Evidence of Leftist Insanity

What this man is advocating has never worked.  History is brutally clear on this.  It is not open to interpretation, it is a fact of economic law.  What we have here is a Keynesian who simply cannot accept that his ideas do not work and that he and his friends are no where near as bright as they told themselves they were:

Krugman: Forget Those ‘Budget Things,’ U.S. Gov‘t Needs to ’Just Spend & Do a Bunch Of Stuff’

New York Times Economist and Nobel peace prize winner Paul Krugman has some candid advice for the US government: forget budgets and start spending.

The alarming advice came while on a panel discussion in Washington, D.C. last month. The panel was entitled “End This Depression Now” and focused on the economic recourse the country had in the wake of current economic instability.

Krugman was asked what he would do “If we made Paul Krugman a dictator for a period of time?”  After applause from the audience Krugman noted that the “biggest” thing holding back the economy has been “unprecedented cutback in state and local spending.”  Krugman, a committed Keynesian, argued for massive government hiring in the fields of construction and education.

This tactic, he said, would reduce unemployment to below 7% and would only cost “a few hundred billion a year,“ which the economist explained ”is not that much.”  But the real goal for Krugman is a 0% unemployment.  To achieve this employment utopia, we must encounter a catastrophe on par with WWII according to Krugman:

“What took us out of the Great Depression… it was Europe’s entry into WWII and the US buildup that began in advance.  We were at full employment before Perl Harbor.  So if we can get something that will cause the government to say, ‘Oh never mind those budget things, lets just spend and do a bunch of stuff.”

video clip in story

 

This man is an idiot.  Yes, WW II DID get us out of the depression, but that was THE PRIVATE SECTOR – NOT the preceding 7 years of massive govt. spending under FDR.  But, as I always tell people, these Leftist always answer with “We just didn’t go big enough.”

Liberalism is a mental disorder: pure and simple.

127 thoughts on “Evidence of Leftist Insanity

  1. Tax cuts for the rich actually caused this recession as they squirreled away all their money instead of investing it in businesses or merchandise. You really think giving them more money and spending less and less will get us out of our economic death spiral? They are draining the bathtub, soon we will all be flopping around on the bottom – even them.

    • “Giving them?” I say we take your house, car and bank account. How’s that for ‘fair?’

      Sorry, I have NO sympathy for greedy, envious class warfare advocates, so you’ll get no support from me – especially since I know history and history says your assertion is WRONG! After all, we have had recessions under Leftist administrations with 90%+ tax rates on ‘the rich,’ and we STILL had recessions/depressions. 😉

    • “they squirreled away all their money” – Evidence please. I did not realize you had the ability to view their bank statements.

      “You really think giving them more money and spending less” – did you really think that giving the rich folks at Solyndra money, and then not spending less elsewhere was going to get us out of our economic death spiral?

      “They are draining the bathtub, soon we will all be flopping around on the bottom – even them.” – this is a highly accurate statement if you are applying it to the current administration. Do you honestly think that taxing the rich in to oblivion will generate enough stolen money to pay off this country’s colossal debt? News flash: There is not “rich money” out there to pay off our debt.

      Here’s a novel idea for you crawfish. It’s called austerity. That means if you have the money to purchase something, you purchase it. If your broke, you wait till payday, and if your smarter … you save. I am quite certain you practice this idea in your home, or at least I hope your not so mired in debt that you are a paycheck away from homelessness.

      • Actually, the monetary policy we are pursuing, and have been since at least the time of “W,” IS theft – through inflation. This is classically how the ruling class loots a nation…right before they destroy it.

    • Tax cuts didn’t cause this recession. Tax increases and over regulation has. America has the ?second? highest corporate taxes? It will only get worse with the new “obama owns you bill”. Businesses now will stay under 50 employees…. Even fewer new jobs…had a lunch meeting with a client today. He could hire more than 50 employees, but the additional taxes will wipe out his profits… OK then, we won’t hire additional people….

  2. Why should any person be required to work for more time of each year for the government than any other person? Are all people not to be treated the same under our Constitution?

  3. Not class warfare. Basic economics. I’m mostly referring to bankers, hedgefund managers, oil executives and connected government contractors that didn’t get where they are and aren’t being compensated for hard work, but hard lobbying. These people are given massive amounts of tax payer funded gifts and tax breaks which they invest overseas or use money lender to them at zero% interest to lend it back to us and adding to our debt. No jobs created. Gift money paid for by people like you and me.

    • “I’m mostly referring to bankers, hedgefund managers, oil executives and connected government contractors that didn’t get where they are and aren’t being compensated for hard work, but hard lobbying.”

      Oh, I see your point now. Yes, folks like G. Soros, W. Buffett, the Unions, and other bundlers …. basically all the known cash behind Obama.

      Yes, you make an excellent point. 🙂

  4. Crazycrawfish, Joe, Greg, or Gates — this question is directly aimed at you:

    Let’s define “fair tax” so that we are all on the same page here. What percentage of a tax rate would you say is a “fair tax’?

    Last year, after I paid all my various taxes, I came up at roughly 37% (or roughly 37 cents of every dollar I made) in taxes. So if you did a job like mowing my yard for $100 dollars, and the government snatched $37 of that, how would you feel? Is that fair?

    • Oh, this is easy for me. Can I side with Benjamin Franklin?

      “It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one tenth part.”

      As for the American people, polls show they believe the upper limit – EVEN FOR THE RICH – should be no more than 25%.

      I would also add that this should be shared equally – even among the poor. If you refuse to pay for the government, you deserve nothing from the government.

      • On this we are in complete agreement. How can the government give a “tax return” to an individual (rich or poor) who has paid in nothing?

    • I don’t believe in income tax. I think taxes should only be placed on goods and services. Don’t want to pay more in taxes, don’t buy or use as much. That way you’re in total control of the taxes that you pay.

      That answer, Augger, is directly aimed at you.

      • Nice song and dance there Gates. You never gave a percent (what I asked for), or an (amount) also what I asked for.

        I am to assume by your non-committal answer, that you believe in a flat tax for everyone.

        • No song and dance. I told you what I believe in. Stop trying to judge me and read what I type and you got your answer. I believe the fair thing to do is what I said. Easy for you—-

          I don’t think any set amount is fair. I believe in taxes on goods and services only.

          • William, I honestly do not care about you enough either way to judge you.

            I did ask and easy question, and you gave me a story. Simple as that.

            And we had to go through all this to get the very last line … 0. And with that, you and I are in agreement.

                • It’s not necessary. You asked I answered. Maybe not in a way that your preferred or expected but it’s my view of how taxes should be collected. I’m sure we probably agree on many other things, too.

                  To cut the the chase, I’ve been called conservative by Greg, and Liberal by Black. So I probably fall somewhere in the middle. Black knows how I don’t care for labels because they are generally placed upon people with agendas and usually too easily dismissed. Just because I disagree with a person, that is considered by someone liberal, doesn’t make me conservative or vice versa when we’re discussing algebraic geometry. I think that’s what you’re doing here…..maybe I’m wrong but I doubt it. I’ve also found that most people that claim to be conservative are actually republican. There’s a difference. I am not of the “us against them mentality”. I prefer solutions over standoffs.

                  All I ask for is respectful posts (as you referred to on a previous thread) and you’re ALWAYS from me get a respectful response. Like you said, that’s how meaningful dialog gets started. But if one has to be in the choir here to get that then that I cannot do. Hopeful we can have meaningful dialog without snide remarks. I’ll do my part as always.

                  A good friend reminded me of this saying:

                  “If all those around you always agree with you then you should find some others to be around”

          • No Gates, we are not discussing the Togliatti surface here, but rather taxes.

            Interesting view on the politics. B and I are actually discussing philosophy, federalism, the Constitution … and all points in between via emails over a healthcare plan I had sent to him to review. As one would assume, he and I are diametrically opposed on that issue, and are going to need to discuss the theories behind our positions politically before we can move on, and iron out healthcare aspect of it (he’s done his part, and has been awaiting a response from all weekend … I have just been busy).

            Now what’s interesting about the topic, no political parties have been mentioned at all. It’s all about the Constitution, how it was written, views on how it’s take, and the philosophy behind it.

            When I get off my lazy butt and move this thing forward, maybe we’ll have something worth while to present to the group of you. I can tell you this, I need to change a few things in it …. it’s going to need some tweaking from what B and I have discussed so far.

            I think I will go work on my response to him now. Thanks for the inspiration. 🙂

  5. Someone gave me a thumbs down on Milton Friedman? You must be joking? Did you not understand it? Or not watch it?
    Or are you a statist?

  6. Wasn’t there a video of a debate between Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman where Krugman got handed his ass? These Friedman videos are so full of common sense, it’s easy to see why liberals can’t grasp the simple concepts in them.

    • I don’t know about krugman vs. Friedman. Friedman’s great series “Free to Choose” is now on Youtube.

  7. Wow, these are some very interesting comments, I’m choosing to ignore the vitriol and ignorance that many of them were packaged in especially since I might use those techniques in my responses. They paint an interesting picture of some information voids many of you seem to share and some seemingly incompatible worldviews. There were even a few interesting philosophical questions that probably need to be addressed by themselves. To answer them all adequately would require more than a few line comment. I think I will have to bundle them up and try to answer them as one or more blog entries. Most of you will probably vomit at the sight of my blog, and for that I’m truly sorry. . . to your last meals. 🙂 Once i have them up i will try to put link or tow here so you aren’t subjected to more of my blog that your fragile psyche’s can handle. (see, i can play too!)

    Glad I could bring so many of you together in mutual hate. Its not much of a talent, but it’s my talent.

    • @ Crazycrawfish – Coward. Plain and simple coward.

      My question was straight forward enough that my 13 year old answered in less than a sentence (infact it was nothing more than a fragment). Her answer …. 21% too much.

      Don’t let a little girl show you up. 🙂

      • Augger,
        I hope you understood I was being sarcastic in my comment. If not, my apologies. You have a brilliant and thinking girl there.

        • Nope, I get it. We are all good.

          Just got in from offshore, had a blast, now time for a nap. 🙂

  8. “Vitriol and ignorance?” Yes yes, now “I see”….. Is this what CCF is talking about?

    Augger, can you do something about your daughter’s vitriol and ignorant suggestions on a FAIR tax rate.

    After all, she is hurting people’s feelings.

    Crazycrawfish (CCF) couldn’t possible be speaking about “Milt”. A patriot for individual freedom to allow ALL the same freedoms and opportunity, instead of just those who have friends in Washington…..

    Hey CCF, I have to compliment you on the accuracy of your “handle” ….

  9. I haven’t actually had a chance to write a full blog post on all these comments although i am having an interesting duel on my socialism post. 🙂 You seemed real hung up on the whole percent thing, so i figured I’d throw you a bone there. The perfect rate is 100%, or 0%, or anywhere in between. That’s a stupid question and anyone with a pat answer for that one is either an idiot or a child. I think you told us who your economic advisor is, so perhaps both labels apply to you. (For the record, my 3 year old thinks everything i say is awesome too although it honestly never occured to me to try and win an argument with his opinions before.)

    In any event, the question is absurd for numerous reasons but here are two good ones for you to chew on.

    Reason one:
    First you have to figure out what you want your government to do. If you don’t know what it should do, how can you begin to get a cost for it? Any number is as good as another until you get some concensus on that. I suppose the best answers are 100% or 0% if you want your government to do everything or nothing. I personally want neither of those options. While i suspect you and i wouldn’t agree on much, unless you are truly an anarchist, we can agree that “the” number would be somewhere between 0 and 100% exclusive.

    Reason two:
    Tax rates are misleading and amorphous. I believe someone said we had the higest corporate tax rate in world or some such nonesense. What such a statement doesn’t take into account is the effective tax rate ater all the deductions and tax credits. I’d wager we have one of the most absurd, corrupt, and elaborate system of doling those out. We also allow companies to earn money here and report the profits in tax havens like Ireland and the Cayman Islands so they end up paying very little tax to us. Close those loopholes and lower the tax rate for everyone would go a long way toward improving the prosperity of our local business that can’t afford the fancy lobbyists and accountants, or that actually have some moral qualms about operating that way. Of course our politicians would immediately start carving out exceptions for their favored local industires before the ink on the new code and rate had dried. In any event, its ridiculous that you and i work for a living and pay, local, federal, state, and sales taxes, not to mention miscellaneous other taxes on our earned income, probably in excess of 40%, while do nothing inheritors pay pittances, maybe 15% or even zero with the right accountants and tax shelters.

    As for the name commentary, I’ve chosen to accept it as a compliment. 🙂

    laissez les bon temps rouler
    CC

    • “As for the name commentary, I’ve chosen to accept it as a compliment.”

      Good idea, especially considering the source. And good comment on taxes. I especially get irritated by conservatives’ view of what they call the “death tax”; I agree with Thomas Paine on the issue.

    • “I believe someone said we had the higest corporate tax rate in world or some such nonesense. What such a statement doesn’t take into account is the effective tax rate ater all the deductions and tax credits.”

      Absolutely true. Unfortunately, some seem to forget (or never knew) that when they say, “Well GE paid no taxes……”

      When something becomes a talking point, for either side, followers tend to believe it whether it’s true or not. Then they still repeat it after it’s proven to be true or not.

    • “(For the record, my 3 year old thinks everything i say is awesome too although it honestly never occured to me to try and win an argument with his opinions before.)”

      Apples and oranges my friend. There is a vast difference between the maturation of a 3 year old, and a 13 year old … and you know it too. Next time you want to be disingenuous, do a better job at least.

      “First you have to figure out what you want your government to do.” – and there is the crux of your problem. I will just give you a couple of quotes from a decidedly famous, and popular Democrat, and you can figure out the rest for yourself:

      “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country” as well as “…the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.” -JFK

      Reason 2 – now there is something we can start to discuss. 🙂

      Care too?

  10. CC, we hear in here all the time how dumb libs are, but when an intelligent commenter dissents from the RioNorte canon, he gets disrespected, and called names, ganged up on like a kid who rode his bike into the wrong neighborhood.
    I’m not going to defend you, you don’t need my help. I just wanted to welcome you aboard, hope you stick around.

    • Hell, I’ll defend anyone if I think they need it. It doesn’t matter if it’s B, Mel, or Utah. I really don’t care if people can’t accept that I won’t choose “a side”. That’s only because some of my belief would probably be considered progressive, and some conservative. But I’ll man up, like many here will and also some won’t, and admit what my most valued principles. I won’t just agree with someone just because of who they are or because I think they’re smarter than I am. There are some very intelligent people that post here. But my most important principles won’t be compromised just to satisfy “the party”.

      • “But my most important principles won’t be compromised just to satisfy “the party”.”

        It has never been about the party(s) William.

        • Maybe not with you. But definitely with most.

          If one votes for a person within their party, that doesn’t follow the principles that that party is founded upon and values most, then it’s all about the party. -D or -R. I don’t see any difference between the two candidates for POTUS, so I decided not to vote for either, versus some that would say, “well I always vote democrat” or “I vote for the republican candidate”.

          That is being “about the party(ies)”,

          • Your right, I should have typed “parties” versus “party(s)”. Muh baaaaaad.

            There seems to be little that is actually different between Obama and Romney (I am no Romney fan here either), but my mind immediately zips straight to one striking difference when I hear that argument given ….

            Romney engaged in venture capitalism in the private sector using private monies … and was successful.
            Obama on the other hand engaged in venture capitalism in the private sector using public monies … and has failed miserably on numerous occasions.

            Not withstanding all that, what in the U.S. Constitution gave this POTUS to the right to engage in venture capitalism using taxpayer money in the first place?

            • All that window dressing is good, but the question is, “Will you vote for him?” If so, would that be, “all about the party” or does the one item you described make the difference?

              BTW, in Mass,he did a lot of venture capitalism with public funds that could also be considered failures.

              Nothing gives this president or any other that authority. But on that level, we continue to elect and re-elect those that do so. Kinda what Tex is talking about in his article. Why should any member of Congress that voted for such programs be re-elected?

              Because it’s all about the party.

              • Gates, this site has over 1.5 million hits, and that number grows rapidly. State your platform and declare your candidacy here, and we’ll all get you on the ballot. You’ll have my vote, and then it will be all about the “RNL Party”.

                See, I can help you have accurate assertions. We can be the model of teamwork. 🙂

                • Nope. I’m good. Got too many skeletons in my closet that I couldn’t even be elected Head of Household if I weren’t the only one living here. I appreciate the vote though.

                  My grandfather said “you can’t depend on anyone in this world but yourself”. I’m sure I’d include that in one of my campaign speeches though.

                • Why would I? It’s your right to vote for whomever you wish. I choose not to vote for the democratic or republican nominee.

                  Are we assuming something incorrect here?

                  • Not at all. You have that right to vote for whomever you wish (just write in the name).

                    This conundrum of who to vote for and why has been debated in previous threads where I made a case of voting against Obama rather than for Obama, and that’s just what I intend to do (notice I intentionally left out party affiliation), as on almost a daily, if not hourly basis, this man is now brazen enough that I feel like he has the potential to be bold enough to not abdicate the presidency should he in fact find himself the loser in the general election.

                    So what I am saying to you sir is, do not label me a party follower when I cast my vote in an effort to legally remove this man from office. I does not mean I am a Romney or Republican follower. It just means that I do not wish to see Obama become a usurper.

                    • The idea that we should suspend the election has already been floated.

                      A U.S. Congressman has called for Obama to disband Congress and declare emergency powers.

                      the reason given for both demands was the assertion that our system is supposedly broken and the President needs to “fix it.”

                      Most people dismissed these calls. I didn’t – because i KNOW the history of 1930’s Germany and I saw the direct parallels.

                      just saying… 😦

                • I never labeled you as I don’t care for labels myself. It wouldn’t make sense for me to “cry foul”, as you said, when I’m not voting for Obama…unless your felt that I was a supporter. Since you mentioned a striking difference you saw in the two candidates, I asked would you vote for Romney and if so would it be all about the party. You didn’t answer.

          • All that window dressing is good, but the question is, “Will you vote for him?” If so, would that be, “all about the party” or does the one item you described make the difference? …[…]… Because it’s all about the party.”

            You wrote this, right? Yep. And can you see why now why I feel the need to explain(which by the way is my answer to your question(s) in case you missed it) to you why I will be voting the way I am?

  11. Thanks melfamy and James. I actually feed on ignorant attacks, but i appreciate other facts if they are properly sourced. People that express opinions as “facts” are particularly vexxing to me, but I enjoy all discourse even the aggressive kind at times. 🙂

    • “Thanks melfamy and James. I actually feed on ignorant attacks, but i appreciate other facts if they are properly sourced. People that express opinions as “facts” are particularly vexxing to me, but I enjoy all discourse even the aggressive kind at times. :)”

      CCF – I can hold you to this standard as well? I’ll be watching. 🙂

      I do not mind learning a lesson or two — never have. All I ask is that people come forth in good faith, and state clearly their position, and then we can start defending our positions. Somewhere in the between the extreme left, and the extreme right is the common ground. I am sure of it.

      • “Somewhere in the between the extreme left, and the extreme right is the common ground. I am sure of it”

        I agree with you, especially if we recognize that the “extremes” and the “middle” vary with people and changing subjects. For example, my Reagan-loving Southern Baptist buddy is considerable more conservative than I am on virtually every issue–except gun control, where as someone who grew up in small-town Idaho I’m more pro-gun than he is (not modern NRA crazy, but still someone who owns, appreciates and actually knows how to use firearms).

        • Speaking of Reagan, and to quote him; “Now there you go again..”. 🙂

          But in all seriousness, I know you were using the descriptors to drive a point, and it’s not a point entirely lost on myself.

          Politics as it were, is best described as a “conundrum”. The greatest strength in politics is also it’s greatest weakness (thanks to all of you from keeping me from my response to B) …. and that is philosophy.

          While philosophy is fantastic, the basic problem with philosophy is in that it is subject to trendiness. What’s popular today, may not be tomorrow (like diet plans). Philosophy has to find a way to blend with practicality in a way that promotes plurality … and thus … the base for our conundrum. We cannot even begin to move on to topics such as Federalism vs Democracy, and beyond until we get clear on the philosophy behind it all.

        • SO the middle is the more correct, more moral position?

          OK, so, if there are three of us and one of us wants to build a bridge across a river that goes nowhere, and another says we shouldn’t build the bridge to nowhere, neither are correct because – by definition – both are extremists, the morally correct position must be that of the centrist who wants to build half the bridge to nowhere???

          I’m sorry, but this cliche just doesn’t make sense to me – not when you stop to consider the logical extension of its inherent implications.

          • No B. The common ground we are discussing here is how to have a conversation without the snide bickering and bellyaching stimulate by those such as CCF.

            btw – responded to your mail.

            • OK, thanks for the clarification.

              Well, in the light of my new understanding, I would suggest the solution is easy – at least it is FOR ME. We should do our best to willingly adhere to and hold others to the known and accepted rules of formal debate, and to the rules governing logic/right reasoning. If people would do this, they could get as heated as they’d like, but the discussion would never get personal as it would always be focused on ideas.

              Unfortunately – again, as I see it – the problem is there are too many who have such a poor grasp of these skill sets that they will quickly and easily be brushed aside by those who do. This then results in injured pride and hurt feelings which might also threaten a person’s sense of identity. If that happens, things generally tend to go south as the defeated party finds they have little left but personal attack and straw man presentations of the other side’s position.

              • And we are back to the crux of the problem. There is absolutely no way to compromise with a progressive, as the only thing one loses is … another freedom granted us in the Constitution.

                In the end, I suppose we must agree, to disagree, and don our boxing gloves. 🙂

      • Exactly. I just want to make some more room on the left so we don’t all end up on your side because of the hyperbole. That’s been the right’s plan since Rove came to prominence.

  12. “I enjoy all discourse even the aggressive kind at times.”

    Speaking as one who for the two apparent leaders of this site has in recent days become the “subversive POS” “jackwagon” “communist” “operative” “coward” who is “just another see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, run of the mill Obama sycophant” (despite my regular criticism of Obama), I agree with you.

    Of course if you find yourself agreeing with me, at least “as anything approaching decent, honest or deceptive” you’ll be “in the same camp [McPherson] is in.” You’ve been warned. 🙂

  13. “World’s Highest Corporate Tax Rate Hurts U.S. Economically”

    US News and World Report:
    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/04/02/worlds-highest-corporate-tax-rate-hurts-us-economically
    “United States-based companies and hardworking Americans face a steadily growing problem, one oddly self-imposed by Uncle Sam. Our current tax system puts businesses and workers at a competitive disadvantage in the global market and discourages companies from investing in operations here at home.”

    “American companies can face a tax rate on their remitted foreign earnings a full 16 percentage points higher than the rate faced by their foreign competitors.”

  14. “the 40 percent U.S. rate is 56 percent higher than the wealthy-nation average.”

    “Most fiscal experts agree that cutting the U.S. corporate tax rate is a high priority, and

    President Obama’s fiscal commission endorsed the idea. If the president wants to get the economy firing on all cylinders–and generate a new pragmatic and centrist image for himself–he should lead the charge to drop the corporate rate to at least 20 percent.”

    With state-level taxes on top, a federal corporate rate of 20 percent would put America at about the OECD average, and give all those corporations sitting on piles of cash a great reason to start investing again.

    http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/u-s-corporate-tax-rate-the-highest/

  15. Eliminate all the government subsidies and tax breaks unnecessary spending contracts (including the ones for Mitch McConnell’s race horses:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/30/jeff-merkley-mitch-mcconnell-horse-racing-tax-break_n_887968.html
    Unnecessary jet engines like the one’s Bohner had been getting funding for the past few years http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_02/028033.php)
    and close the loopholes that allow corporations to earn profits here and claim the incomes overseas and who knows, you might even be able to go lower. As you pointed out, I think the votes and will are there to pass such reforms on the Democratic side, but the Republicans would lose a lot of donors and unlimited donations doing that.

    So when are we going to start going after those wasteful corrupt republicans holding up the deal? 🙂

    • CCF – earlier you discussed “properly” sourcing ….

      Is Huffington post something you sincerely think is a “proper source”?

      • For some things HuffPo can be considered a decent enough source. Are you suggesting the minority turtle does not have a racing horse tax that he fought for while preaching austerity?

        Even Faux News posts some actual facts accidentally from time to time. If you don’t want to address my points intelligently and instead wish to keep deflecting to try I score some bonus points with your friends I can play too. Just don’t expect me to respect any of your points or opinions. I especially love how you badgered people into responding to your thoughtless gotcha questions but within the same thread refuse to answer other people’s valid points. FYI, I won’t ask any children what their opinions areto try and defend my own. I’m old enough to come up with my own and defend them – if anyone cared to take even a half decent attempt to address them. 🙂 Perhaps you’ve spent too much time near that chemical spewer you show as your avatar? It could have addled your brains a bit. Nothing a few good clean air regulations couldn’t adress I’m sure.

        One more chance before i refuse to address you as the adult you claim to be.

        To reiterate. Politicians of both stripes are beholden to corporations and other monied interests. The tax code is loaded down wtih score upon score of special tax breaks, incentives, subsidies and unnecessary spending for individual legilsators and regions. If you don’t clean those up, it doesn’t really matter what the rate is, except as a talking point. I would love to our small businesses put on at least an even footing with multinational and extranational corporations than actively evade taxation here or lobby hard for breaks and givebacks that artificially prop industries up at everyone elses expense. Do you agree that oil companies, raking in record breaking profits, should actually have to pay their fair share of taxes and that offshore tax havens and incorporation zones should be closed so that profits made here have to be taxed at a fair rate here, or do you think multinational corporations and random special interests should get special tax treatment at everyone elses expense? (That means not just job creators expense, but at the expense of education, healthcare, defense, you name it)

        Which is it? You favor a convoluted unfair tax structure that favors lobbyists and multinationals or you favor a simpler one that closes the loopholes and lowers the rate for all and is more fair to local businesses and workers and doesn’t artificially prop up unsustainable industries?

        • Even Faux News posts some actual facts accidentally from time to time. If you don’t want to address my points intelligently and instead wish to keep deflecting to try I score some bonus points with your friends I can play too. Just don’t expect me to respect any of your points or opinions.

          Among the many fallacies contained in this comment is the fallacy of poisoning the well.

          Also the fallacy of loaded language.

          🙂

          • I did not fall for his horseshit B. He does not scare me at all with his “address me threats”. If he lives around here, he’ll end up in the ER begging for help one day (like everyone else eventually does), and I will be adult enough then.

            It generally works like that once someone needs pain medications and whatnot. 🙂

            But James … remember what you were saying just a while back about quickly disputing the information? Point taken, and you can thank CCF for driving it home for you!

              • lol, yeah man. Though Siri may not be the best at dictation (I love my iphones btw), rest assured, I can smell the BS when it is offered, and there is little anyone can do to intimidate me.

            • Hmm. Comparing a need for emergency care vs. being treated seriously on a blog by an anonymous commenter? Sorry, your ER reference sounds more like a “threat” than anything CCF said.

              Beyond that, I think I made the point I needed to made about sourcing.

              • You obviously had not made your point, or we would not have been right back here again. HP … laughable. Just about as funny as your coined “Fauxnews”. It’s all BS, and your right there in it.

                And if you think that was a threat my friend, my only advise for you is … seek medical treatment. There is way too many medications out there for you to live in such fear, and hatred.

                • Huh? If that’s directed at me, I said nothing about “Fauxnews.” Perhaps you should check your own meds (along with your spelling of “you’re” and “advice”). By the way, I fear little and hate even less.

                  Perhaps I should have sai that I’m sure I made my point clearly enough to those who pay attention (and who understand links). I’m not particularly interested in trying to convince you of anything.

                  • Now James, if you had the ability to follow the topic, you would have understood that we are back to this subject because of CCF. Do I honestly have to point out every little detail, or can you follow along?

                    My position stands.

          • “Among the many fallacies contained in this comment is …”

            I’d point out that this comes from the same guy who managed to quote both Glenn Beck and Hitler in a post today about “socialists, communists, fascists, progressives … traced to a small group of self-proclaimed elites known as Fabian Socialists.”

            Yes, Joe, I know you can point out to me what kind of “fallacy” I just committed. But if you were so inclined and able to re-read it with a dispassionate eye (and I’m not sure that’s possible for any of us), I’ll bet you could also point out the fallacies of your own post.

            Or we could just keep acting as if intellectual gamesmanship will actually make a difference in public policy. You can keep complaining that people don’t “play right, and/or that they just aren’t as smart as you are. But (and I ask in all honestly), what do you think the effect will be?

            • I had a thought about being the better man, and not commenting as if I was the grammar police, but then I thought about it again, and decided James, that you too should also police your own typos before poking a finger at someone else for typos.

              “Perhaps I should have sai that …”

              I am sure you meant “said’. 🙂

        • ” Perhaps you’ve spent too much time near that chemical spewer you show as your avatar? It could have addled your brains a bit. Nothing a few good clean air regulations couldn’t adress I’m sure”

          Actually CCF, I think that’s the WTC towers on fire……….someone correct me if I’m wrong.

          • It is the World Trade Centers, but I was going to let that one pass.

            Makes me wonder if he also thinks there are 57 states though. 🙂

  16. “Is Huffington post something you sincerely think is a “proper source”?”

    This is one of the things that drives me nuts about folks on both sides–if they can’t quickly dispute the information, they simply criticize the source. Yes, HP is a leftist organization and that should be taken into account (esp. if this were an opinion piece). But if you go to the link, you’ll see that the article includes a video of a Congressman making the statement in question, plus a link to Roll Call.

    I’d have probably just included the Roll Call link rather than the HP one so as to avoid the reflexive rejection by some conservatives. But you could also look more closely, too, Augger.

    • “This is one of the things that drives me nuts about folks on both sides–if they can’t quickly dispute the information, they simply criticize the source.”

      James, think a bit broader than that my friend. It’s not the dig at Huffington Post I am getting at. It’s the use of it after a lengthy lecture about using credible sources (something you and I had touched on before). It’s hypocrisy at it’s simplist, and is it really my catching it that’s really driving you nuts?

      Now I am not saying that everything has to be MLA peer reviewed sources, but damn-it man … if your going to opine on an opine found at HP, Fox, MSNBC, or other … especially if it’s tossing numbers around, then shame on you. That information is too easy to substantiate with .gov sources. As far as videos, yeah, I am generally good with them, but if you even take notice, rarely do I ever link one from any news source (especially mainstream sources). Again, too easy to go find unedited versions of those videos.

      Seriously man, is the RNL going to stoop to HP, or are we better than that?

      • “is it really my catching it that’s really driving you nuts?”

        In the words of Ronald Reagan, “there you go again”–shifting topics and engaging in pointless (and wrong) speculation.

        “It’s the use of it after a lengthy lecture about using credible sources.”

        So in other words, it seems you’re overlooking the point he’s making now because you see the opportunity to get in a dig about something he wrote earlier. And again, this particular article provided both a direct link to a C-SPAN video and a Roll Call article–probably both pretty good sources, wouldn’t you agree?

        And yes, I do agree that one shoudn’t generally “opine on an opine found at HP, Fox, MSNBC, or other … especially if it’s tossing numbers around.” But sometimes I’ll link to one of those (even Fox News, or even to a previous post on my own blog) if the story I link to has multiple links to others that I don’t want to take the time to re-link (and some blogs send a comment with more than one link to the spam or “hold” queue).

      • Before i forget Augger, there was something i wanted to re-address. Your diatribe about what you described as a
        “. . .lengthy lecture about credible sources. . .”

        I think it was an offhand remark, not made to you and only mentioned properly sourced which you never asked me clarify.

        Here was the entire comment: “Thanks melfamy and James. I actually feed on ignorant attacks, but i appreciate other facts if they are properly sourced. People that express opinions as “facts” are particularly vexxing to me, but I enjoy all discourse even the aggressive kind at times. ”

        I’ve noticed you get around this problem, augger, by rarely sourcing anything and just spouting numbers, expecting us to accept that because you produced some numbers from somewhere we should accept your “facts” about them and telling people to do their own research. lol. As i stated before, even biased outlets are sources. They can be researched and the material proven or disproven. In some cases you will only see articles covered on biased sources, be they fox news, huffington post, the drudge report, CNN, etc. That doesn’t automatically disqualify them as accurate or containing germain information about a given discussion, even if their angle is potentially biased. Most people have biases and in this media age its hard to capture an audience’s attention without catering to those biases.

        For instance: I do not doubt that Clinton had an affair with an intern. That story was sourced first among right wing outlets, but nevertheless proved true in this case. The motives for pursuing that investigation were obviously political. The outrage over his cover-up hasn’t stopped many of his detractors from conducting themselves in the same or worse ways before that situation and long after. As long as the reporting isn’t fabricated, biases can help ensure no one escapes media scrutiny. Assuming certain classes of people were beyond approach is what lead to such an outragous pedophile priest scourge and the travesty that Penn State’s football program has become. Had more people been more questioning of authority, I can’t help but believe those situations would have been caught sooner and properly addressed.

        • If you actually read my posts, when sources are needed, I provide them. And typically where possible, I will give something other than a .com, .org. or .net source. I tend to prefer the .govs when the raw data can be found, or a statement is given by a politician.

          However, if this whole post necro is something that has truly been eating at you, and you are worried about the numbers I posted in this thread then my answer to you is .. I am not sourcing my tax returns for you.

          You are just going to have to take my word for it. 🙂

          • Well you keep revisting it across various discussions so i figured I’d return to the source. I’d use the Reagan “there you go again” line every time you do it but I always though it looked like a pretty lame copout when it get’s used against me.

            To jog your memory. . .From your post to me on B3A’s deficit spending entry. Note the numbers. You subsequently lecture me about whether i understand the differences in numbers as big as you are quoting; which I found amusing since they were so insignificant next to my own, which actually just showed you own lack of understanding of number magnitude. You also never address my point that 1.5 trillion was money that was not spent and could be saved. Whereas what you were pointing out (without sourcing) was already spent. You also never provided ANY sources that showed this money did not get spent as required by the bill, nor that it was completely without any value. I ceded those points on the condition you addressed my 1.5 trillion dollar F35 elephant in the room which you chose not to do.

            Your post is below and a prime example of the “unsourcing” I was railing against.

            “CCF – what’s absolutely appalling is the stimulus money that could have been used constitutionally to support our militia, but rather was spent overseas for various “green” energy jobs (some of which were supposed to have created jobs here). I’ll list a few for you, and leave the rest for you to discover. The reports are readily available at the government website (but admittedly, those reports are definitely difficult to read through — so much for transparency).

            Electric Cars – $2.4 billion stimulus program to support battery production sent nearly half of its money to foreign firms
            Wind Farms – over $8.5 billion in grants for wind farms that flowed overseas
            Manufacturing TaxCredits – over $2.3 billion in clean energy manufacturing tax credits that were supposed to create jobs in America, $880 million went to foreign firms
            Loan Guarantees – $2.7 billion in loan guarantees to Abengoa (a Spanish company)

            For that matter, as I have pointed out before … if Obama really cared for the indigent patients of America, how many indigent patients/families do you think he could have helped with just this $16.78 billion dollars given that avg insurance costs are $6,000-$8,000 per individual, or $10,000 – $14,000 per family a year?

            These points are not meant to be a poke in the eye, but rather just a point made in defense of persons, and families who cannot afford healthcare for themselves.”

            • Yeah, it has come up across various discussions. You honestly did not think you were the single coolest person out there to bring up sourcing on posts, did you?

              But honestly CCF. Some things a person might need to lead their readers to via sourcing, others are just so straightforward that one would expect this group (which is generally not considered intellectually challenged) to be able to follow as a given. Since you are taking up issue after we all have gone on to other topics, I will help you with (so that you can finally catch up).

              http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx

              Wasn’t that hard. 🙂

              • Thanks. I checked it out a little on my phone but will have to examine it in more detail later.I’m not convinced I will discover anything earth shattering, but it still looked kinda neat.

                As for the keeping up. . .believe it or not, some of us have a life outside of this site. 🙂

                I just got back from an out-of-state family emergency involving flesh eating bacteria, a pair of new borns, and a special needs child, among other things. . .

                • Believe it or not CCF, the rest of us have lives too. We are oil men, captains of ships, writers, doctors … a real mix of professionals here. Half the time I am racing around my job posting via Siri, so your point is not lost on me as well. 🙂

                  Truly sorry to hear about the Necrotizing fasciitis with your family member. Did you get a copy of the lab findings? What was the LRINEC score? What has the physician ordered for the treatment of this infection? How is the patient responding to the treatment(s)?

  17. I was an early supporter of HuffPo, but I left when they started giving out badges for tattling and naming morons as moderators.

    But as a news source, HuffPo is as valid as Drudge

    • “But as a news source, HuffPo is as valid as Drudge”

      Maybe a little more (and I know that Augger wasn’t speaking positively about Drudge, either), since HuffPo hasn’t been forced to issue multiple retractions or blatantly lied about such things as a CNN reporter supposedly heckling Senators. Brill’s Content found, “Of the 51 stories claimed as exclusives from January to September 1998, the magazine found 31 (61%) were actually exclusive stories. Of those, 32% were untrue, 36% were true and the remaining 32% were of debatable accuracy.”

      But I generally agree with you about HuffPo, which is why I’d have used the Roll Call source if I’d been the one linking it.

      • James, your right. I do not visit Drudge, or Glenn Beck. Well, occasionally Glenn, but not self referred, but rather following a link provided here.

  18. A source is credible until it can be disproven. It can be credible for some purposes and not others. If it is easily disproven or contradicted you look like an idiot. I wasn’t writing a dissertation, merely linking to the first article i saw talking about a newsbit i’d read a while back to flesh out a point, and hammer home that is not a right or left affliction but one shared by both parties. Mainstream medie doesn’t often like to touch politically charged topics so you may have to resort to a Fox or Huffpo from time to time if you want to find some dirt on the right or left. It’s sad but true. I have people spouting off numbers and claims about the ACA on my blog and when i ask for any source, any source at all, they switch topic. I happen to work in the healthcare industry now so it amuses me when they try and scare tactic me with BS they heard on Beck or Rush and then can’t back it up.

    • Ah, a bird of a feather ….

      I give the floor to you sir … tell us about our healthcare problem. 🙂

    • Yep, figured as much. I also work in healthcare, and I have absolutely no qualms with telling all about the shortcomings with our healthcare system.

      You need me to do it for you?

      • Augger, Since this thread is still “alive.” Why not try to educate a little. How about you start by explaining how an “organization” that cannot deliver a letter WILL NEVER be able to deliver EFFECTIVE, much less, EFFICIENT, health care. You will have to assume “everyone” understands the difference between effective and efficient. You may have to explain how Healthcare is EXPONENTIALLY more complicated than delivering a letter…. better yet you might just draft a post on it….

        • Tex, B is right, I am working on dedicated post, but I can reveal the parts pertinent to this topic (which are also the identifiers/rationale for why I am also writing a rough healthcare proposal … with B’s help).

          So here it is …

          There are primarily two major issues with the current third party payer system. The first is inherent in the basic human response to incentives. Another is the impact of government price fixing.

          When government or any entity picks up the cost of someone’s healthcare, the result is a lack of concern for costs. People become incentivized to spend. In many cases, they spend well beyond what they would be willing to pay themselves even if they had the resources. With no cost barrier, and as the supply demand curve of economics 101 shows, demand exponentially increases as the price falls. At zero price, or free, demand is infinite.

          Concomitantly, as the supply curve falls it leads to a significant shortage. Or, in other words, when there is no cost barrier, there is no end to the demand. With unlimited demand, there is no supply that can ever meet the demand.

          The evidence of this is easy to find by looking at a healthcare system where100% of people are covered for “free.” Though Utah has proven the point eloquently with his story concerning his breathing studies, I would like to expand his point. In England, mortality rates foremost diseases significantly exceed the US. Two examples are prostate cancer, mortality is 19% in the US and 56% in the UK, and mortality for breast cancer in the US is 25% while in the UK it is 46%. As demand exceeds supply rationing, or whatever politically correct word you chose, must occur. The consequence is a system where screening occurs later in life.

          Current abuse of the emergency department and other visits to physicians for conditions that our grandparents would treat on their own is taxing the system substantially. Much of the increased costs in our current system are due to unnecessary visits. For those on “free” or low cost systems, there is no incentive to save, and again no supply that can ever meet the demand.

          An additional problem to the current system is the effect on health insurance and other payers when government sets the price so low. When Medicare and Medicaid decide to only pay X for a procedure, and X is substantially below the market equilibrium price, one of two things happens. Either providers stop doing that service and create a shortage,or they increase the price charged to others, a process called cost shifting.

          The effect of cost shifting has devastated the Health Insurance Industry. As the government pays less, physicians, hospitals and other healthcare entities raise the price for others leading to increased cost of care for those with health insurance or no coverage at all. This increase is then in turn passed to their customers in increased cost. As the cost escalates, fewer people can purchase health insurance leading to a need for insurance companies to increase prices further. What followed was a vicious cycle and put us where we are today. Obamacare does little to correct this, and is one of the major flaws in the bill/law.

          Essentially, with Medicare and Medicaid price fixing, the free market in healthcare is dead. The free market will drive price down for everyone, even in the healthcare industry. LASEK is an excellent example.

          LASEK involves a very precise “laser,” trimming microns of cornea to reshape the cornea and focus the image on the retina. Health insurance and government medical care do not cover the price of this procedure. Meaning, true market
          forces are setting the price. What has happened? When LASEK was introduced it cost $5,000 to $6,000 dollars. Over the years, the price as dropped naturally ophthalmologists competed for the dollars people were willing to spend, the price fell. I saw an ad yesterday for LASEK for $499 per eye. Granted the average LASEK procedure is roughly $1,800 dollars, but even this amount is significantly less than where it started. This year’s average was less than last year’s. Falling price for a complex surgical procedure on the eye, in the face of healthcare inflation twice the standard inflation rate is proof; the free market can work in healthcare.

          We need to compel the government to stop fixing the price. The free market will adjust itself and with competition find a price at a supply demand equilibrium point.

          The challenge then is to design a government run program to help people who need assistance, and yet allow free market practices to set the price?

          This marks the point where I have pitched my idea to B via email, and rightfully so … it did not pass the litmus test. We’ve debated back and forth some of the philosophy behind the politics, and as of this writing, I have asked him to look at my proposal on a state level. Hopefully together we can hash out something that is constitutional, yet provides for the needs of the truly disabled Americans out there.

  19. Thanks Melf and Augger. Patient is doing much better after the CDC took over. I now understand why it is important to have a CDC and what could happen if we didn’t have one. The hospital (where it looks like many of the recent necro fascitis cases are coming from) misdiagnosed it and then proceeded to handle it poorly and probably caused it to spread faster rather than contain it. It’s a teaching hospital and my brother told me he thought they were assigning less than fully trained doctors and nurses to my sister-in-law. She underwent seven operations and lost much of her leg, but not her life, and should be able to walk again after a number of recontructive surgieries and therapy. My mom and I went up their to take charge of the nieces and nephews and to make sure everyone was getting enough sleep and food. One sister-in-law had a premature baby that was due to be released, and the other sister-in-law had just exhausted her maternity leave, when i went up. They’d planned on watching each others children which was not going to be possible after this. The premie and was going to be placed in social/protective services if we didn’t come up with a plan involving a responsible family member. When we left they had worked something out with the hospital and some other family members were able to step up, FMLA was taken, new family budgets were made, etc.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.