Patterico's Pontifications

2/8/2010

Obama: Let’s Talk About Health Care!

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:04 am



What could possibly go wrong?

In a high-stakes bid to revive his healthcare overhaul, President Obama announced during a pre-Super Bowl television interview that he would convene a bipartisan summit in which Republicans and Democrats would try to forge a compromise while a national TV audience watched.

I see. So it’s a genuine effort to reach a compromise.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said: “We always appreciate the opportunity to share ideas with the president, particularly on an issue where Americans have spoken so clearly. If we are to reach a bipartisan consensus, the White House can start by shelving the current health spending bill.”

But starting fresh is not part of the White House plan.

In an interview Sunday night, a White House official said, “The Republicans are going to interpret this as we’re starting over. We’re not starting over. We’re coming in with our plan. They’re welcome to come in with whatever plan they’d like. But we’re moving forward.”

I see. So it’s a stunt.

Republicans are destined to screw this up. They can minimize the inevitable damage by sending in Scott Brown to play a prominent role. He’s a walking symbol of the country’s unease with ObamaCare. Let’s hope Republicans remember that.

178 Responses to “Obama: Let’s Talk About Health Care!”

  1. Above political stunts! No, he can’t!

    Alta Bob (e8af2b)

  2. Could this man not shut his pie hole for one stinkin’ day?!

    em (219fea)

  3. This could be good. Call them out. the GOP says ‘give us tort reform.’ Then Obama says: Ok how many of you vote for the plan if it has tort reform? Silence.

    imdw (017d51)

  4. Start with JUST tort reform. How many would vote for that?

    Stop linking a whole @#$%ing lot of @#$% with one or two good things; then toss in a few hundred earmarks.

    Here, buy my overpriced house and I’ll toss in a free water filter. What? You’re against going green?

    Corwin (ea9428)

  5. Don’t send me in because my plan would be to abolish Medicare and Medicaid and establish free, comprehnsive, hospitals, that provide all health services, including free medicines, to everybody who walks in, within bus distance of each other. And then sit back and watch the AMA’s mass apoplexy.

    nk (db4a41)

  6. Short imdw:

    me like Obama / me no like Republicans.

    I don’t think much is missed there.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  7. Not really off topic but would you ever employ anyone who said this as an opening argument for passing healthcare?

    We’ve always known that America’s reign as the world’s greatest nation would eventually end. But most of us imagined that our downfall, when it came, would be something grand and tragic

    First for a nobel prize winning economist we are 2/5th of the worlds total output and our raw materials actually influence 1/2 the worlds output.

    China with 5 times as many people generates only 1/4th of our output – and roughly a third of their 1/4th total GDP are orders from the United States huge consumer and manufacturing economy – in other words its borrowed GDP – its things we dont make anymore but could if we wanted to.

    And they “gave” this guy a Nobel Prize in Economics and he doesnt comprehend the basic freshman macro picture.

    Oh well, I weep for my Swedish Brethren..
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/opinion/08krugman.html

    EricPWJohnson (27b854)

  8. The GOP could give Bambi a huge facial if they allow Ryan to propose his complete overhaul of the healthcare system live on TV, beginning with Medicaid and Medicare. His Awesomeness has no effective response for that one, and he knows it – his reaction to Ryan’s insistent questioning during the GOP retreat spoke volumes about his panic over this possibility. They should call his bluff.

    Dmac (539341)

  9. Here kitty kitty, nice kitty, look at the mousey waiting for you …

    Could it be more obvious.

    bill-tb (541ea9)

  10. “China with 5 times as many people generates only 1/4th of our output – and roughly a third of their 1/4th total GDP are orders from the United States huge consumer and manufacturing economy – in other words its borrowed GDP – its things we dont make anymore but could if we wanted to.”

    Who is the one that is “borrowing” in your description?

    imdw (017d51)

  11. Get nasty.

    “Oh. so you want us to bless your bloated, unworkable mess of the dueling “health care” (read “insurance reform”)bills. Nope, sorry – can’t do it. But while we’re here, can we ask about the enormous deficit you plan to lard the government with? And then there’s tort reform…”

    mojo (8096f2)

  12. I don’t think much is missed there.

    Well, it’s painfully obvious that cupcake never gets any.

    Dmac (539341)

  13. “They should call his bluff.”

    I think the democrats want to paint all of the GOP as behind ryan’s ideas. Not just for medicare but also social security.

    imdw (c7c6e4)

  14. For as long as the legislation, all of it, cap&trade, obamacare, debt/spending limits, etc., is on the present track, I have no problems with the “party of no”.

    There is no way to put a band-aid on this and make it palatable. Just no.

    jodetoad (7a7b8a)

  15. imdw

    The United States consumers import 1/3 of chinas output as direct inputs into our economy – these are not scarce or limited resources but mostly manufactured goods – in other words we could make them ourselves

    EricPWJohnson (27b854)

  16. This is transparent political theatre, and if the GOP goes along with it, they are dummerer than I have given them credit for.

    JD (0f9c01)

  17. If I were running the GOP caucus, I’d be there with our facts, figures, constituent petitions, and demand the President personally stand and deliver.

    To idiots like imd-dumbass, I have you thrown out of the room and fire the security if you don’t bounce at least once and aren’t crying for free healthcare.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  18. “Republicans are destined to screw this up.”

    Huh? Not sure how Republicans can screw up a photo op. This will not end well with Obama, I should think.

    Obama just doesn’t have the votes with the current bills. The public isn’t with him.

    Debatable (b9136e)

  19. I applaud the GOP’s refusal to govern. After all, anyone who talks to the President is a traitor to tea partying folks everywhere!

    Hey, anyone catch that cool NYT article of how Republicans are flocking to Wall Street to beg for money that used to go to obama? Nice populists you got there. john Coryn cares less about the tea partying evangelical set than Chuck Schumer does…..that’s so weird

    timb (449046)

  20. Project much?

    JD (3b62be)

  21. Never negotiate with terrorists.

    Official Internet Data Office (dc2fe1)

  22. “The United States consumers import 1/3 of chinas output as direct inputs into our economy – these are not scarce or limited resources but mostly manufactured goods – in other words we could make them ourselves”

    But it would be pricier, and so even scarcer. If you pick up a copy of Krugman & Obstfeld’s “International Economics: Theory And Policy,” you’ll learn about the principle of comparative advantage.

    “If I were running the GOP caucus, I’d be there with our facts, figures, constituent petitions, and demand the President personally stand and deliver.”

    No cheat sheets. No teleprompters.

    imdw (00bfab)

  23. the principle of comparative advantage

    Which of course should not be interpreted to mean that the idea is original with Krugman. The idea was developed by the economist David Ricardo almost 200 years ago. It also does not mean what you think it means.

    Official Internet Data Office (dc2fe1)

  24. The Republicans would look like idiots were they to go along with this. Mainly because they mostly are, but also Axelrod would control the agenda and all the questions on the table would be designed to make Obama look good and the GOP look bad.

    nk (db4a41)

  25. I can hear McConnell doing his best Admiral Akbar in shock “It’s a trap”

    Obama’s either going to browbeat the GOP or bring them in, present his plan and then say “see, you all saw how they were being difficult”

    He doesn’t get it. It’s never him unless it’s positive.

    And as soon as he starts crying someone like McCain or Snowe or Collins is going to cut a deal and give him cover.

    Hawkins (1fc204)

  26. We’ve always known that America’s reign as the world’s greatest nation would eventually end. But most of us imagined that our downfall, when it came, would be something grand and tragic

    This is probably more an indicator of Krugman’s self-regard than anything else–“Any country I’m a part of can only end in one fell revolutionary swoop!”

    Any basic reading of history shows that most “great” powers rarely fall due to grand external events–by the time the end comes, they’ve already substantially weakened themselves over a period of decades or even centuries due to increasing decadence. Situations like the First World War are the exception, not the rule.

    If, and when, the US as we know it finally comes to an end, it’s more likely to be with a whimper than with a bang. Krugman’s ego, however, demands that he live in interesting times, hence the breathless “fainting couch” hysterics.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  27. They can’t minimize the damage.

    The stupid Republicans are telling the country that the economy is of secondary concern.

    Whose interests are they representing exactly here?

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  28. “Which of course should not be interpreted to mean that the idea is original with Krugman”

    Of course not. It’s a textbook. It shouldn’t have anything original in it.

    imdw (017d51)

  29. Here, read about comparative advantage:

    [object]

    Corwin (ea9428)

  30. Imd-dummy, you lefties can’t stand up in an HONEST discussion. Obama’s pants would be on the ground in any discussion where he’s called on his multiple lies, especially the ones you parrot, imd-dumbass.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  31. “The Republicans would look like idiots were they to go along with this. Mainly because they mostly are, but also Axelrod would control the agenda and all the questions on the table would be designed to make Obama look good and the GOP look bad.”

    Obama has the advantage in any scenario, but the public won’t bite on the excuse that the Republicans are stopping this. The bill itself is stopping this. The public doesn’t want it. If the Republicans go along with it, they will have no chance of becoming the majority in the November elections and right now, the Republicans have the momentum to achieve tremendous gains in the fall, which largely due to the unpopularity of the Health Care bill.

    Keep obstructing. It is working.

    The stupid Republicans are telling the country that the economy is of secondary concern.

    How is that? If they oppose the Health Care bill, Congress will be more focused on the economy, right?

    Debatable (c1edfb)

  32. I applaud the GOP’s refusal to govern.

    The Democrats haven’t exactly been doing a bang-up job themselves, mostly due to the man at the top’s refusal to actually put on the Big Boy Pants and be a leader in anything other than superfluous campaign slogans.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  33. “Obama’s pants would be on the ground in any discussion where he’s called on his multiple lies, especially the ones you parrot, imd-dumbass.”

    Yes this was why foxnews cut away from the house GOP confab. Pants on the ground.

    imdw (5f60be)

  34. “How is that? If they oppose the Health Care bill, Congress will be more focused on the economy, right?”

    Besides health care, there’s also a jobs bill to say no to.

    imdw (5f60be)

  35. “Pants on the ground” – The Obama Health Care Plan. Sounds like a good bumper sticker (no pun intended).

    Corwin (ea9428)

  36. Besides health care, there’s also a jobs bill to say no to.

    Why approve a plan from someone who spectacularly failed on it the first time?

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  37. Jobs bill? That will likely be as rousing of a success as the “stimulus” plan was. Another laundry list of Dem pork projects.

    JD (3b62be)

  38. “Why approve a plan from someone who spectacularly failed on it the first time?”

    Don’t worry we’re sure to gut aid to states to please president snowe again.

    imdw (c5488f)

  39. We need to have all roads repaved again – it worked so well the first time, it will have an even better outcome if we do it again. Think of all the kinks they’ve already worked out?

    Corwin (ea9428)

  40. Don’t worry we’re sure to gut aid to states to please president snowe again.

    At least you’re admitting that “most of the money” won’t go to the private sector, unlike our esteemed leader. However, I doubt Obama will be foolish enough to make that kind of claim again after having to bail out the states last year.

    And please, stop whining about “cutting aid.” It’s nothing more than an appeal to emotion by the desperate who have realized they can’t live within their means.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  41. Maybe more bridges to nowhere alaska?

    imdw (cf562d)

  42. You folks don’t understand how the Senate works.

    There is no way Republicans are going to send their most junior Senator to the White House to negotiate anything.

    JEA (1eb0e1)

  43. There is no way Republicans are going to send their most junior Senator to the White House to negotiate anything.

    According the White House, there’s nothing to really negotiate–they’re going to have either the House or Senate bill come hell or high water, they’re just looking for Republican cover to do so. That’s what this whole circus is about; it’s certainly not about crafting policy, since Obama hasn’t actually done any of that during this whole process.

    It’s a way for Obama to get his face on TV again to hector and demagogue, which is what he does best. Leading, however, is not his strong suit.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  44. “There is no way Republicans are going to send their most junior Senator to the White House to negotiate anything.”

    They’re also not going to send in a guy that’s proof of how centrist something like RomneyCare is.

    imdw (603c39)

  45. Obama is so awesome there is no way he can fail to come out on top with this. He can just pint to his list of accomplishments despite GOP obstructionism. His stimulus bill of over a trillion dollars kept unemployment below 8 percent, he closed Gitmo thus robbing terrorist of a recruitment tool, he withdrew troops from Iraq, he hasn’t raised taxes a dime, and he has cut Bushs huge deficits. He has done all that despite Rethugs superminority of terror. Good thing we have him as our leader and Dems in control of all the government or none of those things would have happened.

    Imbw (45e67d)

  46. I have a suggestion for the GOP, though they won’t take it.

    Karl (27ee8a)

  47. When will Rethugs learn you can’t beat Obama at a debate? How can anyone fail to notice this. “some say”, “there are those that say”, and “cynics” will never be able to defeat this great President! Oh I forgot “failed policies of the past” add that in there too.

    Imbw (6aec73)

  48. Get nasty.

    Not going to happen. The GOP could leave one hell of a mark on Obie, but the McCains would probably object.

    Decorum, or some crap like that.

    Blacque Jacques Shellacque (efef8c)

  49. “Pants on the ground”

    Project much, cupcake?

    Dmac (539341)

  50. If they participate they should be prepared to do what Joe Wilson did and call him a liar to his face. Cause that’s what he’d do: “My plan would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades – what’s your plan to bring down the deficit?” They have to have all their facts and figures, showing where he’s wrong. He’d keep insisting that his plan really does that and imply it’s the GOP that’s lying. That’s where they’d have to really get in his face. Call him a liar straight out. Don’t be polite.

    If that’s all they show the next day on the evening news, so be it – I say the GOP wins that. And then don’t start backpedaling the next day when the media/Dems start counterattacking. If the media says “Obama was right!” say the media’s lying too. I say the GOP wins that scenario, but they don’t have the nerve to do that. Which is why they should probably just forget it.

    Gerald A (a66d02)

  51. Teh Won We Have Been Waiting For’s problem is not GOP opposition, it is Democrat opposition.
    How can he unite the country, if he can’t unite his own Party?

    AD - RtR/OS! (cc3695)

  52. “Project much, cupcake?”

    Didn’t read thread, did you?

    imdw (f7b257)

  53. “Pants on the ground” refers to the President’s response to anyone wishing to participate in the Health Care debate.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  54. Too bad the Rethugs 39 votes on the senate has been able to derail the agenda of our great president.

    [You need to go back to your old name or pick one that isn’t so close to a regular here. I understand you’re mocking him, which you’re free to do under your own identity, just as he does. Thank you. –Stashiu]

    Imbw (408a8d)

  55. Keep in mind a major way to pay for the Senate health-care bill is to steal $358 billion from Medicare over 10 years, and leave a worthless piece of paper in the Medicare fund saying it will be paid back.
    But that’s only one trick in the health-care legislation.
    Andrew G. Biggs:

    The Obama administration’s fiscal year 2011 budget continues a pattern of ignoring independent analysis and rigging economic assumptions to meet political goals. For the first time by any administration in memory, the Obama budget forecast rejects the Medicare Trustees’ projections for long-run healthcare cost growth. The reason: the Trustees’ projections undercut the administration’s narrative that increased federal control over private sector healthcare could painlessly reduce Medicare and Medicaid costs. The Obama budget instead assumes long-term health cost growth at twice the rate projected by the Trustees.
    The White House’s assumptions are factually implausible. Worse, they threaten to politicize the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, whose process for estimating entitlement costs has until now stood out for its lack of political influence.

    Neo (7830e6)

  56. “Keep in mind a major way to pay for the Senate health-care bill is to steal $358 billion from Medicare over 10 years, and leave a worthless piece of paper in the Medicare fund saying it will be paid back.”

    Contrast with paul ryan’s idea for medicare….

    imdw (c5488f)

  57. I strongly object to this repeated use of the epithet “rethug” by imdw. It’s a blatant insult directed at most everyone here. This is not DU or Kos. You are among people who regard your views, as well as your attitude, as garbage–remember?

    Get lost.

    And what is this?

    “54.Too bad the Rethugs 39 votes on the senate has been able to derail the agenda of our great president.
    Comment by Imbw — 2/8/2010 @ 10:55 am “

    The Republicans do not have 39 votes, they have 41. A little while ago, they had 40, and they’ve had 40 since last April, when Arlen Specter switched parties. And are you imdw or Imbw? When was the last time you checked?

    [That’s not imdw. I will warn the commenter to change his screen name. –Stashiu]

    Official Internet Data Office (dc2fe1)

  58. So, iamdimwit, which one is bad?

    JD (959071)

  59. The White House wants a do-over and the Republicans would be stupid to give it to them. There’s a process for considering legislation, champ. Follow the official process this time time instead of the Mafia negotiation you allowed to happen the first time.

    EBJ (2fd7f7)

  60. OIDO, I think someone was satirizing imdw. It’s nearly indistinguishable from its usually bs, and quite entertaining.

    People's Front of Judea (44bf37)

  61. “Comment by Imbw”

    You quoted it. Did you read it?

    imdw (085706)

  62. Keep in mind a major way to pay for the Senate health-care bill is to steal $358 billion from Medicare over 10 years, and leave a worthless piece of paper in the Medicare fund saying it will be paid back.

    I can see why they would have put this in the bill–after all, Congress has been doing the same thing with Social Security for 40 years. Unfortunately, buying Treasuries to pay for a program that is taxpayer-funded to begin with is like taking out a cash advance on a credit card to pay off another one, and then adding more debt onto both cards.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  63. Oh, I see. It was the parody version. These comments don’t come with warning labels.

    Official Internet Data Office (dc2fe1)

  64. I think imd-dumbass is an Ellie Light want to be with it’s pants on the ground.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  65. “…steal $358 billion from Medicare over 10 years…”

    The only thing that can be stolen are the IOU’s that are overflowing the “lock-box” and spilling onto the floor – the money was used before it ever got to the “lock-box”.

    AD - RtR/OS! (cc3695)

  66. Another Chris – What you describe is what this batch of dirty little socialist beastmasters (;-) hf) would call fiscal responsibility, and tightening their belts.

    JD (959071)

  67. “Unfortunately, buying Treasuries to pay for a program that is taxpayer-funded to begin with is like taking out a cash advance on a credit card to pay off another one, and then adding more debt onto both cards.”

    It notably has the effect of being a tax shift. Social security taxes are more regressive than the taxes that flow into the general fund. Thus not paying back the social security trust fund has the effect of being a regressive tax shift.

    imdw (842182)

  68. Oh, good Allah.

    JD (959071)

  69. Karl has an excellent point that outlines, in their own words, how truly disingenuous this offer is, and how it is purely partisan theatre.

    JD (959071)

  70. Alluh Akbar!

    HeavenSent (ae267e)

  71. What you describe is what this batch of dirty little socialist beastmasters (;-) hf) would call fiscal responsibility, and tightening their belts.

    If Social Security was run as a means for individuals to save for their retirement, I honestly wouldn’t have any problem with it. We should be a nation of savers, and having the government provide a “piggy bank” for its citizens to save their earnings for later on (savings that could be passed on to their children for their own SS accounts in the event of an early death, for example) should be seen as encouraging fiscal responsibility.

    The problem is that SS has not been run that way at all; it’s been a program for current earners to provide retirement funds for people who are no longer working anymore. This is a tailor-made scenario for a ponzi scheme, because it ends up relying on constant growth in both population and inflation to keep up with the entitlements. And it hasn’t helped that Congress has been skimming from the fund during all those years when SS did in fact run surpluses, operating under the presumption that the money would automatically be there “because it always has been.”

    Even with the tax increase that Reagan signed into law, SS is still likely to start running deficits as soon as 2016. The fact that surpluses are being used to even purchase Treasuries to begin with shows that it is a program that can no longer pay for itself.

    Eventually, the whole system is going to come crashing down, tax increases or no, because the basic principle of long-term fiscal responsibility that should be the foundation of a social security program was fundamentally distorted.

    If I had a choice, I’d opt out of the damn thing altogether and use the $300 a month I pay out to buy gold, silver, and CDs from my local credit union to put in my savings account. I wouldn’t be surprised if more people in my age group (Gen-Xers/Echo Boomers) start to feel the same way.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  72. “If Social Security was run as a means for individuals to save for their retirement, I honestly wouldn’t have any problem with it.”

    If it was that, it wouldn’t be social and it likely wouldn’t be secure.

    imdw (688568)

  73. Patterico:

    Since I’m snow-bound in Virginia and high, very high on the whole beauty of it, my regressive, Neanderthal little dirty brain can’t stop playing this ditty by Salt ‘n’ Pepa:

    “Let’s Talk About Sex”

    Punch it, Hurb
    Yo, I don’t think we should talk about this
    Come on, why not?
    People might misunderstand what we’re tryin’ to say, you know?
    No, but that’s a part of life)

    Come on

    [CHORUS]

    Let’s talk about sex, baby
    Let’s talk about you and me
    Let’s talk about all the good things
    And the bad things that may be
    Let’s talk about sex
    Let’s talk about sex
    Let’s talk about sex
    Let’s talk about sex

    Let’s talk about sex for now to the people at home or in the crowd
    It keeps coming up anyhow
    Don’t decoy, avoid, or make void the topic
    Cuz that ain’t gonna stop it
    Now we talk about sex on the radio and video shows
    Many will know anything goes
    Let’s tell it how it is, and how it could be
    How it was, and of course, how it should be
    Those who think it’s dirty have a choice
    Pick up the needle, press pause, or turn the radio off
    Will that stop us, Pep? I doubt it
    All right then, come on, Spin

    [CHORUS]

    Hot to trot, make any man’s eyes pop
    She use what she got to get whatever she don’t got
    Fellas drool like fools, but then again they’re only human
    The chick was a hit because her body was boomin’
    Gold, pearls, rubies, crazy diamonds
    Nothin’ she ever wore was ever common
    Her dates heads of state, men of taste
    Lawyers, doctors, no one was too great for her to get with
    Or even mess with, the Prez she says was next on her list
    And believe me, you, it’s as good as true
    There ain’t a man alive that she couldn’t get next to
    She had it all in the bag so she should have been glad
    But she was mad and sad and feelin’ bad
    Thinkin’ about the things that she never had
    No love, just sex, followed next with a check and a note
    That last night was dope

    Let’s talk about sex, baby (sing it)
    Let’s talk about you and me (sing it, sing it)
    Let’s talk about all the good things
    And the bad things that may be
    Let’s talk about sex (come on)
    Let’s talk about sex (do it)
    Let’s talk about sex (uh-huh)
    Let’s talk about sex

    Ladies, all the ladies, louder now, help me out
    Come on, all the ladies – let’s talk about sex, all right
    [repeat]

    (Yo, Pep, I don’t think they’re gonna play this on the radio
    And why not? Everybody has sex
    I mean, everybody should be makin’ love
    Come on, how many guys you know make love?)

    [CHORUS]

    Pansy (f829d3)

  74. Idocity of the Day!

    AD - RtR/OS! (cc3695)

  75. Oops….Idiocity

    AD - RtR/OS! (cc3695)

  76. AD:

    Did you mean “idiocy”?

    Pansy (f829d3)

  77. OIDO, I think someone was satirizing imdw. It’s nearly indistinguishable from its usually bs, and quite entertaining.

    I wasn’t sure at first myself – quite close to the original, but with some actual humor, not like the insufferable prig we know so well here.

    If it was that, it wouldn’t be social and it likely wouldn’t be secure.

    Isn’t cupcake great, folks? Let’s all give him a big hand!

    Dmac (539341)

  78. I’ve seen, first-hand, as a college teacher, the decline in English literacy thru the lens of a lack of comprehension of irony and satire, a kind of common denominator beyond all other incapabilities, like bad vocabulary and spelling. Sad to see it on this blog.

    Pansy (f829d3)

  79. Stop talking about “pants on the ground”, you’re getting that song stuck in my head again!

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

    There, now it’ll be stuck in your head as well. Revenge, sweet revenge! Mwahahaha…..

    Robin Munn (fca9e9)

  80. Comment by Pansy — 2/8/2010 @ 1:28 pm
    My comment was directed at Imadickwad at 1:08pm, and was a poor attempt to link him with the troll known as Intelliology (sic), whose comments I can’t seem to find – did he get taken down for some reason?

    AD - RtR/OS! (cc3695)

  81. AD,

    I don’t think he’s commented on this thread. AFAIK, nothing has been altered or deleted from him.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  82. “I’ve seen, first-hand, as a college teacher, the decline in English literacy thru the lens of a lack of comprehension of irony and satire, a kind of common denominator beyond all other incapabilities, like bad vocabulary and spelling. Sad to see it on this blog.”

    You know who’s got satire covered? Our dear palin:

    http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2010/02/08/rush-limbaugh-is-a-big-fat-exception

    “”[Limbaugh] was using satire… I didn’t hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with ‘f-ing retards’ and we did know that Rahm Emanuel has been reported, did say that. there is a big difference there.””

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    imdw (c5488f)

  83. convene a bipartisan summit in which Republicans and Democrats would try to forge a compromise while a national TV audience watched

    It’s supposed to last an entire half a day. Everybody in the country will know this is a farce so I don’t see the need for all the worry on the right. Both sides will give some boilerplate speechs and nothing will change.

    Subotai (0d7e0b)

  84. They’re also not going to send in a guy that’s proof of how centrist something like RomneyCare is.

    Because … Massachusetts is …. a very centerist state …. or something.

    How’s your seach for a dictionary definition of “nativism” which fits the leftist mindset coming along?

    Subotai (0d7e0b)

  85. AD:

    Beg pardon. At the same time, you should be more explicit in your comments. My point about vocabulary still stands.

    Pansy (f829d3)

  86. “Because … Massachusetts is …. a very centerist state …. or something.”

    Are you not familiar with this scott brown character?

    “How’s your seach for a dictionary definition of “nativism” which fits the leftist mindset coming along?”

    You didn’t read the thread?

    imdw (490521)

  87. You might want to use your own instead of cutting and pasting.

    nk (db4a41)

  88. And maybe you should stop using that lens of lack of comprehension.

    nk (db4a41)

  89. I don’t think he’s commented on this thread. AFAIK, nothing has been altered or deleted from him.

    Comment by Stashiu3

    except his brain, his cognitive thinking ability, his….

    well, you get the picture (fb8750)

  90. If it was that, it wouldn’t be social and it likely wouldn’t be secure.

    Your argument only applies if interpreted through the “income redistribution” lens. A “social” program does not necessarily have to provide an individual with benefits primarily paid for by a third party, although plenty of leftists believe that to be the case.

    And the contention that it likely wouldn’t be secure is pure speculation. If the money is placed in an account that can only be touched upon retirement, then the idea of “security” is already being accounted for. That was the biggest problem with Bush’s partial “privatization” proposal–it presumed the continued existence of SS in its current fundamentally flawed form, rather than an actual individual retirement savings program, which is what social security should actually be.

    The biggest problem the left has right now is dealing with the reality that SS is going to blow up soon–or if they understand this, then they just don’t want to consider the very real possibility that it will do so in their lifetime and they couldn’t do anything to stop it. So they’ve deflected onto the idea that if taxes are raised and expanded, SS can be paid for in perpetuity. The only thing that mentality has done over the decades is trick people into thinking they can live paycheck to paycheck until they retire and live high on the hog afterwards.

    At this point though, it’s probably too late. With no remaining economic engines other than consumer debt to survive on, and with real wages having done a long decline since inflation kicked in during the mid-1970s, our fiscal chickens are going to come home to roost whether people care to believe it or not. The math always wins out in the end.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  91. And “thru” is spelled t-h-r-o-u-g-h. But stop looking through that lens, in any case. “College teacher”, my fat Aunt Fannie.

    nk (db4a41)

  92. except his brain, his cognitive thinking ability, his….
    Comment by well, you get the picture — 2/8/2010 @ 2:37 pm

    Fair enough. AFAIK, nothing has been altered or deleted from him by a moderator. 😉

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  93. Comment by nk — 2/8/2010 @ 2:40 pm

    “2-shay”, and I’m not talking about steam-locomotives.

    AD - RtR/OS! (cc3695)

  94. “A “social” program does not necessarily have to provide an individual with benefits primarily paid for by a third party, although plenty of leftists believe that to be the case.”

    The social in social security certainly means that. Usually when things are social, it means it’s not just every man for himself. Ie: third parties are involved.

    The scheme described already exists in the form of 401k’s and other retirement savings / investing schemes. Social security adds to the diversity by providing a system with a different logic. A social logic. The logic where those who are able take care of those who are unable, either by disability or retirement. Neither one is the complete answer, and we are better off with a system that includes both.

    “And the contention that it likely wouldn’t be secure is pure speculation. If the money is placed in an account that can only be touched upon retirement, then the idea of “security” is already being accounted for.”

    “secure” in that we can have what happened recently — falling values of private retirement accounts.

    “The only thing that mentality has done over the decades is trick people into thinking they can live paycheck to paycheck until they retire and live high on the hog afterwards.”

    Who do you think is tricked into thinking that social security retirement income is “high on the hog” ?

    “The math always wins out in the end.”

    True. The longer we wait, the more political will there will be to make sure social security is there. That’s why people who oppose social security want to gut it now, when it will be easier for them to do so.

    imdw (f7b257)

  95. Comment by Stashiu3 — 2/8/2010 @ 2:42 pm

    I just thought it peculiar (when I went back searching as to how he spelled his moniker), that I had to go back three pages to find one of his comments (just went back two the first time).
    Just goes to show you how a troll can come to dominate the conversation, as Imadickwad is proceeding to do – who is somewhat reminding me of one we had here in ’08 who insisted repeatedly that Rush and talk-radio were part & parcel with the MSM.

    AD - RtR/OS! (cc3695)

  96. “How’s your seach for a dictionary definition of “nativism” which fits the leftist mindset coming along?”

    You didn’t read the thread?

    Talking with imadimwit is like wrestling with a squid. There’s nothing solid to catch hold of and he ends up squirting ink and disappearing.

    Subotai (0d7e0b)

  97. Why are we talking about Social Security? It’s not on the agenda for the proposed circus, is it?

    Subotai (0d7e0b)

  98. ‘Who do you think is tricked into thinking that social security retirement income is “high on the hog” ?’

    As I read it, the trick seems to be more around the “…thinking they can live paycheck to paycheck until retirement…” but if I was to hazard a guess as to who might think SS is living high on the hog, I’d go for people like that fine but naive young lady who thought Obama was going to make it so she would not have to worry about paying her bills or putting gas in her car.

    SteveG (909b57)

  99. House GOP Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) and Whip Eric Cantor (R., Va.) just sent White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel a letter regarding the upcoming health-care summit, asking for some very pointed and necessary conditions…or I should say, pre-conditions to the meeting. Maybe, just maybe, the Republicans won’t screw this up.

    From NRO

    If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate. Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process.

    Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency. Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills? This bipartisan discussion should reflect the bipartisan opposition to both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the Senate bill. Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion?

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  100. In reading Friedrich Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty, a quote at the beginning of a chapter titled The Decline of Socialism and the Rise of the Welfare State, in my opinion, needs to preamble any meeting on health care or cap and charade.

    Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.

    —Louis D. Brandeis

    If one wants to defend this Republic (what’s left of it) Hayek’s books are a must read. Progressivism is socialism. The only difference between the two is the marketing technique. Theater gives progressivism its energy and manifesto gives socialism its justification.

    Hayek is not a perfect economist. But then who is? However, in The Constitution of Liberty and his The Road to Serfdom, the psychology of socialism (progressivism) is aptly mapped and commented on. Unfortunately, what this man foresaw has mostly come to pass in Western democracies. Even though Hayek could never meet our current President, neverthelees Hayek had described him well.

    bykoset (337959)

  101. “If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate.”

    This is an interesting way to spin something that has passed both houses of congress. That’s what we’ll have. Spin. Let’s hear it.

    “Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.”

    I think the proper answer to this is to ask what the trade is. What will the GOP offer in exchange for “eliminating the possibility of reconciliation”? Likewise with tort reform. Will the GOP vote for a bill with tort reform?

    imdw (b62539)

  102. Of course, the house GOP really has nothing to offer on reconciliation — it’s a senate process, not house. Maybe they can offer up Cao’s vote in the house?

    imdw (b62539)

  103. “Then Obama says: Ok how many of you vote for the plan if it has tort reform? Silence.”

    That must be why the trial lawyers are the largest cash contributor to the DNC.

    Shameless and clueless.

    GeneralMalaise (55c598)

  104. The GOP should call Big Zero’s bluff and offer their suggestions in a cool, clear manner. Let him have his photo op, he’s the one on the retreat.

    GeneralMalaise (55c598)

  105. Here’s an example of imdw’s honest nature…

    To vote, one must be a U.S. citizen. To apply for U.S. citizenship, applicants must:

    * Be at least 18 years old at the time of filing the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400
    * Have been lawfully admitted to the United States
    * Have resided as a permanent resident in the United States for at least 5 years or 3 years if you meet all eligibility requirements to file as a spouse of a U.S. citizen
    * Have demonstrated continuous permanent residence
    * Have demonstrated physical presence
    * Have lived for 3 months in the USCIS district or state where the Application for Naturalization, Form N-400 is filed
    * Demonstrate good moral character
    * Show an attachment to the U.S. Constitution
    * Be able to read, write, speak, and understand basic English
    * Demonstrate a knowledge of U.S. civics (history and government)
    * Take the oath of allegiance to the United States

    Comment by GeneralMalaise — 2/7/2010 @ 6:42 pm
    #

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “To apply for U.S. citizenship, applicants must:”

    To apply. Not to be.

    Comment by imdw — 2/7/2010 @ 6:51 pm

    GeneralMalaise (55c598)

  106. nkat # 91:

    You’ve no concept that a language operates in vastly different registers, from lawyerly/administrative to “criminal” (all kinds of slang, baby, most of them superbly creative)…
    “Thru” is perfectly fine in the economical, short-hand lingo of web speak. I wouldn’t write “thru” in a paper about Shakespeare or the Constitution, moron, because it would be anachronistic, and I wouldn’t accept it in a student’s paper either.

    [note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

    Pansy (f829d3)

  107. Errata:

    “administrative”

    [Already fixed, sorry. –Stashiu 😉 ]

    Pansy (f829d3)

  108. Mr. Emanuel:

    We welcome President Obama’s announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground on health care, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats. Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it. Just the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses.

    Just as important, scrapping the House and Senate health care bills would help end the uncertainty they are creating for workers and businesses and thus strengthen our shared commitment to focusing on creating jobs. Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is “absolutely not” resetting the legislative process for health care.

    If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate. Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process.

    Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency. Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills? This bipartisan discussion should reflect the bipartisan opposition to both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the Senate bill. Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion?

    As you may know, legislation has been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures, similar to the proposal just passed by the Democratic-controlled Virginia State Senate, providing that no individual may be compelled to purchase health insurance. Additionally, governors of both parties have raised concerns about the additional costs that will be passed along to states under both the House and Senate bills. The President has also mentioned his commitment to have “experts” participate in health care discussions.

    Will the Feb. 25 discussion involve such “experts?” Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill raise costs – just the opposite of their intended effect – and jeopardize seniors’ access to high-quality care by imposing massive Medicare cuts? Will those experts include the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has stated that the GOP alternative would reduce premiums by up to 10 percent? Also, will Republicans be permitted to invite health care experts to participate? Finally, as you know, this is the first televised White House health care meeting involving the President since last March.

    Many health care meetings of the closed-door variety have been held at the White House since then, including one where a sweetheart deal was worked out with union leaders. Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?Of course, Americans have been dismayed by the fact that the President has broken his own pledge to hold televised health care talks. We can only hope this televised discussion is the beginning, not the end, of attempting to correct that mistake. Will the President require that any and all future health care discussions, including those held on Capitol Hill, meet this common-sense standard of transparency and openness?

    Your answers to these critical questions will help determine whether this will be a truly open, bipartisan discussion or merely an intramural exercise before Democrats attempt to jam through a job-killing health care bill that the American people can’t afford and don’t support. ‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support. Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.These questions are also designed to try and make sense of the widening gap between the President’s rhetoric on bipartisanship and the reality. We cannot help but notice that each of the President’s recent bipartisan overtures has been coupled with harsh, misleading partisan attacks. For instance, the President decries Republican ‘obstruction’ when it was Republicans who first proposed bipartisan health care talks last May.

    The President says Republicans are ‘sitting on the sidelines’ just days after holding up our health care alternative and reading from it word for word. The President has every right to use his bully pulpit as he sees fit, but this is the kind of credibility gap that has the American people so fed up with business as usual in Washington.We look forward to receiving your answers and continuing to discuss ways we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to address the challenges facing the American people.

    Sincerely,

    House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)

    House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)

    SPQR (26be8b)

  109. I just wanted to say that Social Security was another problem Obama inherited from Bush, although the Democrats did prevent Bush implementing a partial fix during his administration.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  110. The social in social security certainly means that. Usually when things are social, it means it’s not just every man for himself. Ie: third parties are involved.

    Except that the third party, in this case, should be the employer, who makes their own percentage contribution for the employee. It should not be every other citizen in the US–as I’ve already said, this has led to the current ponzi scheme of relying on ever-increasing populations and inflation to keep it afloat. And it’s failing miserably.

    The scheme described already exists in the form of 401k’s and other retirement savings / investing schemes.

    Nope, sorry. The stock market is a glorified casino and should not be eligible for retirement funds. Unless people are purchasing precious metals, (which have always held a store of value, if a fluctuating one) or putting accumulated cash savings into an untouchable account, it is not secure. Those “private retirement accounts” you speak of are a strawman that I do not support in any way, shape, or form, because they represent the epitome of faith-based accounting.

    If you aren’t putting it in a stable savings account, you’re not saving for retirement–you’re putting blind faith in a market that can just as easily go down the toilet and wipe you out as it can go to the moon.

    Who do you think is tricked into thinking that social security retirement income is “high on the hog” ?

    Judging by the personal savings rate of our citizens, I’d say the majority. Japan’s been able to get away with a 20-year malaise because their residents were net savers. We don’t have that luxury, because people thought they didn’t have to save for retirement and SS would be there to save their butt when they turned 65. But then, that’s what happens when people promote a program as “taking care of each other” rather than “do we have the capability to keep this going in perpetuity?”

    The longer we wait, the more political will there will be to make sure social security is there. That’s why people who oppose social security want to gut it now, when it will be easier for them to do so.

    Don’t bet on it. As of last August, Rasmussen did a survey that found a majority of people under 50 believe that people should be able to opt out if they wish. The minute people under 40 realize that Rome won’t be able to provide bread and circuses forever, they’re going to demand a run for the exits. Two generations as self-oriented as Gen-X and the Echo Boomers aren’t going to be willing to put out for their elders, who they believe got the country in this situation to begin with.

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    Another Chris (35bdd0)

  111. Pansy, you are a fraud and a liar, probably on SSI, and very likely fat, ugly and pimply.

    nk (db4a41)

  112. “College teacher”. Hah, hah, hah!

    78.I’ve seen, first-hand, as a college teacher, the decline in English literacy thru the lens of a lack of comprehension of irony and satire …

    Hah, hah, hah!!!!!

    nk (db4a41)

  113. “very likely fat, ugly and pimply.”

    nk – Forgive the intrusion, but I read on one of the feminazi boards today that the politically correct term for this is “not conventionally attractive.” Just trying to help a brother out. Heh!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  114. Thanks, daleyrocks. Nishi, you are likely not conventionally attractive.

    nk (db4a41)

  115. BTW, daleyrocks, why are you visiting carpet-scraper boards?

    nk (db4a41)

  116. nk, do you really think that the Queen of Loop de Loop is back among us?

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  117. since the only thing one can count on from Ear Leader is duplicity, the Republicans would do well to down play any interaction at this “event”.

    personally, i’d tell Barney Fife that “reform” is dead this Congress, unless he wants to ram his crap through all on his own. otherwise, he can take the next few months to actually come up with his own concrete plan that he can introduce at the start of the next session.

    put up or shut up, once and for all, you duplicitous scumbag.

    well, you get the picture (fb8750)

  118. “Nope, sorry. The stock market is a glorified casino and should not be eligible for retirement funds”

    You can buy CD’s if you want, you know.

    “It should not be every other citizen in the US–as I’ve already said, this has led to the current ponzi scheme of relying on ever-increasing populations and inflation to keep it afloat.”

    It can also rely on increasing productivity, not just increasing population.

    “Ear Leader ”

    This is a new one. Did you make this one up?

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    imdw (7b6f6d)

  119. do you really think that the Queen of Loop de Loop is back among us?
    Comment by Eric Blair — 2/8/2010 @ 5:19 pm

    No. Pansy is a long-time commenter and relatively new American citizen who has made many positive contributions to the comments here.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  120. Stashiu3, I am sometimes unclear which person is being discussed. There were a couple of “new” people, and I wondered if one of them was actually you know who.

    I trust your opinion. You are much less prone to being judgmental than yours truly.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  121. EB, I didn’t see anything that made me think it was nishi, but I checked anyway. Not her, with high confidence. No idea where that came from.

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  122. Pansy should be a bit less defensive about someone correcting her grammar/spelling when she so freely criticizes others for being less than explicit, and having poor spelling and vocabulary.

    AD - RtR/OS! (3884b0)

  123. Well, that nishi character is pretty mental. We have a few of those posting. Some of the trolls are just kids messing around. Others have issues.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  124. nk:

    Critcism accepted. It should have been “thru the lens of my students’ lack of…”

    As to your speculation that I might be “fat, ugly, pimply” … what can I say?? you got that right, baby. I’m as ugly as they come. No contest–minus the pimples.
    However, I think you didn’t push your post far enough. You left the jucier bits out of the picture. How about urinary incontinence, darling? I suffer from that too.

    Pansy (f829d3)

  125. I gotta jump in here, very late to the dance on this tangent. I’m sure by now everyone knows when I decide to hammer someone, I use my ten-pound sledge. I got that thing put away, can’t even see it.

    From my Pansy recollections, Stash is dead on. Long-time (or at least old) commenter, naturalized US citizen. To me, that makes Pansy more valuable than half the natural born citizens. She wanted to be here, to be a part of this country and to add to its value.

    I haven’t quite figured Pansy’s politics yet but I’m certain they are not off-the-scale moonbat. I also have not seen anything she’s written to suggest she made anything up.

    My sister-in-law is a Czech national who very much likes the US but has loads of residual baggage from her life in a Communist country. She’s wrong about a lot of stuff, too (like it’s not safe in the US to park your stroller, baby inside, outside a store while you go shopping).

    My guess is Pansy is just getting into the US political flow of things and may need time to get her feet under her. The only thing I’d ding her on, at present, is her unfortunate choice for a moniker. Flowers are pretty but that’s not the connotation that follows the moniker.

    Anyway, that’s my two bits (inflation is a female dog), take it or leave it.

    John Hitchcock (12878f)

  126. I haven’t been following the comments enough, I guess. And I’m not going to get into a fight with anybody else over Pansy.

    nk (db4a41)

  127. […] the rest here: Obama: Let’s Talk About Health Care! […]

    Obama: Let’s Talk About Health Care! | Liberal Whoppers (d16888)

  128. To me, that makes Pansy more valuable than half the natural born citizens.

    Major Nidal Hasan is a “naturalized US citizen”. It’s a big mistake to mythologize everyone who comes here (to a rich country from, usually, a poor country) as being plucky and honest and hardworking and eager to be a good American. Aafia Siddiqui could have had US citizenship if she’d bothered to ask for it.

    I’ve met immigrants from behind the former Iron Curtain. They are almost always hard-core lefties on the American political spectrum.

    Subotai (100e87)

  129. “BTW, daleyrocks, why are you visiting carpet-scraper boards?”

    nk – I was checking out the rage over the Tebow ads. It was good for some giggles.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  130. Subotai, Hasan was born in Virginia. 😉

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  131. “The stock market is a glorified casino and should not be eligible for retirement funds.”

    Another Chris – Appropriate asset allocation includes a little risk unless you are close to trtirement for most investors. Also the people who didn’t want the responsibility of managing private retirement accounts would not have been required to take them – my recollection was that it was a voluntary option to give investors the opportunity to earn rates of return higher than treasury bonds on a portion of their money.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  132. John Hitchcock:

    Thanks.
    Nothing more to add.

    Pansy (f829d3)

  133. “Subotai, Hasan was born in Virginia.”

    http://www.sadtrombone.com/

    imdw (8f8ead)

  134. subotai at 128:

    “Major Nidal Hasan is a “naturalized US citizen”. It’s a big mistake to mythologize everyone who comes here (to a rich country from, usually, a poor country)…”

    It’s enbarrasing, and a huge mistake, that morons like you have a say here.

    Pansy (f829d3)

  135. “… and very likely fat, ugly and pimply.”

    But you should see how my butt looks in a pair of Lardasche® jeans.

    GeneralMalaise (55c598)

  136. You can buy CD’s if you want, you know.

    And if I had the extra $300 a month from opting out of SS, I could buy more. That’s the whole point. I’m tired of flushing my money down a hole, and a lot of other people my age are too.

    It can also rely on increasing productivity, not just increasing population.

    Nope, sorry–GDP isn’t going to save it. Otherwise, thousands of people wouldn’t have lost their retirement “savings” when the housing bubble popped. You do realize that all that unsustainable housing debt was counted as part of the GDP too, correct?

    You stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the plain and simple fact that as a country, we are completely out of bullets. There is NO economic engine that is going to pull us out of this. Period. People using their homes as ATM machines was the last gasp of the ponzi economy.

    How do I know this? Not ONCE have you been able to name a single industry that is going to get this economy back to the levels that it was before the bubble popped.

    I’ve demanded an answer from you on this time after time after time, and not once have you named ANY industry that has the capability to drive a jobs gain of 150K a month just to keep up with new workers, let alone the 250K+ that would be required over the next five years just to get us back to where we were in 2007. Hell, job-wise we are back to where we were in the mid-1970s, when women were just starting to enter the workforce in more prevalent numbers.

    Where exactly are the jobs going to come from? What industry? There’s NOTHING LEFT.

    Short of a massive global collapse that somehow leaves us as the sole productive country on this planet, we are fuxored. 7/10s of our economy is driven by consumers spending themselves into massive credit card and mortgage debt, buying a bunch of plastic crap. Anyone who thinks this is sustainable in the long run on a nationwide scale is ignorant. Anyone who thinks it can be used to meet tens of trillions of dollars in entitlements is insane.

    The party’s over, imdw–you just don’t want to deal with the reality. But you’ll have no choice, eventually. It’s just a matter of time.

    Another Chris (35bdd0)

  137. “And if I had the extra $300 a month from opting out of SS, I could buy more. That’s the whole point.”

    Well yes and if your rent was lower, or your health care was lower, or you other taxes were lower you could also put more into CDs.

    “You do realize that all that unsustainable housing debt was counted as part of the GDP too, correct?”

    Debt as part of the GDP? that is a new one. New homes, new things & repairs bought with home equity lines, that would be part of the GDP. But debt, I don’t think so.

    “How do I know this? Not ONCE have you been able to name a single industry that is going to get this economy back to the levels that it was before the bubble popped.”

    When you say this, it makes it seem like you want us back to bubble levels. I don’t. But never fear. We’ll find something else to have bubbles in. You’d think tulips was the end of it. But they werent.

    “Where exactly are the jobs going to come from? What industry? There’s NOTHING LEFT. ”

    Was that you that was telling about how china’s GDP is borrowed? That guy semes to think we can just, I don’t know, un borrow that from them. Odd one eh?

    imdw (f7b257)

  138. Well yes and if your rent was lower, or your health care was lower, or you other taxes were lower you could also put more into CDs.

    Bad analogy. I can choose to live where rent is cheaper, I can choose different health care plans, and I lower my own taxes simply by not buying a bunch of consumer crap. I have no choice where my SS deductions go.

    Debt as part of the GDP? that is a new one. New homes, new things & repairs bought with home equity lines, that would be part of the GDP. But debt, I don’t think so.

    New home loans and home equity “lines of credit” that are taken out is debt. And all the consumer spending over the last 20+ years is part of that too–“consumption” being one of the factors in how GDP is calculated. Your argument falls apart on this simple fact.

    Was that you that was telling about how china’s GDP is borrowed? That guy semes to think we can just, I don’t know, un borrow that from them. Odd one eh?

    Weak deflection. What industry is going to be the economic engine in this glorious recovery you keep promising? I notice how you avoid this yet AGAIN.

    C’mon, chump–answer the question.

    Another Chris (35bdd0)

  139. I’d like everyone to note how imdw believes that consumer spending is not part of the GDP, or at least, seems to believe that all those goods and services being purchased (many of them from overseas) were bought with people’s savings rather than credit cards or home equity lines of credit–all debt that needs to be paid off.

    Apparently he was in a coma the last couple of decades.

    Another Chris (35bdd0)

  140. so I say: “New homes, new things & repairs bought with home equity lines, that would be part of the GDP”

    and you say:”Your argument falls apart on this simple fact.”

    What’s the simple fact I left out? Not all debt went to new production? No that’s a fact you left out.

    “What industry is going to be the economic engine in this glorious recovery you keep promising? I notice how you avoid this yet AGAIN.”

    I don’t know. I think biotech could be hot. I think tech could be good too. Health care could work too. Also maybe other IP things, depending on how much we can get other countries to pay us for our knowledge. Then again, I totally missed my chance at the housing bubble, so you shouldn’t follow my forecast. Why am I even bothering? Put yourself in some past recession and see if you could forecast what got us out.

    imdw (de7003)

  141. “I’d like everyone to note how imdw believes that consumer spending is not part of the GDP,”

    Let me repeat: ““New homes, new things & repairs bought with home equity lines, that would be part of the GDP.”

    Though note one big hole: if those things were made in china — or anywhere abroad — then only the value added by the retail, transport, etc… here would be added to GDP. The final price would include foreign as well as domestic GDP.

    imdw (de7003)

  142. imdw said:

    Put yourself in some past recession and see if you could forecast what got us out.

    Innovation and labor.

    Ag80 (1592cc)

  143. “What industry is going to be the economic engine in this glorious recovery you keep promising? I notice how you avoid this yet AGAIN.”

    I would go with domestic energy, but the enviroloons won’t let us drill or build nuclear, even to reduce dependence on foreign oil or bridge the gap until alternative technologies are developed or affordable. Males no sense.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  144. Makes no sense.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  145. “Innovation and labor.”

    See chris, it’s not that hard to come up with this stuff.

    imdw (688568)

  146. “Innovation and labor.”

    omdw – That’s not an industry, sucker.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  147. “Innovation and labor.”

    imdw – We do have a plentiful supply of cheap illegal immigrant labor and you have said you favor more. How does that help unemployed legal residents? Any solutions?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  148. What’s the simple fact I left out? Not all debt went to new production? No that’s a fact you left out.

    Where do you think all those home equity lines of credit went into? It wasn’t always people’s homes–unless you missed all the “consolidate your debt” commercials during the last 10 years.

    Why am I even bothering? Put yourself in some past recession and see if you could forecast what got us out.

    Why bother? Because your whole theory of economic recovery is dependant on a massive economic engine that is going to add 250K+ jobs over the next 5 years just to get us back to where we were in 2007. You have a lot of speculation but no evidence.

    In past recessions, we could count on normal business cycles working themselves out because we were a manufacturing-based economy that could produce goods for general consumption. Slumps were due to drops in demand for those products as a result of wars, foreign recessions, or other factors. The post-WW2 boom that we experienced up until the mid-1970s was due to the fact that we were one of the few countries left that could produce goods. Now, we import most of our consumer goods.

    The one time we entered a credit-based recession–1929–it took us 20 years to come out of it. Guess which type of recession this is?

    I would go with domestic energy, but the enviroloons won’t let us drill or build nuclear, even to reduce dependence on foreign oil or bridge the gap until alternative technologies are developed or affordable.

    Domestic energy (and even left-wing panaceas like high speed rail) isn’t going to be much of a factor unless we lock up the green lobby in Supermax for about 10 years to get everything on line. In California, these people protested a solar farm in the desert, for god’s sake. Couple that with the fact that “green” energy remains a niche market that requires huge government subsidies just to remain a niche market, and energy production won’t be much of a factor unless peoples energy bills start going through the roof and stay high consistently. As long as oil, coal, and natural gas remain relatively cheap, nuclear probably won’t really make any headway, and neither will green energy other than as window dressing.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  149. “Where do you think all those home equity lines of credit went into? It wasn’t always people’s homes–unless you missed all the “consolidate your debt” commercials during the last 10 years.”

    Jeebus did you not read what I wrote here: “New homes, new things & repairs bought with home equity lines, that would be part of the GDP.”

    Of course, there’s this update, for you to not miss:”Though note one big hole: if those things were made in china — or anywhere abroad — then only the value added by the retail, transport, etc… here would be added to GDP. The final price would include foreign as well as domestic GDP.”

    So that’s another reason why we can’t just say that housing-based (mortgage & home equity LOC) debt goes into GDP. It doesn’t always buy new things, and even then those new things aren’t always made here.

    “Why bother? Because your whole theory of economic recovery is dependant on a massive economic engine that is going to add 250K+ jobs over the next 5 years just to get us back to where we were in 2007. You have a lot of speculation but no evidence.”

    2007? We’ve just had a whole decade of zero net job growth. My speculation? That the business cycle won’t go away and that we’ll still have a casino economy. My proof? That we’ll get enough obstructionism that we won’t be able to rein in finance with that evil “regulation.” Money rules and we won’t let the damn lefties do it any other way.

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    imdw (89ba95)

  150. He was on before the SuperBowl???

    Thank the lord I missed it. Can’t that man shut up??

    Patricia (e1047e)

  151. “2007? We’ve just had a whole decade of zero net job growth. ”

    Have you looked at the unemployment rate for the past decade? [object]

    It would be nice to have 2007 unemployment numbers. Not 2009 or 2010.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  152. So that’s another reason why we can’t just say that housing-based (mortgage & home equity LOC) debt goes into GDP. It doesn’t always buy new things, and even then those new things aren’t always made here.

    Oh, stop trying to have it both ways. You can’t logically say that housing based debt doesn’t go into GDP, and then turn around and say that it doesn’t “always” buy new things. The very fact that home equity lines of credit were being used to cover consumer debt and for the purchase of other goods invalidates your double-speak. I guess you missed that part of real life that says taking out debt to cover other debt doesn’t make the liability go away.

    2007? We’ve just had a whole decade of zero net job growth.

    Corwin already nailed you on this one. And as I pointed out, we’ve had a net 30 decadesof zero job growth. We are back to where we were in the mid-1970s:

    http://www.market-ticker.org/archives/1940-Consumer-Credit-What-Good-News.html

    My speculation? That the business cycle won’t go away and that we’ll still have a casino economy.

    http://www.market-ticker.org/archives/1937-Krugman-Displays-Liberal-Idiocy.html

    Funny how you keep portraying that this isn’t a big deal; you’ve been claiming that “the cycle” and “GDP” is going to put us back on our feet, even though no industry exists that can hire workers at such accelerated rates, at the inflated wages we’ve come to expect.

    My proof? That we’ll get enough obstructionism that we won’t be able to rein in finance with that evil “regulation.”

    Yeah, we all know the only reason that the Democrats haven’t been able to enact reform is because of the Republicans. Actually running things instead of just carping about everything is tough, isn’t it?

    You guys never run out of excuses even when your incompetency and lack of leadership skills are put on display for the whole world to see. You’re great at talking smack but when it comes to actually leading and accomplishing anything, your so-called “leaders” don’t have the stones to put their integrity where their big flappy mouths are–no shock that the epitome of this particular ethic is the head of the country right now.

    And that’s not Obama’s fault or the Democrats fault. It’s yours. You got exactly what you wanted.

    [note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  153. “Oh, stop trying to have it both ways. ”

    I’m not.

    “we’ve had a net 30 decadesof zero job growth.”

    No I think we have more jobs than in the 70’s now.

    “Yeah, we all know the only reason that the Democrats haven’t been able to enact reform is because of the Republican”

    I think it is because of the pro-finance right, whether it be republican or democrat.

    imdw (8f8ead)

  154. Obama will continue to have trouble getting things done because his actions contradict his words. He says we need to be fiscally responsible, we can’t keep spending like we have been – on the same day he presents his budget which includes 1.8 Trillion more than we can afford.

    He knows he is no leader. He is a campaigner. He is campaigning to find fault with the GOP (and there’s plenty of ammo for that) rather than show any true leadership.

    The rest of the Dems and Repubs in Washington are no better. Our only hope is a huge government overhaul, starting with all the incumbents.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  155. “…Apparently he was in a coma the last couple of decades.”
    Comment by Another Chris — 2/8/2010 @ 8:54 pm

    Just another (overly) proud product of the Public-Education Establishment.

    AD - RtR/OS! (ca88dc)

  156. Comment by Corwin — 2/9/2010 @ 12:48 pm
    A constant reminder…
    In the Federal Budget for FY-2011, 44-cents of every Dollar spent has to be borrowed…
    44-cents!

    And, that’s using today’s numbers…
    by 30 Sept 2011, the numbers will be much worse.

    AD - RtR/OS! (ca88dc)

  157. Another Chris – I think imdw believes the public sector is going to lead the way to recovery since it has been adding jobs over the past year. We’re going to tax our way to greatness in order to pay down our debt and all wind up working for the government, the way it should be, so we can have great health care and retirement plans as well as job security.

    Is this a great country or what?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  158. Is this a great country or what?

    A common joke among the Proletariat in the CCCP, where everyone worked for the government, was:
    We pretend to work,
    and they pretend to pay us.

    I can’t wait…it will be so much fun…especially the lines for bread and sausages (when available).

    AD - RtR/OS! (ca88dc)

  159. This is Obama’s CYA (Cover Your A$$) meeting. So he can say that he tried to be bi-partisan. This will make the Republicans the bad guys. Yes it’s just a stunt, a ploy, a game.

    USAWatchmen (8f9e67)

  160. I’m not.

    Yes you are.

    No I think we have more jobs than in the 70’s now.

    Yeah, which is why the U3/U6 is even worse than it was then.

    I think it is because of the pro-finance right, whether it be republican or democrat.

    I hope you’re willing to include every Democrat in that group, considering none of them have made this a front and center issue in the media unless they needed a populist soundbite to appease their constituents. And including Barney Frank on the “pro-finance right” is just silly. ALL Congressmen are whores, in case you didn’t notice.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  161. “Yes you are.”

    What’s “Both ways”? I’m telling you that this debt can’t be counted to GDP, because it is not spent on things which contribute to GDP. What’s “both ways” here? You keep saying this debt all added to GDP, and I just carve out of that claim. First I limited it to new houses, new repairs, and new goods. Second I further limited it that even of new goods bought, only the value added here would count, so that imported goods can’t even be counted at full price. All this adds up to us not being able to count all this debt as part of GDP. there’s no “both ways” here. Only one. You’re trying to count in GDP things that dont belong there. Like purchasing of existing housing and goods manufactured abroad. No can do sir.

    “Yeah, which is why the U3/U6 is even worse than it was then.”

    I’m not talking rates. I’m talking actual total numbers of jobs. Yes it is that much of a tragedy:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/01/AR2010010101196.html

    But never fear. It appears that banking reform won’t go through. Phew that was a close call huh?

    imdw (6eb217)

  162. I’m not talking rates. I’m talking actual total numbers of jobs.

    Which was a cheap deflection to cover for the fact that we’re at the same place we were back in the mid-1970s, which the chart clearly showed. You didn’t have an actual point, you just wanted to make an irrelevant aside. But that tends to be your MO in most debates.

    But never fear. It appears that banking reform won’t go through. Phew that was a close call huh?

    Banking “reform” was never going to go through no matter who was in charge of Congress. I’d think you’d have figured this out by now.

    Another Chris (35bdd0)

  163. “Which was a cheap deflection to cover for the fact that we’re at the same place we were back in the mid-1970s, which the chart clearly showed.”

    Cover? We know we’re in the worst downturn since the depression. I’m just pointing out something quite incredible. It’s not irrelevant — the fact that we have gained no net jobs on 10 years is quite relevant to the unemployment rate!

    “Banking “reform” was never going to go through no matter who was in charge of Congress. I’d think you’d have figured this out by now.”

    Of course. You think I’m making a partisan point here?

    imdw (e66d8d)

  164. *points at above comment*

    wtf?

    Are horoscopes posting now? What next, a commenter saying that today is a great day to make a decision regarding money, and that your lucky numbers today are 5, 20, and 34?

    [spam… gone now, thanks. –Stashiu]

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  165. Sure Stash, but now my comment makes no sense… 🙂

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  166. Sure Stash, but now my comment makes no sense… 🙂
    Comment by Scott Jacobs — 2/10/2010 @ 12:27 am

    So, everything’s normal then? Cool beans. 😉

    Stashiu3 (44da70)

  167. Of course. You think I’m making a partisan point here?

    When you post DNC talking points about “obstructionism,” absolutely. Congress has already figured out you’re a prostitute, imdw, they just negotiate on a price every election cycle.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  168. Another Chris – I think imdw believes the public sector is going to lead the way to recovery since it has been adding jobs over the past year.

    Considering that the public sector relies on the private sector for its funding, and that the public sector isn’t shedding jobs at nearly the same rate as the private (and has a higher average salary, besides), I don’t see how that’s going to be possible unless people are willing to work for cut-rate wages.

    Nevada, for example, is in such bad shape they could cut every single one of their government service jobs and they’d still be $300 million in the hole. Granted, they are a special case, but this sort of thing is going to happen nationwide unless the private sector begins hiring in truly massive numbers. A government without a strong private sector will end up being a basket case, and the cliff-diving income and sales tax rates are now starting to have their inevitable effects.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  169. “When you post DNC talking points about “obstructionism,” absolutely”

    I said obstructionism. You’re the one that leapt to thinking I was making a DNC point. Standing in the way of financial reform doesn’t have to come from the GOP. After seeing what happens with 60 democrats in the senate, I’d think that would be clear to anyone but those who just put on a partisan lens. Only with a partisan lens does one equate, say, Bernie Sanders with Ben Nelson. Or a John Kerry with a Joe Lieberman.

    imdw (b72d4c)

  170. Bernie Sanders with Ben Nelson. Or a John Kerry with a Joe Lieberman.

    I wouldn’t trust any of those “gentlemen” to lead an expedition to an out-house.

    AD - RtR/OS! (1ab06c)

  171. And of course the fact that 60 Democratic Senators could not pass a bill acceptable to the majority Democratic House is all the fault of Republican obstructionism.

    imdw’s talking points were stale a long time ago.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  172. “And of course the fact that 60 Democratic Senators could not pass a bill acceptable to the majority Democratic House is all the fault of Republican obstructionism.”

    Say what? I don’t think you’ve been paying attention.

    Though, removing partisan blinders, an easy way to avoid, say, paying out to NE or LA was to get a GOP vote to replace Landrieu or Nelson. Not gonna happen right?

    imdw (bb8086)

  173. That’s why people who oppose social security want to gut it now, when it will be easier for them to do so.

    Who is trying to gut social security?

    Gerald A (a66d02)

  174. I said obstructionism. You’re the one that leapt to thinking I was making a DNC point.

    Considering that’s been the go-to talking point for the current administration and congressional Democrats for months now, it wasn’t a long leap to make.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  175. It’s perfectly understandable that you would react to what Obama and the Congressional democrats have said, rather than what I said.

    imdw (017d51)

  176. It’s perfectly understandable that you would react to what Obama and the Congressional democrats have said, rather than what I said.

    Which, not coincidentally, was the exact same thing.

    Another Chris (2d8013)

  177. Oh it would be nice to see the admin taking democratic obstruction. But alas, your wishful thinking don’t make it so.

    imdw (de7003)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2341 secs.