President Obama Re-Elected - Page 477

On September 10 2012 22:24 paralleluniverse wrote:

Update: http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/were-never-going-to-get-answers-are-we/

After the Romney interview, an aide contradicts Romney's remarks, saying that Romney would not be requiring coverage for people with pre-existing conditions at all.

Then another aide contradicts that remark, saying that requiring coverage for pre-existing conditions would only be for those with continuous coverage.

So in total, 4 flip-flops in 1 day.

I had a bit of a giggle when I saw that this is how Krugman characterized it:
+ Show Spoiler +

On September 10 2012 22:32 screamingpalm wrote:



Krugman is better than this. I even clicked on the link at the end... wtf? Like no substance whatsoever... he is becoming worse than the Fox that vilifies him. Dem puppet now I suppose.

On September 10 2012 22:43 Praetorial wrote:


I don't know, I found that link pretty hilarious. At first I thought it might have been a spam link due to the gymnastics tacked on in the URL, but then I cracked up when I read the article.

If hyperpartisanship has one worthwhile value, it's humor.

On September 10 2012 22:48 screamingpalm wrote:



More exactly, perhaps I should upload the video of (candidate) Obama supporting single payer. Maybe you guys would find that hilarious as well?

On September 10 2012 21:25 screamingpalm wrote:


And why should the popular ones only be allowed because of the madate. Why the fuck... should insurace companies be allowed to operate with pre existing conditions without the mandate anyway? AND why should for-profit insurance companies exist to begin with? Fucking predators on peoples' health and well being.

On September 10 2012 22:43 Praetorial wrote:


I don't know, I found that link pretty hilarious. At first I thought it might have been a spam link due to the gymnastics tacked on in the URL, but then I cracked up when I read the article.

If hyperpartisanship has one worthwhile value, it's humor.

The importance of the nearly $1 trillion in unexplained and unspecified cuts that Ryan and the Republican party are proposing, under the catch-all rubric of “Function 920: Allowances,” cannot be overestimated. These invisible cuts are crucial to the Republican claim that the Ryan budget proposal will drastically reduce the federal deficit (eliminating it entirely in the long run) and ultimately erase the national debt. [...]

While the Ryan budget does specify cuts in programs serving the poor, many of whom are Democratic constituents (Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment benefits), it hides under the abstruse veil of “Function 920 allowances” the cuts in programs popular with many other voters. [...]

The lack of detail in the Ryan budget applies mainly to programs of importance to the voters Republicans continue to angle for, including swing voters concerned about programs like education, environmental protection and food safety.

On September 10 2012 23:36 kwizach wrote:
Great article today on the NY Times website about the Paul Ryan plan and its deliberate lack of transparency regarding some of the cuts it proposes.


Source

On September 06 2012 06:47 ImAbstracT wrote:

They all have never been anything but capitalist. Just state controlled capitalism, even like the USSR was.

On September 11 2012 01:31 NonCorporeal wrote:

While Europe moves towards socialism; Japan, Singapore, China/Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and other countries have been moving towards capitalism. Hell, all of those countries except the PRC are being ruled by neo-liberal governments.

It's sad that Europe is moving backwards (and dragging America along with it), you can really argue that it's a cycle. In the Middle Ages there was big government and unelected leaders who told the people how to live; then there was capitalism and freedom; now we are beginning to see more big government and more unelected leaders who tell the people how to live.

As for gun control increasing crime, it's been proven time and time again, both in America and in foreign countries. Look at every time gun control has been implemented in America, it's always resulted in higher murder rates. Look at other countries, it's the same thing, including in socialist Europe. Take for instance the United Kingdom, which started it's path down draconian gun laws in 1968, which resulted in a rise in homicide. Prior to the gun control law in 1968, homicide had been on the decline, but after the gun control law it shot up tenfold, because law abiding citizens couldn't defend themselves. Then again in 1997 when handguns were completely banned in the UK, homicide rates shot up again, because now the people were even more unarmed than they were before.

Almost all murders that happen in the United States happens in areas with extremely strict gun control laws; which, combined with left-wing anti-gun brainwashing in schools and the like; results in less armed civilians. As a result, only criminals and the government have guns, while law abiding citizens are unable to defend themselves.

As for healthcare, capitalist healthcare is always better. I'll admit, in America the poor do not have very good healthcare, but everyone else does. The poor do drag down the system somewhat, sadly, both in terms of ranking and in terms of resources. If I'm not mistaken, the only reason healthcare costs what it does is because the poor drain our resources and don't pay for it, because they don't have insurance. Really the whole socialist healthcare vs capitalist healthcare debate is nothing more than an extension of the age-old "quality vs quantity" debate.

Like socialism in general, it's like this:
20% of the population makes $8 an hour, 80% of the population makes $50 dollars an hour. So the socialists come along and decide that now everyone will make $12 an hour, no more and no less. As you can see, the people who made $8 an hour will be happy, but anyone who made more than $12 an hour will not be. Not to mention, what if one person works hard and another person slacks off, should they still receive the same pay? In a socialist society, yes.

On September 11 2012 01:31 NonCorporeal wrote:

While Europe moves towards socialism; Japan, Singapore, China/Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and other countries have been moving towards capitalism. Hell, all of those countries except the PRC are being ruled by neo-liberal governments.

It's sad that Europe is moving backwards (and dragging America along with it), you can really argue that it's a cycle. In the Middle Ages there was big government and unelected leaders who told the people how to live; then there was capitalism and freedom; now we are beginning to see more big government and more unelected leaders who tell the people how to live.

As for gun control increasing crime, it's been proven time and time again, both in America and in foreign countries. Look at every time gun control has been implemented in America, it's always resulted in higher murder rates. Look at other countries, it's the same thing, including in socialist Europe. Take for instance the United Kingdom, which started it's path down draconian gun laws in 1968, which resulted in a rise in homicide. Prior to the gun control law in 1968, homicide had been on the decline, but after the gun control law it shot up tenfold, because law abiding citizens couldn't defend themselves. Then again in 1997 when handguns were completely banned in the UK, homicide rates shot up again, because now the people were even more unarmed than they were before.

Almost all murders that happen in the United States happens in areas with extremely strict gun control laws; which, combined with left-wing anti-gun brainwashing in schools and the like; results in less armed civilians. As a result, only criminals and the government have guns, while law abiding citizens are unable to defend themselves.

As for healthcare, capitalist healthcare is always better. I'll admit, in America the poor do not have very good healthcare, but everyone else does. The poor do drag down the system somewhat, sadly, both in terms of ranking and in terms of resources. If I'm not mistaken, the only reason healthcare costs what it does is because the poor drain our resources and don't pay for it, because they don't have insurance. Really the whole socialist healthcare vs capitalist healthcare debate is nothing more than an extension of the age-old "quality vs quantity" debate.

Like socialism in general, it's like this:
20% of the population makes $8 an hour, 80% of the population makes $50 dollars an hour. So the socialists come along and decide that now everyone will make $12 an hour, no more and no less. As you can see, the people who made $8 an hour will be happy, but anyone who made more than $12 an hour will not be. Not to mention, what if one person works hard and another person slacks off, should they still receive the same pay? In a socialist society, yes.

On September 11 2012 01:31 NonCorporeal wrote:

While Europe moves towards socialism; Japan, Singapore, China/Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, and other countries have been moving towards capitalism. Hell, all of those countries except the PRC are being ruled by neo-liberal governments.

It's sad that Europe is moving backwards (and dragging America along with it), you can really argue that it's a cycle. In the Middle Ages there was big government and unelected leaders who told the people how to live; then there was capitalism and freedom; now we are beginning to see more big government and more unelected leaders who tell the people how to live.

As for gun control increasing crime, it's been proven time and time again, both in America and in foreign countries. Look at every time gun control has been implemented in America, it's always resulted in higher murder rates. Look at other countries, it's the same thing, including in socialist Europe. Take for instance the United Kingdom, which started it's path down draconian gun laws in 1968, which resulted in a rise in homicide. Prior to the gun control law in 1968, homicide had been on the decline, but after the gun control law it shot up tenfold, because law abiding citizens couldn't defend themselves. Then again in 1997 when handguns were completely banned in the UK, homicide rates shot up again, because now the people were even more unarmed than they were before.

Almost all murders that happen in the United States happens in areas with extremely strict gun control laws; which, combined with left-wing anti-gun brainwashing in schools and the like; results in less armed civilians. As a result, only criminals and the government have guns, while law abiding citizens are unable to defend themselves.

As for healthcare, capitalist healthcare is always better. I'll admit, in America the poor do not have very good healthcare, but everyone else does. The poor do drag down the system somewhat, sadly, both in terms of ranking and in terms of resources. If I'm not mistaken, the only reason healthcare costs what it does is because the poor drain our resources and don't pay for it, because they don't have insurance. Really the whole socialist healthcare vs capitalist healthcare debate is nothing more than an extension of the age-old "quality vs quantity" debate.

Like socialism in general, it's like this:
20% of the population makes $8 an hour, 80% of the population makes $50 dollars an hour. So the socialists come along and decide that now everyone will make $12 an hour, no more and no less. As you can see, the people who made $8 an hour will be happy, but anyone who made more than $12 an hour will not be. Not to mention, what if one person works hard and another person slacks off, should they still receive the same pay? In a socialist society, yes.

On September 11 2012 01:50 Risen wrote:


Many claims, 0 sources.

On September 10 2012 21:04 paralleluniverse wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-keep-parts-obama-healthcare-law-155146420.html

So Romney flip-flops on Obamacare again, saying that he would keep some provisions that he likes, for example, coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.

No doubt he's cynical enough to flip-flop on this given that virtually all the provisions of Obamacare have overwhelming popular support apart from the mandate. I had this covered all the way back on page 128: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491&currentpage=128#2553

And as I said then, it's not possible to cover pre-existing conditions without a mandate because of adverse selection, i.e. people waiting until they are sick to get coverage, because they can't be denied, driving up the price of healthcare for everyone.

Of course, Romney knows this, that's why Romneycare has a mandate, because that's what Jonathan Gruber, the man who designed Romneycare told him.

Yes, Romney is a flip-flopping and lying hypocrite. Don't take it from me: here's what Gruber, the architect of Romneycare and Obamacare had to say:

Obstruct and Exploit

Does anyone remember the American Jobs Act? A year ago President Obama proposed boosting the economy with a combination of tax cuts and spending increases, aimed in particular at sustaining state and local government employment. Independent analysts reacted favorably. For example, the consulting firm Macroeconomic Advisers estimated that the act would add 1.3 million jobs by the end of 2012.

There were good reasons for these positive assessments. Although you’d never know it from political debate, worldwide experience since the financial crisis struck in 2008 has overwhelmingly confirmed the proposition that fiscal policy “works,” that temporary increases in spending boost employment in a depressed economy (and that spending cuts increase unemployment). The Jobs Act would have been just what the doctor ordered.

But the bill went nowhere, of course, blocked by Republicans in Congress. And now, having prevented Mr. Obama from implementing any of his policies, those same Republicans are pointing to disappointing job numbers and declaring that the president’s policies have failed.

Think of it as a two-part strategy. First, obstruct any and all efforts to strengthen the economy, then exploit the economy’s weakness for political gain. If this strategy sounds cynical, that’s because it is. Yet it’s the G.O.P.’s best chance for victory in November.

But are Republicans really playing that cynical a game?

You could argue that we’re having a genuine debate about economic policy, in which Republicans sincerely believe that the things Mr. Obama proposes would actually hurt, not help, job creation. However, even if that were true, the fact is that the economy we have right now doesn’t reflect the policies the president wanted.

Anyway, do Republicans really believe that government spending is bad for the economy? No.

Right now Mitt Romney has an advertising blitz under way in which he attacks Mr. Obama for possible cuts in defense spending — cuts, by the way, that were mandated by an agreement forced on the president by House Republicans last year. And why is Mr. Romney denouncing these cuts? Because, he says, they would cost jobs!

This is classic “weaponized Keynesianism” — the claim that government spending can’t create jobs unless the money goes to defense contractors, in which case it’s the lifeblood of the economy. And no, it doesn’t make any sense.

What about the argument, which I hear all the time, that Mr. Obama should have fixed the economy long ago? The claim goes like this: during his first two years in office Mr. Obama had a majority in Congress that would have let him do anything he wanted, so he’s had his chance.

The short answer is, you’ve got to be kidding.

As anyone who was paying attention knows, the period during which Democrats controlled both houses of Congress was marked by unprecedented obstructionism in the Senate. The filibuster, formerly a tactic reserved for rare occasions, became standard operating procedure; in practice, it became impossible to pass anything without 60 votes. And Democrats had those 60 votes for only a few months. Should they have tried to push through a major new economic program during that narrow window? In retrospect, yes — but that doesn’t change the reality that for most of Mr. Obama’s time in office U.S. fiscal policy has been defined not by the president’s plans but by Republican stonewalling.

The most important consequence of that stonewalling, I’d argue, has been the failure to extend much-needed aid to state and local governments. Lacking that aid, these governments have been forced to lay off hundreds of thousands of schoolteachers and other workers, and those layoffs are a major reason the job numbers have been disappointing. Since bottoming out a year after Mr. Obama took office, private-sector employment has risen by 4.6 million; but government employment, which normally rises more or less in line with population growth, has instead fallen by 571,000.

Put it this way: When Republicans took control of the House, they declared that their economic philosophy was “cut and grow” — cut government, and the economy will prosper. And thanks to their scorched-earth tactics, we’ve actually had the cuts they wanted. But the promised growth has failed to materialize — and they want to make that failure Mr. Obama’s fault.

Now, all of this puts the White House in a difficult bind. Making a big deal of Republican obstructionism could all too easily come across as whining. Yet this obstructionism is real, and arguably is the biggest single reason for our ongoing economic weakness.

And what happens if the strategy of obstruct-and-exploit succeeds? Is this the shape of politics to come? If so, America will have gone a long way toward becoming an ungovernable banana republic.

On September 11 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:


How much would the price of insurance (I assume you mean insurance, not healthcare) go up by? 2%, 5%, 10%? The majority of Americans have health insurance and the majority that don't do not have expensive pre-existing conditions. I'd be interested to know what a good estimate on costs would be, rather than rhetorical "costs would skyrocket".

On September 11 2012 02:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:


How much would the price of insurance (I assume you mean insurance, not healthcare) go up by? 2%, 5%, 10%? The majority of Americans have health insurance and the majority that don't do not have expensive pre-existing conditions. I'd be interested to know what a good estimate on costs would be, rather than rhetorical "costs would skyrocket".

I don't think you can ignore the whole Federal government chipping in for Romneycare factor. If the cost goes down then the cost / benefit looks better - a trick the Federal government can't repeat with Obamacare.