prosperous than the AVERAGE French or British citizen.
You can’t appeal to us to move in their direction after decades of failed policies that have hampered their standard of living.
Mitsu wrote, “However, there are other factors, such as much higher administration costs due to our complex health insurance system”
No. Administrative costs in insurance companies are sooooooo much lower than administrative costs of welfare, TANF, medicare, and just about anything else that is PUBLIC. As a contractor who provides IT services for a public sector program in CA – you cannot snooker me. I’ve seen the data over and over.
Your assertion is without basis in fact.
Competition drives companies to provide services for less cost.
Govt provides services for MORE cost.
ADDITIONALLY, I ADDRESSED YOUR NY TIMES LINK WITH 3 LINKS previously. You just displayed LAZINESS times 3. Why? Why are you lazy. Why do you beat your wife? Why can’t you READ READ READ. READ the links from John Stossel that explains WHY our costs are high and totally refutes nY times links. Stop being lazy.
🙂 Stop being lazy. You proved the laziness. I’m asking you to stop it.
Good luck with the reading. It’s hard work. Maybe I read too much. You read too little.
>Wahahahaahahahahah!
I’m glad I’ve amused you, Gray. I don’t come to the same conclusions as my peers at Harvard or anywhere else, did or do. I was an ardent opponent of the USSR when I was an undergrad, for example, when a lot of my leftist friends, while not supporters of the USSR, were at least relatively unconcerned about the human rights abuses and other police state crimes they committed. I’ve often listed the many ways in which I disagree with liberal orthodoxy. Yes, I agree with liberals more often than conservatives, but certainly not all the time.
Baklava, on the health care issue: no, your 3 links do not address the article I cited. I’ve already agreed that tort reform and obesity are factors driving up the cost of health care. However, they are not the ONLY factors driving up the cost of health care. That’s my only point, one which you still haven’t addressed.
Mitsu, I don’t dispute that you are not in lockstep with the Left Democrats on every issue.
I am wondering whether you have thought deeply about why you believe what you believe, and whether you ever applied a really critical eye to the base assumptions of liberal orthodoxy as it exists. Perhaps in your experience, the bias has been so universal as to render it invisible.
Have you ever taken the Red Pill? Or do you take the Blue Pill that allows you to wake up in your bed and believe…anything you want? 🙂
In the meantime, I will leave you with testimony from other students who maintain that Harvard is not exactly a temple of free inquiry. The last link, a letter written by a retired professor of government, is shocking in its viciousness. Perhaps these will stimulate a trip down memory lane.
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~salient/site/2008/10/16/100608_douthat/
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=522956
http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1998/march_1998_1.html
http://www.harvarddems.com/taxonomy/term/1094
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510164
http://www.blackcommentator.com/harvard.html
I’m glad I’ve amused you, Gray. I don’t come to the same conclusions as my peers at Harvard or anywhere else
Hmmmm… I didn’t attend Harvard, my uncle, Undle Sam, paid my way through college. My kind isn’t wanted at Harvard, y’know…. I had to settle for an excellent engineering degree at a top state school.
My peers are in Iraq and Afghanistan just now. I’m generally in agreement with them.
>I am wondering whether you have thought deeply about
>why you believe what you believe, and whether you ever
>applied a really critical eye to the base assumptions of
>liberal orthodoxy as it exists
You may or may not believe this, Oblio, but I really have. And I can’t say I think all of my classmates did, nor did some of my leftist friends. I agree there is a certain herd consciousness in any group of people, at Harvard or elsewhere. But, I have ample justification for my political views, and I’m happy to discuss them with you or anyone else — that’s partly why I come here to comment. I believe the Internet is far too Balkanized, and there isn’t enough rational discourse between right and left; it’s often just an echo chamber.
You may or may not believe this, but I can and do argue against liberal orthodoxy on liberal conferencing systems. Here, I usually take up the liberal side, but as I’ve already I think demonstrated, I don’t agree with Democrats or liberals on all issues — and I disagree with leftists on quite a few. I come to my political views quite independently, and not at all simply by following the herd.
>my uncle, Undle Sam, paid my way through college
I come from a middle class family and I had a partial scholarship to get through Harvard. In fact, most students at Harvard get some financial aid. The policy at Harvard is need blind admissions, which is to say if you get in they do what they can to make sure you can afford it. Anyone with an income less than $60K/year, currently, goes for free, and those below $180K/year have to only pay 1/10th of their household income. It is not merely a rich kids school as it once was.
Back to the basics….
This bill as passed is an “unprecedented” stimulus bill as Neo wrote.
It is non-stimulative.
It does nothing to grow the private sector which is 75% of the economy.
It deepens dependency with many programs.
It is clear to anyone who is a centrist with any economic knowledge that the bill barely addresses the economy, adds entirely too much debt and at the same time deepens dependency.
There is nobody here that can be convinced otherwise.
The reason is that we are intelligent and honest.
The funny thing Mitsu is that any one of us here could’ve written a better bill that would’ve done more for the economy. How smart of Obama/Pelosi/Reed is that????
My daughters are 9 and 12. They’ll be paying offf this debt. Thanks.
Mitsu, I believe that you believe you are an independent thinker. However, I can only draw conclusions on the basis of what you write, and you don’t show such independence in your writing here. Your arguments come off as partisan stances supported by warmed over talking points.
On this thread, we see you using two logical fallacies (Poisoning the Well and Tu Quoque) for rhetorical effect and failing to take accountability for the lack of precision in your thinking. That is why the readers here find you irritating.
I originally came off the sidelines at neoneocon in response to a risible story you made up about Mr. Obama’s multiple law review articles as evidence for his intellect. I told you then that claims of moderation are not self-authenticating. As a software guy, you should know exactly what that means and why it is true.
If you were taking a serious tone about a provocative point, I would be defending you against people who call you names because they disagree with you.
Even if you want to defend “liberal” points and/or the Democratic Party and/or your darling President Obama, you can do a lot better.
Take the Red Pill.
Anyone with an income less than $60K/year, currently, goes for free, and those below $180K/year have to only pay 1/10th of their household income. It is not merely a rich kids school as it once was
You missed my point: By “Uncle Sam”, I mean I had a full ride ROTC scholarship–my kind is not wanted there.
But it’s a moot point. I never liked the East Coast anyhow.
Well let me respond one last time to this thread because I find meta-thrashes mostly content-free. First of all, attacking an earlier error I made (which I admitted) is of course an ad hominem fallacy. Look, poisoning the well is a logical fallacy, but it would only be such if my argument depended on the assertion. In fact in casual conversation an observation such as “the NRO is biased” is quite justifiable if not a logical argument against the validity of a specific article. I made an argument above, most of which was ignored, and instead a long discussion ensued about my own honesty and the fact that I went to Harvard, which is about as irrelevant as it gets. But lost in that is that my supposed sloppiness has to do with my claim the NRO article claimed the stimulus abolished welfare reform… but if you actually read the article, you’ll see that this is quite a fair statement; he quotes the “abolishes” article without qualification.
The bigger point here is that we ought to be discussing policy rather than the school I went to. I stand by my earlier post with the caveat that it is my opinion. And naturally I disagree that my remarks are “talking points,” as well. I have plenty of reasons for saying what I stated above which I am happy to discuss. Much more interesting than Harvard’s campus life! And far more relevant to the topic.
>my kind is not wanted there
This topic has come up before, but I just wanted to reiterate that, in case this wasn’t clear, I myself have a very high regard for the military and for military service. My father was an intelligence officer in the Air Force when he was a young man, my family has a samurai background (back in the old country, so to speak), and I have the highest regard for the sacrifices and discipline needed to be a member of the armed forces at any level, and for the military as an institution.
Mitsu, citing an error you made is NOT an example of the ad hominem fallacy. The point is to explain to you why you aren’t having a productive policy discussion here, if that is what you wish. It is relevant data for that argument.
You really owe huxley a response.
And for good order’s sake, you brought up Harvard campus life, not me.
Mitsu, it’s a pity the Corporation doesn’t think as highly of the Services as you do:
http://www.college.harvard.edu/academics/other_programs/rotc/
Did you ever think about publicly protesting the lack of ROTC?
>to explain why you aren’t having a productive policy discussion here
It’s only an “explanation” if one were to presume that people were using a prior error I made as a reason why it is not worth addressing policy questions in this debate, occurring quite a bit later, i.e., if they were engaging in an ad hominem fallacy themselves. As evidence for any current “sloppiness” on my part, it is also quite inadequate.
>You really owe huxley a response
I certainly stand by my characterization of the NRO as a website, in general, though of course that doesn’t have direct relevance to the specifics of the article we’ve been discussing (or, I should say, not discussing very much). In my view, the NRO often publishes articles filled with outright errors, misrepresentations and exaggerations — the fact that it is conservative isn’t my beef with it, at all. For example, I would not characterize William Safire or William F Buckley in this way, though I usually disagreed with their views, they were certainly careful and their arguments generally quite closely reasoned (even if I thought they were in error!)
And again, if we’re to get back to the “meat” of this — the actual argument I posted — so far no one has put up much evidence there’s anything seriously wrong with what I said. At most, we have a complaint that I mischaracterized what the NRO was saying in one point of many points I addressed in my post — yet I still believe my characterization was quite fair, or at the very least a reasonable reader, I believe, could come away with the impression that this is what the NRO was saying.
Yes, I’m aware the Harvard does not allow ROTC on campus — I don’t know if I have a strong view on that one way or the other. In my view, if I were going into the military myself, I would prefer to go to West Point, Annapolis, etc., not Harvard. I believe the main reason for this policy came from Vietnam-era politics … it may be that it’s a policy that ought to be reviewed. It may be useful to have some military officers who went to Havard… could add some needed balance! I wonder if conservatives have considered that Harvard having ROTC might tilt the military a bit leftward 🙂
Mitsu wrote, The bigger point here is that we ought to be discussing policy rather than the school I went to.
I agree. The policy that you advocate and Obama is signing today is..
irresponsible.
Fox News just posted a graphic showing how much per family the bill costs given your tax bracket. My tax bracket showed it costs my family $26K.
Thanks for being irresponsible Mitsu and Obama and liberal big govt. Democrats.
This bill does nothing for the economy except a few very small items.
If it was focused on stimulus the 800 billion would’ve been a big bang. Think of how many nurses could’ve been educated to become nurses, engineers to become part of NASA, construction people building out water, electric, energy, bridge etc projects.
This bill does none of that directly. It finances dependency mostly. Dependency is what Mitsu and Obama are for! 🙂
Irresponsible.
Mitsu, I responded to the substance of your claim about NRO’s exaggeration on welfare reform of the stimulus bill in the 6th(!) paragraph:
http://neoneocon.com/2009/02/13/an-unprecedented-stimulus-bill/#comment-101325.
NRO may exaggerate some things; that is the nature of the activist press. But this seems like a reasonable point to make about changes to TANF.
Also, I have known some Harvard guys who went into the military. All first-rate. I have no idea what their politics were or are.
I think I screwed up that link. s/b 2/14 @ 11.58 am
And I think the “meta” discussion is actually far more important than points made about either TANF or health care. The problem we have if natural enough: nobody knows everything and people have different perspectives and interests.
So “How” we interact is extremely important, and people who actually want to discuss policy (as opposed to banging away at a pinata) need to have some means to make themselves mutually intelligible. In this context, loose rhetoric and fallacious arguments that can only provoke without enlightening are a real problem, and they help make the political atmosphere toxic. The alternative to insisting on greater precision and self-control is that you respond to what you perceive as my exaggerations with exaggerations of your own, and we never make any progress.
In fact, I care about the history of your intellectual formation and world-view. I am trying to understand it, partly because I would like to change your mind, but also to give you a chance to change my mind. Like you, I don’t know everything.
Well, we can certainly agree that having a fruitful discussion of policy with an open mind is a laudable goal, and I am quite open to hearing your arguments as well as those of others from all sides. It’s my hope that can lead to something more than just stating our views. I personally think even more interesting than one of us convincing the other is the possibilty that, through conversation, we can come up with new ideas that neither side began with.
Fair enough.
Mitsu wrote, “and I am quite open to hearing your arguments as well as those of others from all sides. It’s my hope that can lead to something more than just stating our views.”
Yes.
Be honest and actually look at views of helping the economy.
Stop being irresponsible and trying to lead people into accepting a government that has spent more each year over the last 70+ years and now expanding that in unprecedented fashion.
This last bill that Obama signed today that you support Mitsu was irresponsible…
MitsuAnd finally, I have one question. What month between now and October do you expect to see positive economic growth? or NET job gain? or a general recovery in home values?
It is now February. With such an unprecedented bill, I’d believe you can claim for us a month or two or a quarter before Christmas sales hit where there is growth.
Through conversation you can come up with learning new ideas about growing the economy. We all here have been trying to teach you economics 101. Less regulation, and lower tax rates on capital, corporate earnings and income tax rates.
We are sorry this is hard stuff for you. We hope it becomes easier. 🙂 Truth hurts !
Being responsible is hard. I do it for me and my family. That doesn’t mean I should have a big target on my back for big govt types like you and Obama.
Maybe I should just stop being responsible.
Get on a talk show and ask for a new home from Obama!!
He is my savior. Govt is my savior! I don’t have to do anything anymore!
Dependency for me. Dependency for thee.
Sing it!!!
You may or may not believe this, but I can and do argue against liberal orthodoxy on liberal conferencing systems. Here, I usually take up the liberal side, but as I’ve already I think demonstrated, I don’t agree with Democrats or liberals on all issues – and I disagree with leftists on quite a few. I come to my political views quite independently, and not at all simply by following the herd.
The same reason why Sarah Palin is not somebody you would root for is also why you have hidden preferences and biases from a template which you refuse to recognize as simply a herd of a different color and stripe.
It’s not the political difference that primarily splits Left and Right. It is a cultural difference, of which patriotism, virtue, honor, duty, and world views are only tiny little facets of an entire whole planet full of differences.
I personally think even more interesting than one of us convincing the other is the possibilty that, through conversation, we can come up with new ideas that neither side began with.
That kind of a “More Perfect Union” is only possible when there is a Loyal Opposition to the Party in Power. And it also necessitates that the Party in Power keeps the LO informed and seeks their input.
None of that exists on the federal level here in America. It hasn’t existed for a long time. The system was stable so long as Republicans were in the minority, but too much power politics used against Republican Presidents has eroded much of this sentiment of fair play. Many of the traditions regarding former Presidential behavior has been broken.
This has become a cultural issue first and foremost. The cultural divide between seeing blacks as inferior, in thinking women need to be kept locked up for fear that they will seduce corruptible cats, and the cultural divide between frontiersman values and decadent inner city values.
Even if it was possible for political disagreements to be paved over and for compromises to be met, the culture of corruption will still reign free.
When the head of the Senate Intel Committee leaks national secrets and she is still in power, this is a symptom of the greater corruption at large. Even if you removed her, the corruption would still stay. It would stay because people have lost their belief in Loyalty to anything except themselves. This is a cultural trademark, not a political one.
Mitsu,
If your Harvard education is irrelevent to these discussions, why did you mention it? None of us would have known where, or if, you had a college education if you weren’t the one who brought it up as bona fides to your level of intellect and your assertion that’s what shaped you into the alleged “independent thinker” you claim to be.